Slashdot Mirror
Windows Home Server Details
phorest writes "Perhaps Microsoft read the comments from the Slashdot community on Windows Home Server? In any event Microsoft is opening up WHS for users to construct their own system after all; though I'd like to see the price of this OS release before making the jump. From the review: "At the 2007 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas this week... Microsoft previewed its long-awaited Windows Home Server product, a Windows Server 2003 R2-based server for consumers that dispenses with the complexities of most Windows Server versions and provides the core storage, sharing, and remote access functionality that digital media and home networking enthusiasts require... Microsoft will make WHS available in two ways: Bundled with new WHS hardware and software-only, the latter so that enthusiasts can install the system on the hardware of their choice... If you're building your own home server, Microsoft requires a 1 GHz processor or better, 512 MB of RAM or more, and as many disks as you think you need. The company will support multiple home servers on the same network, but it's still murky how that will work."
WHS Video Interview
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Great move but it'll be a cold day in hell when I let Microsoft manage what's on my home server. Not being a deliberate troll or flamebait, I'd look for them to sell out and start locking up my media files. I just would approach this with a long stick - or just keep using my home-brew server.
Most of the stuff on
I could be wrong, but I think I read at one point that XP and 2003 are different platforms -- but that XP64 and 2003 share code.
This is why the XP SP cannot be applied to XP64, but XP64 and 2003 share a service pack.
I think also that Vista is based off of 2003/XP64 not the 32-bit version of XP.
-b.
I haven't RTFA, but knowing what prices MS charges for their products, why would anyone buy into it... I can't see how a home server from MS would be any less complicated than setting up a Redhat Linux server, especially when Redhat has gui's for just about configuring everything... Plus Redhat, oh sorry, Fedora, is free. Just wondering out loud here.
~ In Trust, We Trust ~
Server 2003 is a whole lot more than XP Pro. Where as Windows 2000 Professional and Windows 2000 Server shared a lot of underlying tech, XP Pro is a whole different internal version (windows 5.1) than 2003 (windows 5.2), and the additional functionality added by 2003 R2 makes it do even more.
"I want to get more into theory, because everything works in theory." -John Cash
Windows Home Server = Windows XP Pro? I was under the impression that Windows 2003 was simply Windows XP with some goodies for servers
You're apparently very well informed. That would explain why Microsoft dropped the XP-based Vista code and spend two extra years porting it on top of the 2003 codebase.
Simply put: Windows 2003 is not just XP with "server goodies", it's a major improvement in terms of modularity, security and contains a lots of improvements centered around running in an enterprise environment.
It's NOT WinXP. In fact, it's not "just another version of windows" at all! It's a network appliance (based on win2003, but it's not 2003 either), aimed primarily at backups and sharing files. Headless and all that. Pretty well made seemingly - uses the Single Instance Storage (SIS) so only one copy of the same file is kept across multiple backups, and very expendable (better than RAID). There was a video about it on channel9 yesterday.
I'd get one if I didn't already have a server to do this stuff (and more).
///<sig
There is nothing, repeat nothing in Vista that locks down non-DRM content, you can rip CDs and DVDs with the same tools you used in XP and Vista does nothing to them. How long will mindless knee-jerk anti-MS folks continue to push this BS.
Here's a challenge, find one example of Vista applying DRM to non-DRMed content, come on, just one example!!!!
The Linksys NSLU2 network storage link is a handy little unit (less than $100) that will share USB drives and serve web pages. It's open source so of course it runs Linux http://www.nslu2-linux.org/wiki/Main/HomePage and an amazing number of applications have been ported to it.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
If you have the hardware to run VMWare Server (free) you can always use the FreeNAS VMWare Appliance.
^]:wq!^M
I for one don't care how slick the case is.e bsitel ServerN ServerO verBluetoothm
You are right in that for just sharing some hard drives the apple solution isn't bad but I can get a WiFi Access point for less than $80.
With the NSLU you have the option to.
Use it as a web server http://www.nslu2-linux.org/wiki/HowTo/SimpleHomeW
Mail server http://www.nslu2-linux.org/wiki/HowTo/SetUpAnEmai
VPN http://www.nslu2-linux.org/wiki/HowTo/SetUpOpenVP
FTP http://www.nslu2-linux.org/wiki/HowTo/SetupFtpd
Act as a Bluetooth access point http://www.nslu2-linux.org/wiki/HowTo/NetworkSlug
WebCam server http://www.nslu2-linux.org/wiki/HowTo/AddUsbWebca
I think you get the point.
The NSLU is a more flexible solution. The Apple solution is very limited. It can only do what Apple wants it to do.
An NSLU and a Wireless router will be two boxes that cost less than the Airport but do the same thing.
As you said it all depends on what you want to do.
For me since I already have a wireless router an NSLU or other NAS is a better choice than the Airport extreme.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I'll still use my 360 for games, but won't by bullied into either converting all my video to WMV or purchasing a pre-built (since the OS is only OEM) XP Media Center box.
So instead you'll limit yourself to Apple's proprietry formats and having to purchase stuff from the iTunes Store ?
The mind boggles at how someone could think moving from Microsoft to *Apple*, would reduce "lock-in"...