Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 15th Oct 2007 22:17 UTC
Windows "When Microsoft announced Windows Home Server earlier this year, it was greeted with a mixture of curious disdain and eagerness. Some questioned what the product offered over existing solutions, while others welcomed it with open arms. It's at once hard to explain and easy to understand what Windows Home Server is, but it's worth getting to know the newest addition to the Windows family."
Order by: Score:
Backing up
by WorknMan on Mon 15th Oct 2007 22:26 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

I don't know if it's really necessary to back up/image an entire Windows system. Just use a program like TweakUI to make your Documents and Settings folder (and other relevant folders) map to a separate partition, and just back up that. Sort of like how you might back up your /home directory in Unix.

But then again, I suppose the people who know this aren't who this product is aimed for ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE: Backing up
by jayson.knight on Mon 15th Oct 2007 22:33 UTC in reply to "Backing up"
jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

"I don't know if it's really necessary to back up/image an entire Windows system."

It's necessary if you want downtime to be as short as possible in the event of a hardware failure. Restoring an entire imaged OS is much faster than reinstalling the OS, then reinstalling your apps, and finally setting up all of your preferences again.

I personally don't mind reinstalling in the event of a crash, but the vast majority of people want a system back up and running in as little time as humanly possible. The only files I back up at home are My Docs (of course), App Settings, and Local Settings. That's enough to get a system back to an identical state after the OS is reinstalled.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Backing up
by Tuishimi on Tue 16th Oct 2007 08:44 UTC in reply to "Backing up"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, I used to do that for XP. And we kept a (at work) basic XP image that was installed on every machine... not installed, image restore to disk and boot up, tweak and you are good to go.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Backing up
by polaris20 on Tue 16th Oct 2007 13:49 UTC in reply to "Backing up"
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

I keep an image of my machine, because if a drive dies (and it has) I don't really enjoy spending 4 hours loading Windows, patching, installing apps, and restoring data.

I have gigabytes upon gigabytes of samples for audio work, and it's just easier to re-image to that baseline, and then restore the most recent docs.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Backing up
by mym6 on Tue 16th Oct 2007 14:18 UTC in reply to "Backing up"
mym6 Member since:
2005-08-26

I'm with the others on imaging. I image my laptop and it has been great in the past such as when it needed to get sent in for repair. I didn't want to both risk losing it all anyway and I didn't want the techs looking at my stuff without having to work for it a bit. When I got it back, I just restored the image and I was good to go.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Backing up
by helf on Tue 16th Oct 2007 17:08 UTC in reply to "Backing up"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

you don't have to use tweakUI to put My docs on a separate hdd or partition.

Just right click on 'My Documents' click on 'properties' then change the target folder location.

Half the crap people use 3rd party apps for can easily be done in just a few clicks with the default Windows apps... ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Backing up
by polaris20 on Tue 16th Oct 2007 19:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Backing up"
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

TweakUI is made by MS, so I wouldn't really consider it 3rd party, but you're right; you can right click on My Documents and redirect. This doesn't cover your desktop and app settings though. I don't know if TweakUI addresses that or not, as I've never used it for that purpose.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Backing up
by helf on Wed 17th Oct 2007 00:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Backing up"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

oh yeah, it is part of the Powertoy suit. I forget about that.

Reply Score: 2

v Anti
by fffffh on Mon 15th Oct 2007 23:12 UTC
Why?
by celt on Mon 15th Oct 2007 23:22 UTC
celt
Member since:
2005-07-06

Why would anyone with a functioning brain stem pay Microsoft for this product?

Reply Score: 12

RE: Why?
by Luminair on Tue 16th Oct 2007 02:12 UTC in reply to "Why?"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

Because it is a better home server than both XP and 2003 SBS, and it costs less than SBS?

I don't understand the question unless you are an anti-microsoft zealot (in which case I do understand the question)

Reply Score: 12

RE[2]: Why?
by l3v1 on Tue 16th Oct 2007 06:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Why?"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

Because it is a better home server than both XP and 2003 SBS, and it costs less than SBS?

I don't understand the question unless you are an anti-microsoft zealot (in which case I do understand the question)


Well, it's clear that there are no alternatives for WHS as a home server besides XP or 2003 SBS, unless of course we are anto-microsoft zealots, in which case I understand the answer.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Why?
by flanque on Tue 16th Oct 2007 11:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why?"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

In terms of ease of use and being built on a solid platform, no there are not.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Why?
by polaris20 on Tue 16th Oct 2007 13:47 UTC in reply to "Why?"
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

There's definitely a need for a central backup solution for homes with two or more computers, and not everyone is willing and/or able to make a Samba server or NAS device out of Linux or BSD.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Why?
by Robocoastie on Tue 16th Oct 2007 15:14 UTC in reply to "Why?"
Robocoastie Member since:
2005-09-15

priced out of this world as usual for a monopoly product.

Reply Score: 0

Why you'd pay Microsoft?
by hamishau on Mon 15th Oct 2007 23:42 UTC
hamishau
Member since:
2007-10-15

Hi celt

You may have meant this as a rhetorical question, but it is actually a good one. I am by no means a Microsoft supporter. I am typing this from my Ubuntu laptop, and I haven't needed or wanted to boot Windows for a long time. I am also an avid fan of ClarkConnect, and advocate its use. However I am a computer technician and network engineer so I do need to know a lot about Windows, as I fix it a lot.

In my experience, most businesses want a system where they can call up the relevant manufacturer and get immediate support. It is a lot more difficult to do this with a Linux based system - who do you call? The obvious answer is the installation company, but what if they are no longer in business, or if it was just a contractor? The ability to call up Microsoft for support should never be underestimated. I know you can have support contracts with Canonical, Red Hat, Novell, ClarkConnect, but managing them then becomes a problem.

In terms of WHS, it is easy for them to get a pre-installed box, turn it on and follow the prompts. If they need support they call up MS, and don't have to rely on anyone else. They have backups, and everything will "just work". I know that I can do exactly the same thing with ClarkConnect, but then you have to pay for my time to install and configure it all. It may be cheaper to get WHS, and that's what MS are banking on - the inability of the ordinary non-technical consumer to be able to do this themselves.

I'd really like to see the day when there are no pre-installed OS'es or a greater variety of options for pre-installation, but I think that day is a long way away, even after the win in France and with HP and Dell pre-installing Linux.

I don't subscribe to the theory that Microsoft are a "known quantity" and therefore people won't move operating systems or applications. I have moved a few clients onto Firefox and even Linux, when appropriate, and it has worked wonderfully for them.

But I can understand why people would take the easy option and just pay the Microsoft "tax" and use their software. Thankfully, I no longer do.

I look forward to hearing what others may think on this, as this is purely my experiences!

Hamish

Edited 2007-10-15 23:52

Reply Score: 8

RE: Why you'd pay Microsoft?
by Nossie on Tue 16th Oct 2007 00:44 UTC in reply to "Why you'd pay Microsoft?"
Nossie Member since:
2007-07-31

my own thoughts on this are....

1. The majority of people this software would be useful for are the same ones not willing to buy another computer. Not the ones willing to leave something on 24/7, not the ones willing to do anymore than their xbox360 already does.

2. Those that would buy another computer already likely have another and would probably already be running some varient of linux and/or a pirated copy of 2k3 EE

3. Any person that does know what they are talking about and doesn't want to spend time configuring linux or using said bootleg copy of windows server will already realise that its pretty easy to gimp out XP pro with 3rd party utils and not need to bother with this software in the first place.

The only thing this might be good for is the small footprint via machines or the newer 1" router sized PC's and even then like the appletv or macmini you will be paying for the size alone and it would fall back on one of the above...

My prediction is that this is just another rebrand of Windows Media Centre and will be forgotten about in a world of people that still cant connect up their hddvd player nevermind a home server for fully DRM 'enriched' content.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Why you'd pay Microsoft?
by petera on Tue 16th Oct 2007 00:46 UTC in reply to "Why you'd pay Microsoft?"
petera Member since:
2006-04-22

You make a lot of good points, but Windows Home Server is for the home, not work (unless you work from home, but again it's not for that market either).
As the article says, this is a solution without a problem.

OK so you can back up your documents, but you can gat a blank DVD (or even a W.D. MyBook) to do that.

Easier Media sharing? Nope (although WMP 11 lets you for free)

Remote administration? XP pro already does this.

An excuse for PC world, Best Buy, Frys et al to sell Average Joe an overpriced piece of software when they buy a wireless router ("Ah" they will say "you setting up a network? Do you know all networks need a server?"). Absolutely.

I think I've just found it's niche.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Why you'd pay Microsoft?
by butters on Tue 16th Oct 2007 03:54 UTC in reply to "Why you'd pay Microsoft?"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

In my experience, most businesses want a system where they can call up the relevant manufacturer and get immediate support.


Windows Home Server would appear to be marketed to consumers rather than businesses, although there probably is some limited potential in the SMB sector. Consumers, in my experience, are willing to tolerate exceptionally low levels of service. They are a docile species that believes in silver bullet solutions from familiar vendors. They demand lofty promises and accept marginal execution.

While it is unclear whether consumers will embrace the paradigm shift represented by WHS, they will certainly accept whatever quality of product and service Microsoft provides if the marketing story resonates effectively.

It is a lot more difficult to do this with a Linux based system - who do you call?


I disagree with your assessment of the commercial Linux market, but that's another thread.

In terms of WHS, it is easy for them to get a pre-installed box... It may be cheaper to get WHS


Arguably easier, but definitely not cheaper. The corporate-media complex has an interest in fostering the consensus that our time is too valuable to spend accomplishing tasks on our own. For most people, time isn't money, and while discretionary time is enjoyable, we spend about 75% it consuming media and advertisements for time-saving products and services.

At some point, consumers must realize that, in fact, their money is more valuable than their time. We would have more free time than at any point in history if not for the fact that a family needs 2-3 paychecks to live the consumer lifestyle. Never before have we been so comfortable domestically and yet so uncomfortable financially.

Ultimately the best way to save time is to save money. Time is relatively useless without money. The time saved by spending money is highly fragmented and bound to be wasted for lack of money. The time saved by saving money can be used for the more enjoyable things in life, like travel, hobbies, and the elephant in the room: retirement.

In short, it is far more true that money is time than the other way around.

In America we have a negative savings rate. Not only are products like WHS a solution in search of a problem, they represent a large part our biggest problem. I understand that many people don't want to learn computer skills. I also understand that they don't want their precious time watching "Dancing with the Stars" interrupted by calls from the collections agency. As a corporate slogan once said, "have it your way".

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Why you'd pay Microsoft?
by google_ninja on Tue 16th Oct 2007 06:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Why you'd pay Microsoft?"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Ultimately the best way to save time is to save money. Time is relatively useless without money. The time saved by spending money is highly fragmented and bound to be wasted for lack of money. The time saved by saving money can be used for the more enjoyable things in life, like travel, hobbies, and the elephant in the room: retirement.


You have a point, but time isn't the only thing on the table here. Most people not only don't know how computers work, but they don't want to. There is zero interest, and in fact, active disinterest. They want to push a button, and it to do what they want it to do.

I understand the mentality, I am unashemedly not a car guy. I have friends who are, who will fix any problem you could think of, who love to pull apart engines to make them run smoother. Me? Im happy when my car takes me where i need to go. When it breaks, I take it to the mechanic to get it fixed. I have no interest in learning how to do it myself, even if it would save me money. This is how most people are with computers, they don't know, and don't want to know. They just want it to do its job.

Reply Score: 8

RE[3]: Why you'd pay Microsoft?
by butters on Tue 16th Oct 2007 06:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why you'd pay Microsoft?"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

Most people not only don't know how computers work, but they don't want to.


Many people don't want to know about anything. They're willing to outsource every aspect of managing their lives. If they can afford to be so disengaged, then good for them. But I feel that it is a depressingly hollow existence to avoid acquiring any skills outside of your day job.

I'm not attempting to argue that people should learn to be completely independent. There's simply too much to learn about. But some skills are definitely worth considering, and basic computer administration is on the list. At the top of the list, IMHO, is cooking. There is no skill more valuable than that of preparing inexpensive, healthy, and (hopefully) delicious meals quickly. Many families don't have home-cooked meals anymore, and I find that to be an embarrassment to our society.

Just skimming the surface of a particular skill-set is valuable. Learning how to backup your data and setup a network share might fall into this category for computers. I'm not a big car guy either, but in college I decided that it was absurd to pay $30 for an oil change, so I had a friend teach me (cost me 12 Natural Lights). I change my oil/filter, top my fluids, and replace my wiper blades. Everything else I outsource to the shop.

Yes, I save a modest amount of money, but more importantly, I don't feel completely useless about my car. I imagine that this feeling of uselessness is a large part of the reason why many people have an irrational fear of computers. I think that people would be happier in general if they understood more about the systems that impact their lives. We crave a certain amount of control, and the thoughtless relinquishment of practical competencies is a recipe for unhappiness.

Reply Score: 8

RE: Why you'd pay Microsoft?
by Vanders on Tue 16th Oct 2007 09:06 UTC in reply to "Why you'd pay Microsoft?"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Have you ever tried to call Microsoft for support?

The myth that the first thing an admin does is call Microsoft has to stop. The first thing you do is hit the Knowledge Base, where you usually find a solution to your problem. This is exactly the same as using the support forums provided by your Linux distribution of choice.

If you call Microsoft every time you have a problem things will get very expensive very quickly. It's rare to call a vendor for support and in general, not a lot of help when you do.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Why you'd pay Microsoft?
by hamishau on Tue 16th Oct 2007 10:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Why you'd pay Microsoft?"
hamishau Member since:
2007-10-15

> Have you ever tried to call Microsoft for support?

Actually, yes. The company I used to work for did a lot of work with accountants. The Australian Tax Office requires them to use the Cisco VPN client to submit tax returns. We supported Windows Terminal Services, to run the tax software (recommended above a certain number of users). There were MASSIVE conflicts and we ended up talking to Microsoft and Cisco a LOT. This has been an ongoing issue, which is still not fully resolved. After running some diagnostics, Microsoft still frequently recommends that we reinstall the servers (often Win TS and Citrix, so this is not a trivial thing to do). However, from a business point of view, we have to be able to cover our arses, so we need to have that support call in with them and their recommendation to point to, and justify why the client will be down for the day and get a really big bill.

My point was that with Windows after all the searching through forums, using Google, etc, then you have the option of calling them. Is the problem is one of their doing then they DON'T charge you. If it is something you have done then they charge you. If you are using *nix or *BSD then, you can't call the manufacturer unless you have a support contract - which you have already paid for.

Back to WHS! I can see a market for WHS in the "upper and middle classes" who have a few PC's (most likely to be MS based anyway from simple statistics, and the fact that most of these people are not technical and won't have *nix or *BSD installed anywhere). They have the disposable income to have lots of photos, films and music. They might have external hard disks or something like that. When offered the option of having it all in one place, for all family members, backed up and remotely accessible, then they might very well be interested. I think they will be. And I hope to make some money from that opportunity!

Hamish

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Why you'd pay Microsoft?
by Vanders on Tue 16th Oct 2007 11:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why you'd pay Microsoft?"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

I see no difference between calling Microsoft for support if you can not find the answer on the KB and calling say RedHat if you can not find the answer on their website. Both Microsoft and Linux vendors offer free support and, if you require it, they will charge you for support. No matter who your vendor is, picking up the phone is always the last resort.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Why you'd pay Microsoft?
by dagw on Tue 16th Oct 2007 15:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Why you'd pay Microsoft?"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

It's rare to call a vendor for support and in general, not a lot of help when you do.

depends very much on your vendor. Many years a ago I admined an sgi origin server and called sgi many times about all kinds of things. About their hardware, the software they sold to us (including third party stuff they acted as resellers for) and various performance issues. Each time I got very good help. Even one time when I was having network performance issues which turned out to have nothing to do with their hardware or software they where extremely helpful.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Why you'd pay Microsoft?
by Vanders on Tue 16th Oct 2007 18:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why you'd pay Microsoft?"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh absolutely. I've never had much joy with Microsoft, although I know at least one person who did get a helpful response from them on at least one occasion. On the other hand, Oracle are very good (from what I gather: I don't deal directly with anything Oracle)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why you'd pay Microsoft?
by celt on Tue 16th Oct 2007 11:33 UTC in reply to "Why you'd pay Microsoft?"
celt Member since:
2005-07-06

...and the security of customer data on said server? Same security practices we find on the rest of Microsoft's products?

I too am a network engineer and a Unix admin. I spend an unbalanced amount of time fixing the mess that Microsoft products make on our network and, at home as well.

Reply Score: 2

What I REALLY want to know is....
by bornagainenguin on Tue 16th Oct 2007 00:52 UTC
bornagainenguin
Member since:
2005-08-07

...how long OSNews.com has been running on WHS and whether or not the review will mention the outage we just had the last two days or so... ;P

But seriously, isn't the type of situation people are talking about the kind of thing Acronis is made for? Just install to one disk and set your My Documents to a second hard drive. Then once you get your apps and the desktop tweaked just the way you want it make an image to the second disk.

Then all you have to do is make sure you do regular back ups of the second hard drive to a portable USB disk and you're good!

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 1

I would buy it if it does what I want
by CrazyDude1 on Tue 16th Oct 2007 01:00 UTC
CrazyDude1
Member since:
2007-09-17

Ok I would buy this product if it does what I want which is:

I have a big collection of pictures, personal movies and a lot of technical material. Right now I back it up on two disks but manually doing all the backup is really a pain.

I used rsync earlier and now i use synctoy. Both creates problems when i rename directories or move files from one place to another.

What I want is to have one master copy and replace my changes in that copy with all other redundant copy. It should also bring my USB external hard drive in sync. Also when i make changes, it should keep a history of my earlier changes (with some disk quota limits) etc.

I don't know if home server does all that or not, but if it does that then I am a game.

I know I can build all this using scripts etc but i just want a finished product instead of wasting my time on developing such solution myself.

Reply Score: 2

netean Member since:
2006-01-08

if that's what you need. why bother with a whole new server setup, why not just investigate some of the many many automated backup programs available.

Many of them will mirror folders, and drives for you. They'll monitor for changes and copy ONLY when files change. Most of them also have schedule functions so you can run them all the time (so they copy as soon as you change a file, or will wait for a set time and then check and copy any changed files)


There are dozens to choose from: many are free, some are not, but surely must be cheaper than buying a new box, configuring it, and paying the electricity to keep it running 24/7

Reply Score: 2

polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

Why was this guy modded down for providing a useful link? It's certainly not off-topic since it has to do with backup, and it's certainly not offensive.

Reply Score: 1

CVDpr Member since:
2005-10-17

I do not understand either.

Reply Score: 0

Two words: Target Market
by AfroEngineer on Tue 16th Oct 2007 01:55 UTC
AfroEngineer
Member since:
2006-10-04

For all the whining and complaining that we uber geeks are doing, we are all failing to see the target market for this device. It's not designed for Joe Geek, its designed for Joe User.

Face it, its 2007 and many people have multiple PC's in their house, with more digital media than before. Should Microsoft say, f#$% you, and not at least make an attempt to have a "home server" for the masses? WHS is a step in the right direction. Personally, I am using mine as a backend datastore for our media that is played off of our MediaPortal based HTPC.

Granted, WHS is rough around the edges in some spots and could use some improvement, but for a V1.0 product it is not that bad. I mean, it isn't like Microsoft is the only company with a Home Server project (http://www.ubuntuhomeserver.org/, & http://www.clarkconnect.com/) More importantly, is the fact that it is extensible. This leaves plenty of room for the OEM's (HP, Dell) to add their own special tweaks. Considering what the product brings (a fileserver, an imaging / backup app, along with the ability to access all of that remotely over the web), its a least worth a look at. Distro/OS partisanship aside, computers are nothing more than tools. For some people, the best tool for the job is Linux, and for others, that tool is Windows. For some of us, myself included, its both.

Reply Score: 7

LOL
by cchance on Tue 16th Oct 2007 02:58 UTC
cchance
Member since:
2006-02-24

WHS does network wide backups automated of all your pc's it'll even wake them up and backup and then put it back to sleep.

And how does a DVD or mybook equate to an expandable storage system with plug and play expansion and mirroring backups? seems a bit different.

LOL i love the suggestion to just image the drive once you have it setup.....

thats great for like the first month, and then as you make changes it'd be nice to have the system automaticlaly backing itself up... especially if your in a house with multiple pc's like mine.

Reply Score: 4

v Other Solutions are better yet
by hraq on Tue 16th Oct 2007 06:22 UTC
"hard to explain and easy to understand"
by l3v1 on Tue 16th Oct 2007 06:37 UTC
l3v1
Member since:
2005-07-06

hard to explain and easy to understand


Well, you just managed to make me not want to have anything to do with it ;)

Reply Score: 2

Only for total end users
by PJBonoVox on Tue 16th Oct 2007 08:21 UTC
PJBonoVox
Member since:
2006-08-14

...since the remote web interface only works with IE. So anyone even mildly (MILDLY!) technical will probably get pissed off with it.

Edited 2007-10-16 08:21

Reply Score: 1

v RE: Why you'd pay Microsoft?
by celt on Tue 16th Oct 2007 11:37 UTC
Tired of my ranting?
by celt on Tue 16th Oct 2007 11:44 UTC
celt
Member since:
2005-07-06

Try FreeNAS...it's well, free.

"FreeNAS is a free NAS (Network-Attached Storage) server, supporting: CIFS (samba), FTP, NFS, AFP, RSYNC, iSCSI protocols, S.M.A.R.T., local user authentication, Software RAID (0,1,5) with a Full WEB configuration interface. FreeNAS takes less than 32MB once installed on Compact Flash, hard drive or USB key. The minimal FreeBSD distribution, Web interface, PHP scripts and documentation are based on M0n0wall."

Run it off a USB key, compact flash, your existing hardware...why succumb to this. Think for yourselves and don't be a victim to a company that wants to control your data and drain your pocketbook.

http://www.freenas.org

Reply Score: 0

RE: Tired of my ranting?
by PJBonoVox on Tue 16th Oct 2007 11:59 UTC in reply to "Tired of my ranting?"
PJBonoVox Member since:
2006-08-14

You're preaching on OSNews to the exact audience that this 'WHS' product is NOT aimed at.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Tired of my ranting?
by celt on Tue 16th Oct 2007 13:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Tired of my ranting?"
celt Member since:
2005-07-06

fair enough...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Tired of my ranting?
by PJBonoVox on Tue 16th Oct 2007 15:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Tired of my ranting?"
PJBonoVox Member since:
2006-08-14

Hey, don't get me wrong. I'm all for Linux/BSD and other free solutions but unfortunately Joe Public isn't going to buy into it :/

Reply Score: 1

Is
by netpython on Tue 16th Oct 2007 13:56 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

a brainfart bad for the environment?

Reply Score: 2

Hide it from your ISP
by SpasmaticSeacow on Tue 16th Oct 2007 19:44 UTC
SpasmaticSeacow
Member since:
2006-02-17

Nobody has brought it up, but most ISPs (I know Comcast and Verizon) have language that prohibits running "servers" on "your home network". It's obviously overbroad language intending to tell you that they don't want you becoming a web-hosting service out of your basement using their service, but nonetheless, that's typically what they say.

How long until some technician sees that you have WHS on your LAN and they summarily refuse to connect you because of it? Perhaps and ISP will disconnect someone that mentions it in a service call...

We have a rule of thumb in my department at work: never CALL a computer a "server" -- that magic word pricks the ears of IT, gets purchases vetoed, and keeps you from getting a computer on your desk. Irregardless of its functions, it's ALWAYS a "workstation" or "intrumentation control system"; never a server.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Hide it from your ISP
by polaris20 on Tue 16th Oct 2007 20:10 UTC in reply to "Hide it from your ISP"
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

Comcast in IL doesn't block servers. My father has Comcast, and has FTP and HTTP running.

And you really shouldn't be allowing some dumb cable tech access to your "servers" or computers anyway.

They should have a laptop to test connectivity, and the rest is up to the user. What is sitting on your network is alway irrelevant to the tech, as they're not supporting your network, merely your connection to the outside world.

Reply Score: 1

Strictly for the Windows enthusiast.
by alban on Tue 16th Oct 2007 19:44 UTC
alban
Member since:
2005-11-15

I expect that windows enthusiasts will enjoy the fun of editing the registry by hand and running expensive anti-spyware software on their home server.

Reply Score: 1

Bit_Rapist Member since:
2005-11-13

I expect that windows enthusiasts will enjoy the fun of editing the registry by hand and running expensive anti-spyware software on their home server.

Actually most windows power users I know very much enjoy editing the registry just as most *nix power users I know like to play with config files.

If it makes the OS tick then someone will enjoy messing with it!

Hopefully spyware won't be an issue on a home server. I guess you could store infected files on the server which might require a scan but you can run into that issue with any server platform that has file shares.

Reply Score: 2

I'm interested
by Bit_Rapist on Tue 16th Oct 2007 20:08 UTC
Bit_Rapist
Member since:
2005-11-13

I'm interested in the automated backup solution this package has.

The other stuff I basically have running in some form or fashion on a windows 2003 ent server and a debian server.

I think the market for this is guys like my uncle. He isn't technically savvy enough setup a traditional server but he knows enough to collect hundreds of megabytes of pics and videos and he wants access to them from multiple machines in his house. He also wishes he knew how to get at them over the web when he is away from home.

i could see this working for guys like him.

i don't think most of the readers on this forum are the target market so I don't expect a lot of praise here.

Reply Score: 2