"I have to admit that when I first heard about the Windows Home Server I didn't really think that much of the concept. After all, it's pretty simple to take an existing Windows server and turn it into a home storage and backup system. Also, there are plenty of easy-to-deploy Linux appliances that can quickly turn any system into an effective network-attached storage device, and never mind the many inexpensive network hard drives available at many stores. And all of this is still true. But after testing the release candidate of Windows Home Server that was made available last week at connect.microsoft.com, I must say that I am very impressed with its implementation, simplicity and functionality."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-01-06
Member since:2005-07-06
"Anybody heard anything about pricing yet?"
Google 'HP MediaSmart Server Pricing'. There isn't anything definitive yet, but they are saying price points of less than 1,000 USD, and MS says it's possible for stripped down machines could be around 300 USD. Of course MS won't release pricing until we're much closer to an actual release date.
Member since:2007-02-22
Member since:
2005-12-16
Member since:
2006-11-30
I often wonder how busy people with more than one computer, especially those on the road, get by without a private server. Many of us here with system administration skills have done this with Linux or BSD for ages, but there is a pretty significant gap left with the average home user. I'm particularly impressed with the client side integration and management. I think a lot of people are giving this product bad rap without realizing that even though not everyone is an S.A,, centralized computing is still beneficial to their work.
Re: Article/ tbostick78
The writer is either confused, or expressed his thoughts incorrectly. No packets are being "routed" here, He is using the integrated switch which is forming a 100Mbit LAN from the Windows Home Server to the client. 12Mege_BYTE_/s is about normal for what you're going to see out of 100 Mega_BIT_ networking.
Member since:2005-12-15
// I think a lot of people are giving this product bad rap without realizing that even though not everyone is an S.A,, centralized computing is still beneficial to their work. //
In many cases it can be crucial, not just beneficial. One of the features I am most impressed about is the backup. Time over, I arrive to fix someone's mess on their computer only to find that they haven't made a backup. They didn't think it was necessary, yet expect me to be able to recover their data.
As for people giving it a bad rap, I tend to find it radiates from those who haven't tried it and take stance that because it's Microsoft then it just has to be bad.
I think this is a really good piece of software that is well worth continued development.
Member since:2005-11-10
Member since:2006-07-04
"I hope the WHS hardware is as small, and as quiet as a MacMini."
Check out this "hockey puck" form factor, as described and shown in these entries to the Windows Home Server blog (small (9 inch diameter) and very cool looking):
http://blogs.technet.com/homeserver/archive/2007/05/23/more-hockey-...
http://blogs.technet.com/homeserver/archive/2007/05/17/more-hockey-...
http://blogs.technet.com/homeserver/archive/2007/05/16/windows-home...
Unfortunately, that's Microsoft's own (privately commissioned) design (Microsoft commissioned a local design firm, "Carbon Design" to come up with a cool looking, working prototype), not for sale. 
These same blog entries contain links to some 3rd party form factors that will actually be shipping. They're not bad, but not as cool as the "hockey puck". 
Edited 2007-06-21 10:07
Member since:2005-08-11
"Don't forget the MacMini They make great home servers. I hope the WHS hardware is as small, and as quiet as a MacMini. It's shockingly easy on OS X to setup a headless MacMini running as a file/web server, and access it with VNC from anywhere."
That really doesn't compare to WHS, the backup functionality alone places it in a different class, as does the storage abstraction. VNC is also very slow compared to RDP.
Member since:2005-11-10
True, but a MacMini is a standard desktop computer that comes with OS X & iLife, but also has everything to manually setup a server for everything for those in the know. I'm comparing hardware though. The MacMini is a brilliantly designed piece of kit, and I hope WHS hardware can live up to that and not those horrible AOpen Mini clones.
Member since:
2005-08-18
"I tested the Windows Home Server using a standard Linksys 100M-bit home router and despite this connection was impressed by how quickly the Windows Home Server backed up my fairly loaded Vista workstation, completing an initial backup in under 15 minutes."
"despite"? "impressed"? How much data did he transfer? "fairly loaded" does not really say much.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2005-08-18
"I haven't installed the RC yet, but perhaps they made that setting standard finally."
If you only get 500kb/s on a 100mb/s switch there's likely a duplex mismatch somewhere. Your switch and/or NIC is either fundamentally broken or misconfigured. Auto-Neg does not fail on even half-decent equipment.
Member since:2005-08-11
"If you only get 500kb/s on a 100mb/s switch there's likely a duplex mismatch somewhere. Your switch and/or NIC is either fundamentally broken or misconfigured. Auto-Neg does not fail on even half-decent equipment."
The problem could also be a cabling issue, where I work auto-neg fails all the time, all the switches are new, but some of the cabling is old.
Member since:
2007-03-26
"
With this browser interface I could log into the server and easily access shared folders. I could also remotely access systems connected to the Windows Home Server or launch the Windows Home Server Console from the browser. However, these last features only worked when using Internet Explorer. If I used Firefox, I could only access the shares.
Bloody typical. *rollseyes*
(I guess users should at least be greatful that web access is disabled by default.)
Member since:
2007-06-21
Member since:2005-07-06
In the article you said it's easy to set up a headless linux server. Could you enlighten me? I'd like to boot from a cd and have the pc mount any hardisks as r/w network storage accessible from a windows pc.
Well, you could boot from Knoppix and mount and then share the physical drives via SAMBA.
Or you could do what I did and just do a cut down install of Ubuntu, install Webmin (http://webmin.com), and then control all of the shares from there over any web interface.
You can also access the Linux box via VNC, and actually control the window environment.
Windows Home Server is cool and all, but I don't really see much of a point for competent Linux users. It's cheaper to just roll your own.
Member since:2005-08-11
"Windows Home Server is cool and all, but I don't really see much of a point for competent Linux users. It's cheaper to just roll your own."
This product is not really for competent Linux or Windows power users, it's for the normal, barely computer literate user. So you are right, there is no point for us.
Member since:2005-07-06
This product is not really for competent Linux or Windows power users, it's for the normal, barely computer literate user. So you are right, there is no point for us.
Well yeah, I realize who it's for. But let's look at that barely computer literate user; are they going to have the desire to even attempt to use a stand alone server, no matter how easy MS assures them it will be to use?
I kind of doubt it. One look at any of my in-laws as an example, and I really don't think someone's going to spend $300-$1000 on such a machine. Not unless there's a heavy, heavy marketing/education push done on MS's and the OEMs' part to really show why such a thing is important.
Member since:2005-08-11
"I kind of doubt it. One look at any of my in-laws as an example, and I really don't think someone's going to spend $300-$1000 on such a machine. Not unless there's a heavy, heavy marketing/education push done on MS's and the OEMs' part to really show why such a thing is important."
Hopefully there will be, if the backup functionality this provides gets to be common, a lot of us techs who provide "free" tech support for neighbors and relatives may just find our lives a little easier. I am going to pick one up for my parents, and maybe my sister.
Member since:2007-03-26
"
You can also access the Linux box via VNC, and actually control the window environment.
Or just SSH into your *nix box
[edit] windows users may need to download putty
Edited 2007-06-21 14:59
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-09-06
In the article you said it's easy to set up a headless linux server. Could you enlighten me? I'd like to boot from a cd and have the pc mount any hardisks as r/w network storage accessible from a windows pc.
You could check out freeNAS, though not Linux based (it's fBSD based), it seems to be what you're looking for. Really nice WebGUI too. http://www.freenas.org/
Member since:
2005-07-06
"Don't forget the MacMini They make great home servers. I hope the WHS hardware is as small, and as quiet as a MacMini. It's shockingly easy on OS X to setup a headless MacMini running as a file/web server, and access it with VNC from anywhere."
"That really doesn't compare to WHS, the backup functionality alone places it in a different class, as does the storage abstraction. VNC is also very slow compared to RDP."
I've seen both and the opposite is true. You also don't need VNC to do backups.
The next version of Mac OS X includes TimeMachine which can automatically backup multiple computers on a network to an external hard drive including a Mac Mini or what I feel is even a better option, the AirPort Express which you can connect multiple hard drives to with easy configuration of user rights. TimeMachine can backup to those too (and has far, far, FAR better ease of restore than any other backup/restore software that I have seen.
Member since:
2005-07-06
AirPort Express from Apple is better than WHS. It is easier to setup users and groups. In October when Leapard (Mac OS 10.5) comes out with TimeMachine it will be super easy to setup the backup routine.
Most important is that you can connect multiple hard drives to the AirPort express (Raid if you want) and with TimeMachine restoring files is almost as easy as falling down.
WHS - No thanks.
Member since:
2006-01-02
Do all these other solutions you're mentioning have an easy and painless way of adding new storage to the backup set by adding additional drives? Do they have simple (on-by-default) mirroring of critical data while also allowing you to keep large data non-mirrored? Lastly, do they continue to work when a drive is removed or fails, only losing the files which are non-mirrored on that drive?
This is the real technology that makes WHS interesting, which the other solutions don't have. You can add drives to a raid set, no problem, but removing a drive either destroys the raid set or requires a long-running drive rebuild process. And RAID seems harder to manage than just "plug in, select reformat, go".
Edited 2007-06-23 15:53
