Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 29th Apr 2007 10:50 UTC, submitted by danwarne
Windows "At APC we've been running the Beta 2 edition of Windows Home Server for the past two months and it's acquitted itself surprisingly well - no doubt a reflection on the time this 'server for the rest of us' spent in the Redmond skunkworks. There's still some 'fit and finish' to appear before it hits the Release Candidate milestone around Q3, prior to the platform's debut towards the end of this year - but from what we've seen so far, we'd rate Windows Home Server as one of Microsoft's most polished and most impressive 1.0 releases to date. Here's a walkthrough gallery of screenshots from the Beta 2 build of Windows Home Server." There's also a screenshot gallery for Longhorn Server Beta 3.
Thread beginning with comment 235230
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Home Server - Non-Starter
by Luminair on Sun 29th Apr 2007 14:42 UTC in reply to "Home Server - Non-Starter"
Luminair
Member since:
2007-03-30

I have absolutely no idea is the one thing you got right there. WHS is a variation of Windows Server 2003 that runs on the inside of your network. If you want to get frisky you can install whatever you want on it, and use RAID0/1/5 for data storage just like any other Windows Server 2003 box.

I'm trying to pick out the most ridiculous thing you said. I think it was the part where Windows Update sucks away bandwidth to download patches. Gold Star!

Reply Parent Score: 5

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

WHS is a variation of Windows Server 2003 that runs on the inside of your network.

So what does it do then?

If you want to get frisky you can install whatever you want on it, and use RAID0/1/5 for data storage just like any other Windows Server 2003 box.

How does this help? I repeat: I have absolutely no idea what WHS itself actually does, and neither will the supposed target market for it either ;-).

I think it was the part where Windows Update sucks away bandwidth to download patches. Gold Star!

You get a couple of gold stars for being quite unbelievably clueless, but I wouldn't expect anything less.

I do believe this thing is called Windows Home Server, and as such, Microsoft would like you to run it in a home on a broadband connection. Many people have some restrictions on their broadband usage (on and off-peak usage, bandwidth limitations etc.), and having some closed, black box server downloading automatic updates whenever it likes (as well as remote access) is just one example of the kinds of unforseen things that no one thinks about here.

Your comment, or lack of it, only serves to highlight how Microsoft and lots of other people have absolutely no clue as to what the issues actually are in running a server within the home. The rest of the comment you conveniently painted over, but the issues are there ;-). People will want it to handle their e-mail and calendaring in a centralised and trouble-free manner and people want to share their media stuff. As it is, WHS is useless.

Edited 2007-04-29 15:44

Reply Parent Score: 3

Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

Let me try to quell your concerns.

WHS stores your movies and music. It backs up your computers so you can recover if they break.

People use web mail. They don't want an Exchange server. They don't even know what an Exchange server is.

Single-digit megabytes of patches per year is not a bandwidth problem. If you are concerned about 14.4kbps modem users, have no fear -- they can turn automatic updates off.

Reply Parent Score: 2