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."

Comments

Multiple Servers

[Anonymous Coward]

The company will support multiple home servers on the same network, but it's still murky how that will work."

Easy... Lots of Money.

Re:Multiple Servers

[Ucklak]

Yeah, multiple servers and only 10 connections.

Not that 10 connections in a home could be reached but it's possible.

Re:Multiple Servers

[Overly Critical Guy]

Microsoft thinks people:

1.) Want to be network administrator.
2.) Want to spend money on yet another computer taking up space in their house.

People already have all their data on their main computer. They just want to stream it out to things and back it up now and then. This is a product searching for demand that's not there, to make it seem like Microsoft is "branching out."

Re:Multiple Servers

[PFI_Optix]

How appropriately named you are.

Microsoft thinks people:

1) Are increasingly moving toward a multi-PC household, with a desktop, laptop, and one or more computers for their children.
2) Are willing to spend money on a low-end server to accomodate the growing demand for shared files and applications.
3) Are looking for a way to get the most out of their WMC PC and their new XBOX 360 by streaming video.

Personally, I've been predicting this move since Media Center was announced. It's a logical step toward the "digital home" that we've heard so much about. WHS won't do anything near everything I want it to, but it's a step in the right direction. I'm hoping this will up the ante and get some good, easier-to-use OSS servers designed around home use.

Re:Multiple Servers

[laffer1]

Oh its possible for me. I've got 10 computers here. If I were to use a windows based central file server, I could potentially use it up. Then again, I would probably use MidnightBSD with NFS, samba and netatalk. Prior to starting the MidnightBSD project, I had a FreeBSD file server/router setup. It worked out rather well. I did use it primarily for backup on my iBook, but I mapped my home directory to it in BSD and My Documents in windows to it. It worked out very well. I later needed the machine as a "real" server.

As for the microsoft product, I can see people interested in IT or who currently use one of the seagate or other external backup hard drive based systems getting into this product. Its a logical upgrade from those products for people with a little more knowledge. I would have bought it 6 7 years ago when I was working as a Windows admin. Back then I had an NT4 server up at home running my websites on an ISDN line. OK, there might not be a big demand for this new product.

Re:Multiple Servers

[Anonymous Coward]

While the humor of your statement is based in truth, it may have more truth than you think to it. Think about it for a moment: Microsoft sees the PC market softening. Linux is actually strong competition in the embedded space, which is the next place to compete in, and Microsoft will really have to fight for it.

The PC space, meanwhile, is softening because of saturation and looming competition. Apple is finally back in the game, Linux will eventually catch on. Yes, it's a case of when, not if. There's nobody else to sell to when you're a monopoly with 95% of the market, so what do you do? Try to create a new market. This product is just MS' attempt to create a market for a new product that digital media has shown a need for.

Personally, I'd rather avoid their (most likely) DRM infested route for storing media. This could be a space for open source systems to fill quite nicely and in a much more consumer-friendly fashion. Especially since the nature of the product should involve little consumer interaction outside of set up, then accessing content from a GUI workstation or DVR system.

Re:Multiple Servers

[gripen40k]

WHS won't do anything near everything I want it to, but it's a step in the right direction. I'm just wondering what other features that you would like to see in the WHS. You have to remember that http/ftp server functionality would be cool but probably would be unused by the mainstream public, and pretty much unnecessary given the filesharing capability already included. So, any ideas?

Re:Multiple Servers

[toadlife]

One thing I can think of, is that it doesn't allow for centralized logins (no "mini active directory" like small business server). being about to log into any computer in your home with the same login/password and have a central profile would be nice. Right now it can be done, sort of, with hacks, but that's over the head of the typical home user.

Re:Multiple Servers

[gripen40k]

Hmm, what do you think the advantages of that particular system would be?

Re:Multiple Servers

[toadlife]

The advantages?

Well, for one, my wife would have one less thing to yell at me about.

I recently bought a little shuttle PC, put windows media center on it and a wireless. I made this mistake of telling her that she could surf the web on our TV. Well, she did and she was pissed that when she logged on with her account (which I manually configured using the same username/password), her files/settings were not there.

I had planned on configuring so that all her stuff would be available, but just hadn't gotten around to it yet.

Re:Multiple Servers

[Knara]

Did you then tell her to learn how to do it herself if she's so keen on having it done on her schedule?

Re:Multiple Servers

[gripen40k]

Ah, OK, that would help quite a bit. They haven't unveiled all the specs and features yet, so there still might be a chance that they will implement it.

Also, tell your wife that her files *could* be there, she just has to make them shared on her normal computer, and then simply leave that computer on. I'm sure if she used win-help she could even figure it out for herself! I strongly believe in having people solve their own computer problems, with some guidance, so that they can fix those same problems in the future.

Re:Multiple Servers

[toadlife]

"I strongly believe in having people solve their own computer problems, with some guidance, so that they can fix those same problems in the future.

And I strongly believe in getting laid sometime withing the next month. ;)

Re:Multiple Servers

[gripen40k]

HA! Common, don't be a slave to the advances of the modern wife. Spend the time together to help her understand something about what you enjoy doing (well, networking probably isn't your fav thing, but computers probably are...). Besides, if she learns how to do it, you will hear less nagging and complaining the next time she has a problem like this!

Re:Multiple Servers

[toadlife]

Hehe. She's holds a degree in English Literature and is working towards her doctorate.

If I asked her to take the time to learn how computer worked, I'm afraid she'd ask me, in return, to read and analyze some 500 page book written in middle-english from the year 1500.

I'm not willing to take that chance. ;)

Re:Multiple Servers

[Worlock_BL]

One thing I can think of, is that it doesn't allow for centralized logins (no "mini active directory" like small business server). being about to log into any computer in your home with the same login/password and have a central profile would be nice. Right now it can be done, sort of, with hacks, but that's over the head of the typical home user. Yes, it does. You create accounts on the server, and it syncs those accounts across all the computers in the house. So, wherever you go in the house-it'll have your account and same password.

Re:Multiple Servers

[gripen40k]

Ah, touché. Shared education is a double edge sword it appears...

Re:Multiple Servers

[PFI_Optix]

I'm specifically thinking of a media-centric approach.

I'd like to see a server that can tune and stream live television to all the PCs and televisions in the home while recording several others for later viewing. I'd also like to see it archive DVDs for direct access from any television without having to load a disk. I'm basically envisioning a single centralized system for everything entertainment-related. As I understand WHS, it won't be quite so full-featured.

HTTP and FTP functionality would be excellent as well...HTTP for headless administration as well as anything else the user cares to do with it, and FTP because...well, it's cheap to implement and *someone* will find a good reason for it to be there if it's not included.

If and when I actually have a system running WHS, I'll have a long list of things I wish it did.

w00t

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one think this is a great idea and something I have wanted for a while. I currently do a cobbled Linux/rsync backup system, but it is no where as easy as this thing looks. This will make MSFT matter for the home geek.

First?! Hmm...

[nneonneo]

I would actually be interested in having something like this, *if* it weren't from Microsoft, because I will bet you that it will be far too helpful for my tastes. Anyway, this would probably help the average user navigate the sometimes-confusing options for servers.

Re:First?! Hmm...

[CDarklock]

I really like all the things WHS says it will do, because it means I can put my mind on other things. I'm just not really sure how good a job it does.

Many of the things in WHS are things I've been saying I was going to do for years. "I'm going to set up a SAN for all our documents and pictures," I keep saying, "and I'm going to schedule nightly rolling backups for all the PCs in the house." Well, I just don't have time. But if I could go out and pick up a $1500 PC, click a few buttons, and be finished... I'd do it.

My major concern is the same as yours: will it actually do what I want? If it does, great, but what if it doesn't? At least if I buy $1500 worth of commodity hardware and cobble up a home-grown solution, I can make it do SOMETHING. So the hardware+software option looks like it might be a bad deal; I think I'll do better if I buy my own components with an eye toward the manual solution, in the event that the software proves inadequate.

Hey, I may work at Microsoft, but I'm not stupid. Since when is v1.0 of anything trustworthy? Screw the party line, I want my shit to work. I'll give it a fair shake, but if it rolls over and plays dead, it can stay there.

Re:First?! Hmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

you can use rsync really easy to do nightly rolling backups.
that's what I do, one liner cron command backs up my iPhoto library, and another one does iTunes.

so in two lines of terminal commands i backup (incrementaly too) all of my important data automatically, every night.

Re:First?! Hmm...

[Da_Weasel]

But if I could go out and pick up a $1500 PC, click a few buttons, and be finished... I'd do it. http://www.ubuntu.com/server

Install instructions:
1. Boot PC with CD/DVD
2. Click a few buttons
3. Be finished

Re:First?! Hmm...

[leenks]

Many of the things in WHS are things I've been saying I was going to do for years. "I'm going to set up a SAN for all our documents and pictures," I keep saying, "and I'm going to schedule nightly rolling backups for all the PCs in the house." Well, I just don't have time. But if I could go out and pick up a $1500 PC, click a few buttons, and be finished... I'd do it. The linksys NSLU2 NAS adapter does this. yours for about $50 (plus drives).

Re:First?! Hmm...

[CDarklock]

Somehow, I'm not convinced. Ubuntu is still Linux. You can never click a few buttons and be finished with Linux, or indeed with any UNIX derivative. After you spend enough time doing the recurring tweaks, you just stop noticing them, and think it's being finished.

I could be wrong, but I don't think it's likely enough to investigate.

Re:First?! Hmm...

[Rabbit_Fish]

As someone who's visited a couple of different departments along my career path, I would say the "recurring tweaks" problem is more of a windows one. Your average *nix admin is going to fix things so they never have to bother doing so again. In the Windows world, it's usually not possible to fix things in this way.

Ubuntu server is just a couple of clicks and off you go. Doesn't cost you anything but time to try it, and I've found the install only takes 10 minutes. Give it a shot.

Re:First?! Hmm...

[tehsoul]

what a useless comment.
if you're a tech geek with server experience, of course this isn't the product for you, just like you won't be using some fully automated linux installation if you've been compiling your own kernels since the age of 12.

choo choo, it's the obvious train. last stop: you.

on another note
i'd probably like it. easy to set up, that's the way i want it

Re:First?! Hmm...

[Kadin2048]

Ubuntu is really not the solution someone like the GP was looking for. It's a nice general-purpose server distro, but it's certainly not plug and play. And with Ubuntu's server installation, you're not going to be clicking any buttons, because by default there's no GUI.

I think that the dedicated home-server distros like Smoothwall or maybe Coraid's NAS distro would be more what he's looking for. They're not much harder to set up than a typical broadband router -- you just install from a CD and then do your configuration from a web page -- but they provide a lot of functionality, because they run on commodity PC hardware and run Linux (or BSD, depending).

I think the point the GP is making, and it's a good one, is that not everyone wants something that requires any level of configuration. People want things that are plug and play. Luckily, I think the market has seen this and is producing products that try to fill it: VMWare's list of virtual appliances lists dozens of possible candidates.

To be frank, I think that virtual appliances are the future of Linux and its related (*NIX) OSes, as it goes more and more mainstream. Average users don't want to configure things, which is why we've seen a tendency towards pre-rolled desktop distros and LiveCDs. As people's home networks become more substantial, I think home servers are going to be the same way. The geeks and early adopters will configure their own gear, but average folks want something that can shove in an old PC's disk drive and set up once, then never think about again.

Re:First?! Hmm...

[tkdtaylor]

You don't need a server to do rolling back ups of your files nightly.

I use synctoy, it's a power toy from MS Sync Toy you could easilly install that on your windows box and set it up to run nightly to back up any new/changed files.
I use it to keep my main desktop box in sync with my laptop quickly as well as keep a back up on an external hard drive.

Re:First?! Hmm...

[CDarklock]

> Your average *nix admin is going to fix
> things so they never have to bother doing
> so again.

The day I need to be or hire a UNIX admin to run my home network, I will kill myself.

Re:First?! Hmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

SyncToy is great, but you should also check out FolderShare (www.foldershare.com - also from Microsoft).

It offers a really nice way of syncing multiple computers, without needing a direct link. Great for having folders mirrored between my home and office PCs.

Re:First?! Hmm...

[Nefarious Wheel]

Just finished paying for yet another license of XP Pro on my home comp -- this time because I added a DVD drive (mobo got toasted in a power surge earlier and swapped video cards). Must "re-activate" the operating system.

When I read that message I thought, ok, reach for the paddles...

NPFW will I buy another Windows product for a server. Sorry, Mr. Ballmer, you lost a long-time customer. Oh, and I do indeed influence corporate buying decisions, have done so for many years. Does it look like the train station is moving to you? Wave as you go by.

Re:First?! Hmm...

[Calinous]

I use the 2.0 something version of Firefox. However, I still keep on my computer the older 0.6.2 version of Firebird (the same program, if you know what I mean).
      Is the 2.0 version of Firefox better than Firebird? Sure, but Firebird in its own rights is a very competent browser, and extremely usable for almost all I need a web browser to do.

      To answer, Firebird 0.6.2 is trustworthy.

Re:First?! Hmm...

[Corporate Troll]

You do pay a plumber to do plumbing, or an electrician to setup electricity, or a mechanic to service your car, don't you? How is this different? Don't come with the "I can do this myself". Sure you can because you learned something about it. I can't do plumbing, I can't install electricity and I can't service my car, but I damn well can maintain my own Unix servers.

A plumber probably does his own plumbing, but pays a mechanic to service his car....

Re:First?! Hmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.smeserver.org/ - based on Centos4, provides email, file sharing, web serving, firewall out of the box and with about a 15 minute setup. Easy config, and can run for years with no attention (literally). Simple webbased admin and configuration.

There is also a committed base of users who extend the base functionality with additional contribs http://www.contribs.org/ to give extra features. It's easy and cool and it works like a charm.

Try it.

Simon

Re:First?! Hmm...

[EvilRyry]

You don't need a UNIX admin to set a home Linux server up. The market already has TONS of Home linux servers that are ready to roll out of the box. Seagate Mirra? Buffalo Terrastation? Monolith Media Center (or any other prebuilt MythTV box)? Generic SAN? Need I go on?

Re:First?! Hmm...

[Corporate Troll]

Of course, not.... I still can do it myself, don't I? Besides, if those "out of the box" Linux servers (NAS boxes, MythTV machines, whatever) are somehow connected to the internet and a security flaw is found the shit hits the fan, and you know it. Their stength is that they usually are not connected to the internet, in that case it's just like any other embedded OS.

Re:First?! Hmm...

[CDarklock]

> How is this different?

If a plumber screws up my plumbing, my pipes leak. I call him back out and point at it. He fixes it and his insurance pays for any damage.

If an electrician screws up my wiring, my breakers trip. I call him back out and point at it. He fixes it and his insurance pays for any damage.

If a mechanic screws up my car, it stops running. I have it towed back to him and point at it. He fixes it and his insurance pays for any damage.

If a UNIX administrator screws up my server, it doesn't work right. I call him back and point at it. He tells me that he isn't liable for any damages and I have to pay an elevated hourly rate for emergency service with a four-hour minimum for coming out in the first place.

Yeah, I'd say that's pretty different.

Basically, the downside of a bad sysadmin is simply massive. I'm already not willing to take that risk when there's no real alternative. Why would I choose that risk over a smaller risk? Sure, the upside is great, but the upside of WHS is comparable to the upside of a homegrown solution - and it doesn't have a downside anywhere near as large.

IdiotProof-Lockup

[Constantine XVI]

I really think that MS needs to lock up WHS to be idiot-proof tight. If you need to put software on it (plugins for mediacenters, game servers, etc.) you should have to burn it to a CD, put it in the server, and then go back to the interface to see what you're going to install, and confirm it by pushing a button on the server. Yes, it's a hassle, but makes sure it's near 99% idiot-proof. Clicking through boxes is one thing. Having to physically push different things should set off alarms for someone

Re:IdiotProof-Lockup

[trimbo]

Have you seen the server management software for WS2003? It's pretty pointy-clicky friendly these days. Shouldn't be hard to make an even more decent UI around the management tools, but who knows.

Re:IdiotProof-Lockup

[Constantine XVI]

Sorry if you missed the point, but the idiot-proofing I'm talking about is against the WHS equivalent of "FREE SCREENSAVERZ", etc. I'm sure the actual GUI is pretty solid, it's the idiots that install stuff off of bannerads that we need to protect against.

Re:IdiotProof-Lockup

[Mister Whirly]

This is precisely the reason to have a home server with all your important stuff on it - so if you do something stupid and bork your workstation, all is not lost. Just re-install the OS and hook back up to your server...

Now we just need to train the unwashed masses about NOT surfing shady porn sites from the server, but to do it from their workstations...

Basic AIDA, folks.

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Perhaps Microsoft read the comments from the Slashdot community on Windows Home Server?

More likely they are currently flooding the market with "educational" pieces designed to increase the public's awareness of a new category of product; its no coincidence that the forthcoming product will match what the public has been trained to expect of it in advance.

(Hint: look up "AIDA" as a marketing term sometime...)

Hmm?

[joshetc]

Windows Home Server = Windows XP Pro? I was under the impression that Windows 2003 was simply Windows XP with some goodies for servers, if they take that aspect out aren't they basically selling your Windows XP with a couple patches?

I don't see why they would market something based on Windows 2003 right now anyway, with Vista here / around the corner (depending on who you are)

Re:Hmm?

[bealzabobs_youruncle]

If you really thought that was all Windows Server 2003 was, you are confused.

Re:Hmm?

[kcurtis]

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.

Re:Hmm?

[stubear]

Why does crap like this get modded up as informative? Windows 2003 is NOT Windows XP with some goodies for servers. I'm always amazed at how uneducated Slashbots are when it comes to Microsoft products yet they insist on talking about them and modding morons like this up.

Re:Hmm?

[ErMaC]

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.

Re:Hmm?

[suv4x4]

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.

Re:Hmm?

[Nik13]

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).

Re:Hmm?

[pilgrim23]

WHS is for media? Are you sure Microsoft didn't mean "VHS" or...is it still Beta? :)

Re:Hmm?

[GeckoX]

You'd be better received if you offered up facts rather than what could be construed as baseless ranting.

And of course using the term 'uneducated Slashbots' really isn't going to garner you any favors around here...ahh, but you knew that already didn't you?

Re:Hmm?

[stubear]

What evidence do you want? It's common knowledge that Windows 2003 is not Windows XP with just "a few server goodies". Perhaps the slashbots comment was unwarranted, perhaps it was but damn, why mod a comment like the OP's as informative when it is clearly not? It was not only uninformative, it was blatant flamebait to boot.

Re:Hmm?

[GeckoX]

Ehh, I took the OP's as being uninformed and posing a legitimate query. Wrong assumption for sure, but not completely off base for someone that might not actually know. Thus why I thought it would have been more appropriate to inform this person rather than chastise them.

Video Interview from Channel9

[N8F8]

WHS Video Interview

Re:Video Interview from Channel9

[binaryspiral]

How did this interviewer get his job? And more specifically what job does he do?

He's dumb as a post.

Re:Video Interview from Channel9

[x2A]

"He's dumb as a post"

A post on slashdot?

Re:Video Interview from Channel9

[Mister Whirly]

Hey, that's being pretty insulting to the wooden post...

Re:Video Interview from Channel9

[x2A]

Insightful?!! haha

New Apple Base station

[moofo]

By the way, the New Apple Airport Extreme Base station supports sharing USB 2 Hard drives on the network. 50 Users Limit and there is a small utility to put privileges.

That makes an almost solid state device to:

Provide wireless Access (N) in your home
Act as router (3 ports)
Share USB printers
Share storage

To me, it's a more integrated and "out of the box" solution.

I know, it can't serve webpages...

But still, it seems a little easier for laymen.

Re:New Apple Base station

[Lectoid]

I just looked at it on apples site. I wonder why it doesn't have gig capable ports on it. I have a 5 year old G4 with gig ethernet. I believe about every other apple product has gig ethernet on it now.

Re:New Apple Base station

[b0s0z0ku]

I know, it can't serve webpages...

Can it back up the data on the USB drive automatically? Can it share other devices like scanners? What would be a cool application of this is if it could read music off of the USB drive directly and only need a computer (or a wireless remote) for control. Combine AirTunes and a USB drive. Sort of like a Sonos box with the advantage of built-in storage.

-b.

Re:New Apple Base station

[moofo]

Backup automatically, I doubt it, but you get nifty features to mount the drive automagically to workstations.

I guess you could backup it in a easy fashion with a shell script from any workstation.

The Apple webpage says that you can share Hard Drives and printers (More than one of each type) using a USB hub. I doubt scanners would work.

For the "read music directly from the USB drive", just get an AppleTV and store your music on it, that's exactly what you are looking for. I'm sure there will be hacks to put bigger drives in it. Hell, I'm sure sme geeks will figure out a way to put Linux on both the AppleTV and the Airport Extreme.

FYI. Look at the Airport Express as well. You can connect a third party remote to it now, but you still need a computer ;-)

Re:New Apple Base station

[moofo]

Unfortunately, no.

"Three RJ-45 10/100BASE-T Ethernet LAN ports for connecting computers or network devices"

Even the AppleTV is 10/100

Re:New Apple Base station

[Damek]

And as soon as you realize you want to run BitTorrent, SoulSeek, or some other p2p for all those files you have on your attached storage, and to help fill it up as well, you can just get a Mac Mini et voila, instant server. And there's your scanner sharing, too, if you have a linux or OS X computer that can access shared scanners. AFAIK, there's no (cheap) way to access networked scanners on Windows machines. Someone please correct me?

Re:New Apple Base station

[mspohr]

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.

Re:New Apple Base station

[moofo]

You're right.

That's why I have a rack in my appartment, with 4 machines.

1. Media Server
2. P2P Machine
3. Webserver
4. Backup Server :-) There should be a Mac OS X Server Home Datacenter for users like me

For the scanner sharing, there is always the Keyspan box that can share USB devices on the Network. But Mac Os X scanner sharing is really good.

Re:New Apple Base station

[GeckoX]

The AppleTV is 10/100? You've got to be joking right? I can understand on the phone...got to try to keep the price down a wee bit somewhere.

(Aside: It's still ludicrously expensive for a phone, especially given it's expected limitations. I know, tonnes will buy it anyways...but I'm finding a strange attitude. Apparently the general opinion is that this is a reasonable price for a phone...but a similar price for a 60GB PS3 is insanely high...imho, this makes the PS3 look down right cheap.)

But 10/100 only for a media centre? Wtf? Ah well, at least I don't have to look any further to know that I want nothing to do with that bit of kit.

Re:New Apple Base station

[moofo]

The case is less slick than the Apple Base station. For 80 bucks more you get a router + Wifi access point. You especially get no hacking to do whatsoever to get it to work. :-)

IMHO, the Apple Deal is hard to pass, but I guess it depends on your needs.

(OK, I guess I'm an Apple fanboi)

Re:New Apple Base station

[mosschops]

I wonder why it doesn't have gig capable ports on it. Especially as the wireless is now faster than the wired! It's a show stopper for me, and I'm gonna wait until they fix it...

Re:New Apple Base station

[dagamer34]

Yeah, if I was able to run Bittorrent on a WHS machine, I would be stoked. No longer would I need to leave my laptop on to run torrents.

Re:New Apple Base station

[mspohr]

Yes, Apple always excels in design.

However, it is a closed system. As long as it does what you need (and you don't want a web server), it should be fine but the Linksys NSLU2 is an open system that can be customized to do whatever you want.

BTW, the Linksys WRT54G WiFi router also is open source and people have added an amazing range of capabilities. there are about five different open source projects customizing it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WRT54G

Re:New Apple Base station

[theStorminMormon]

It may be more integrated and out of the box, but that's kind of like saying an iPod shuffle is more integrated and out of the box than an xbox360. They're not even competing products! The base station is just a glorified router. Nothing wrong with this at all, but that's the extent of what it does. You could, I suppose, attach a hard drive to it externally. But mostly what it does is act as a router/network access point/printer share.

The WHS is an entirely different beast. It's supposed to act as a rather powerful and sophisticated back-up solution that includes better-than-RAID redundancy and has software to support entire-image restore. Would you expect a base station to help you restore your Mac from an image? I didn't think so.

So it may be easier for laymen: but it's not even remotely doing the same thing. WHS isn't superior, they're just totally different products. Please RTFA on this one.

I find it odd that I'm getting annoyed by so much Mac fanboyishness the week after I purchase my first Mac (MacBook Pro 15" - it's pretty).

-stormin

Re:New Apple Base station

[vertinox]

Would you expect a base station to help you restore your Mac from an image? I didn't think so.

Maybe with Time Machine, but seeing the product isn't out yet, that is only speculation.

Re:New Apple Base station

[SilentChris]

It also has only 100 Base T. Why they couldn't fit gigabit in an almost $200 device is beyond me. Pass.

Re:New Apple Base station

[douceur]

I've seen people comparing the PS3 to the iPhone because of their similar prices in more than one place recently, but that makes very little sense. They're entirely different products, and there's no reason to compare their prices. Now I can say any $600 product is "down right cheap", simply because I think the iPhone is overpriced at that level?

I'm not even suggesting that the PS3 is overpriced, but to suggest otherwise on the basis that the iPhone costs the same amount is pretty ridiculous. In any event, you've got to realize that Apple has been successful selling much of their hardware at a premium for years now. They know their market.

Re:New Apple Base station

[GeckoX]

I'm not suggesting that, not at all.

I'm only digging at the mindset here specifically actually. Sony is evil for selling a high tech gadget for 600. Apple can do no wrong for doing the same. It's just a bizarre viewpoint around here. I'm not intending an actual comparison between the two by any means.

My biggest question is why, when people here on slash are much more informed and have a pretty good idea what things are worth, is this the case? $600 is a bloody expensive phone. (Sure, that's pretty norm in the SMS market, but that's a niche market subsidized for the most part by big business...not really comparable)

But because it's Apple...the Apple tax is ok, even respectable to pay. Arguably, they're charging more than it's worth to produce.

With Sony, even with them selling bleeding edge tech at a LOSS, that's not good enough.

Really, I just don't understand how the average /.er places value on things, none of it makes much sense.

Re:New Apple Base station

[poulbailey]

The slight problem with that is that the WRT54G is a gigantic turd for the most part.

Apple's products are expensive, but they don't require luck and 3rd party firmware hacks from random internet people named BrainSlayer (rhymes with trustworthy). An AirPort works out of the box and works well. Paying bargain bin prices gets you bargain bin products.

Re:New Apple Base station

[LWATCDR]

I for one don't care how slick the case is.
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/SimpleHomeWe bsite
Mail server http://www.nslu2-linux.org/wiki/HowTo/SetUpAnEmail Server
VPN http://www.nslu2-linux.org/wiki/HowTo/SetUpOpenVPN Server
FTP http://www.nslu2-linux.org/wiki/HowTo/SetupFtpd
Act as a Bluetooth access point http://www.nslu2-linux.org/wiki/HowTo/NetworkSlugO verBluetooth
WebCam server http://www.nslu2-linux.org/wiki/HowTo/AddUsbWebcam

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.

Re:New Apple Base station

[mspohr]

I know it's a drag to introduce facts to the cult of the Apple fanboi but if you are considering the quality of the AirPort you may want to look at these recent "bugs" that were fixed:

The AirPort Express Firmware Updater addresses reliability and resolves issues with AirTunes, AirPort compatibility, and issues with some third party Routers.

-Resolves issue with Audio dropout when playing to AirPort Express with AirTunes -Resolves issue with Wireless Disabled mode for AirPort Express -Resolves issue with AirPort Extreme LAN Performance -Resolves issue when enabling AOL Parental Controls -Resolves issue with vulnerability to Denial of Service Attacks (bonk) -Resolves issue with wireless internet access through AirPort via some PPPoA DSL Routers -Improved reliability when printing through AirPort base stations -Improved support for RADIUS servers -Improved support for Network Time Servers (NTP) for AirPort when using an IP addresses

Also, there seems to be a new issue with AirPort process hogging CPU with VPN present.

Choose your turds wisely.

Re:New Apple Base station

[networkBoy]

That SOB is responsible for killing 4 drives (my bro and I both lost two drives attached). It has shitty recovery from a power-off event.
-nB

Re:New Apple Base station

[paeanblack]

But because it's Apple...the Apple tax is ok, even respectable to pay. Arguably, they're charging more than it's worth to produce.

With Sony, even with them selling bleeding edge tech at a LOSS, that's not good enough.

Really, I just don't understand how the average /.er places value on things, none of it makes much sense

It's all about reputation.

Apple wants to copulate with you. Sony waits for you to drop the soap.

Re:New Apple Base station

[poulbailey]

The AirPort is the only Apple product I own. You can take your cliche AOL ad hominem and bugger off.

Re:New Apple Base station

[mspohr]

The NSLU does not attempt to restart after power-off. You have to manually start it. This prevents it from trying to restart drives with odd power fluctuations and will prevent damage from power fluctuations. Your drives probably died from some other cause. The NSLU doesn't have recovery from power-off so it couldn't have caused the damage.

BTW, there is a hardware mod you can do which will restart after power off... this requires solder iron and extra parts... did you do this mod?

Re:New Apple Base station

[networkBoy]

I should have been more precise: Logical recovery. In theorey it uses EXT3 so there should be no issue, but with large volumes corruption occures from the fsck.
-nB

Re:New Apple Base station

[drsmithy]

But 10/100 only for a media centre?

What's the point of anything faster for an appliance that doesn't do anything except stream video ? Heck, a media centre could damn near get away with only 10baseT.

Re:New Apple Base station

[larkost]

Have you done the math and figured out that even the highest quality streaming that this device does does not come anywhere close to filling the bandwidth of its network connection? When you start to actually look at what it does that limitation turns out to not be a limiting factor at all.

Re:New Apple Base station

[mikedeanklein]

You don't know squat...wrt54gl is incredible peoduct that finally solved connectivity issues for various wifi products in my home...from desktop to laptop to pda/embedded. The wrt-dd distro just works...you are an idiot for making such statements...w/no facts to back them up.

Well ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Price for "Cheapo Depot" server hardware: $800
Price for MS XP: $100
The look on the face of the 14 year old that pwnes your sorry ass in less than five minutes by using the zero-day exploit of the day: Priceless

=)

You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[viking80]

I have used windows for many years, including setting up networks.
I tried to set up Windows server 2003 as a file server and a web server.
This is a file server for other Windows boxes only.

I could not get the file server to work. Then I tried the web server. Works, but to access the pages, the users have to use windows user logon. Gave up on this too.

Had basically *no* experience with linux. Installed Mandrake Linux, picked Samba and Apache.

It all worked flawlessly right away.

In addition, windows always become unstable after a few weeks of running. The Linux box has now run for two years, and no issues.

If you pick windows for a server you have to be crazy.

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

"If you pick windows for a server you have to be crazy."

Because you couldn't get Windows setup on your own (with your stellar credentials of being some guy on the Internet) we must conclude that only the crazies are using Windows? That's a very poor argument. You never even come close to explaining why you couldn't get the setup working. Your comparison to how you setup a Linux server is meaningless because we don't know what caused you problems with the Windows server;

Based on your language of "picked Samba and Apache", I am guessing you just didn't know what you were doing.

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh, I've set up lots of 2003 servers as file and web servers with no issues.

My windows boxes don't become unstable after weeks of running.

If you only had the 2nd problem, I would have guessed you had a bad driver.

Since you also had the first problem, my guess is you are just clueless.

Editing some .conf files is easy for Apache and Samba, but no easier than the windows GUI settings.

Linux, BSD, Windows, all work fine as servers if you aren't an idiot.

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. That's it. Attack the guy's competency. Sounds like another community, not the famously n00b-friendly Windows one....

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[Overzeetop]

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that it doesn't work. W2003 is not your typical desktop OS. I'm sorry you blew four figures on an OS that you couldn't figure out.

As for stability, I've had an XP Pro machine doing file and print services for four years straight except for occasional sp upgrades and patch restarts - say once every month or two. It has never crashed (BSOD), and runs 24/7 otherwise, though its really only loaded during the workday, "serving" 3 client machines.

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[gEvil (beta)]

Linux, BSD, Windows, all work fine as servers if you aren't an idiot.

And Macs work great if you are! ; )

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[oatworm]

Assuming you didn't try to set it up to do a domain, here are some quick tips... and I can't believe someone modded you insightful, either. Good heavens.

1. To share files on Windows Server 2003 in a workgroup environment, you have two choices. You can either create a login for each person that will access them on the server or you can set the NTFS permissions to "Everybody->Read" on your shares. Make sure that share permissions are "Everybody->Full Access" - this actually isn't a security hole since Windows Server 2003 grants the least permissions it can based on what you give it, which means it'll run off NTFS permissions instead, which are far more flexible. This will also give you one place to look for permissions issues, instead of trying to guess how NTFS and share permissions are working together that day.

2. You probably didn't set your IIS page to allow anonymous access. This is as easy as right-clicking on the web site in IIS, choosing "Properties", then going to "Directory Security", clicking the first "Edit" button at the top, and then checking the "Enable anonymous logon" box.

I'm not a big fan of Windows, but it's not THAT difficult. That's not to say you didn't do better by going with Samba and Apache, either.

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-gen eralization.html

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[stubear]

You sir are an idiot. I've set up a file/print/web server on Windows 2003 and had no trouble whatsoever. IIS works just for hosting my portfolio site and all the computers can access the file/print server wirelessly. Once I get my XPS M2010 (waiting on Vista) I'll be able to connect my XBOX 360 to the mix as a MC extender and store all the TV shows on the server. I had no trouble setting up the latter with the beta of Vista Ultimate. By the way, I'm just a graphic designer and was able to to all this with no problems whatsoever and no CS degree or certifications required.

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[shaneh0]

Like others have said: This is Microsofts fault how?

IIS isn't that difficult. Changing the setting from integrated windows security is, seriously, 2 or 3 clicks from the control panel.

And what do you mean you couldn't get the file server to work? That's as simple as SHARING A FOLDER and giving it appropriate security settings.

And no, it's not "idiot proof" but you're talking about a SERVER PRODUCT. A standard license runs for $999. It's meant for PROFESSIONAL ADMINISTRATORS, it's NOT meant for the home. Thus, WHS.

And by the way, had you actually paid $999 for the legit license (which, I'm guessing, you didn't) you could've called Microsoft and gotten help. I don't know what's worse, complaining about pirated software not working right (assuming you didn't buy the license), or giving up on $999 software after, apparently, hardly giving it a shot (assuming you did buy the license).

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're really saying is that your XP Pro machine has been running solid for a month or two.

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

Well, do you believe because some guy on the Internet said he had problems with Windows server and didn't have problems with Mandrake that that settles the whole debate and Mandrake > Windows for the server market? I use Linux exclusively on my servers and I certainly don't buy that argument.

In evaluating the comment, don't we need to know how competent the guy is?

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[Anonymous Coward]

Its Bill's old tried and true: "you must be a luddite if you can't operate X"

Until I can ssh into a command line shell on an out-of-the-box windows machine and get something done, it is useless to me. Windows is a toy operating system designed to showcase multimedia single-user applications (aside from its real purpose to generate revenue for MS). Interoperability and POSIX OS compliancy is a joke - it only really networks well with itself. Sure you can share files between other windows boxes, but you can't easily share cpu resources - and the FOSS community had to come up with a solution (Samba) before you could share files from a Windows box on a hetrogenous network.

Someone could make Windows useful - on par with linux/unix - but I doubt that will come from Redmond. They have no interest in doing so. Then again, with the unrealistic pricetag, interoperability issues and moby failures (security, OS bugs, and spy/disable-ware), why would anyone put anything mission critical on a Windows platform anyway?

Windows is snake oil. I said it when I loaded 3.1, I continue to say that today, and nothing out of Redmond has proven me wrong.

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[Anonymous Coward]

The Linux box has now run for two years, and no issues.

I know, your home server has been very stable and reliable and for the most part of these two years, I have tunneled my hacking attacks through it. Keep up the good work!

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[GeckoX]

My experience, and that of many others, does not line up with yours.

This has been done millions of times now. It works. We're not talking NT4 here.

The hour for that kind of baseless FUD is well past. 8 years ago you would have had a point, but you've missed a few boats since.

Further, it is complete bullshit that someone who can't even get a windows 2003 server up and running with basic file sharing and web services would have an easy time setting up Mandrake, Samba and Apache.

I'm sorry, but your FUD is showing through loud and clear.

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[cjjjer]

I have used windows for many years, including setting up networks. I tried to set up Windows server 2003 as a file server and a web server. This is a file server for other Windows boxes only. I could not get the file server to work. Then I tried the web server. Works, but to access the pages, the users have to use windows user logon. Gave up on this too. Had basically *no* experience with linux. Installed Mandrake Linux, picked Samba and Apache. It all worked flawlessly right away. In addition, windows always become unstable after a few weeks of running. The Linux box has now run for two years, and no issues. If you pick windows for a server you have to be crazy.

Two problems with this:

A. "I have used windows for many years, including setting up networks"
B. Flagged as "Insightful"

Sorry dude but if you say you have "set up many windows networks" I have to wonder if you are full of shit. My home network server runs WINS, DNS, DHCP, HTTP (.NET and PHP), SQL Server, MySQL, ISA, Active Directory and a DFS and the only time I have to reboot is when I decide to run a Windows Update, it has never just gone down unless I made it go down. This all on a 1.8ghz, 1gb ram on Windows 2003 Standard. Oh yeah I have had no training in Windows Networking (a developer) and this is the only Windows Network I have set up. All this based on reading stuff off the internet when I got stuck.

If I had moderator points I would have flagged you as a troll since that's all you are doing. I would assume that people have flagged this comment as insightful because you mentioned how bad Windows was and how good Linux is without realizing what you said didn't make any sense.

Not to me anyway.

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[dtanderson]

I have setup a Windows 2003 server as a file server with no problems. Each person only has access to their files.

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[damienl451]

You know, setting up a Linux server can sometimes be a real pain in the neck too. I have some experience with Linux (helped set up a couple servers, been using it for years on all my computers,etc.), and I can assure you that I've seen some freaky stuff that got me scratching my head... Like the time all I wasn't able to access any directory because the site admin's script didn't get rid of some control characters that ended up messing up the /etc/passwd file read bad. Or when the SAMBA team "updated" their software and changed the way groups are handled, which is why I'm still running FC5 on my server at home. Compare what you have to do to set up Apache (edit the config file manually,etc.) to what you *should* have done to solve your problem on Windows, and you'll see that ease of use is not what's making most people use Linux.

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you're an idiot. Fileserver? No need to do anything at all! It's always there by default. In explorer just type \\servername\sharename (or \\computername\\c$ and such to use the administrative shares which are already there). Want more? Create the new shares where you want 'em (with the permissions you please), and of course make sure they have the required NTFS permissions too. The *only* thing I can imagine possibly getting in the way is a firewall.

Web server hard? Go to add/remove programs -> windows components -> Internet Information Server. Done! How hard was that? Need to change something? Go in MMC under IIS manager, and change stuff to suit your needs.

In many years of IT work, I've never seen either fail to work out of the box (or after selecting IIS in add/remove programs), not even once. And we've never had stability problems with this. Sounds like the usual Win9x-era BSOD FUD.

I can't say my install experience of just apache was nearly as smooth. Services not installed by default (didn't even know linux had services), ports not open, server not started, nothing configured, no idea where the web server's root directory/folder was at (htdocs or whatever you want to call it) - not like the installer tells you (and seemingly it changes from a distro to another), had a VERY hard time to get to the default page in firefox (apache just wouldn't serve the default page for reasons I couldn't figure out). Had to google for guides and stuff. It was a nightmare. I don't believe anyone with no experience with linux could just pick it up like that on the first attempt, configure it all properly (and have it all properly secured), stable and all. Tons of the stuff I read made no sense to me (things like the "wheel group" under BSD, or chmod this some number or whatever). I wouldn't even know where to start for samba, setting permissions, creating shares and such. I'd have to find some really good tutorials, take a course, or find some very good books and read for a while. And I'd doubt my work a lot - just might get hacked for not securing something right.

In other news, an incompetent idiot calls others crazy for picking something he doesn't understand but works fine for everybody else...

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[ivan256]

And what do you mean you couldn't get the file server to work? That's as simple as SHARING A FOLDER and giving it appropriate security settings.

The default server role screens that come up lead you away from the easy way to accomplish many tasks. They also changed basic things about how the windows UI and the windows Server UI work in 2003 to make it sufficiently confusing for people who have basic experience with the older windows server products. The "Manage your Server" interface from 2000 is still there, for example, but "My Computer" is hidden by default, and the control panel is different, so it isn't easy to find the old way.

Personally, I much prefer configuring a Debian Linux server to a W2k3 server. Sure, it's not all graphical, but it's straightforward with basic knowledge, and hasn't changed for years. Plus it takes about 2 minutes to get to the point where I'm back in a comfy office chair doing the setup compared to the good 30 minutes standing in front of a rack for w2k3 before you can get a remote desktop.

Neither way is sufficient for a home user. If Microsoft doesn't fix their confusing settings UIs, I doubt they'll sell many of these home server things. The wizards had best be much easier than the ones in W2k3 also, because they're confusing as hell if you don't know what you're doing now.

And by the way, had you actually paid $999 for the legit license (which, I'm guessing, you didn't) you could've called Microsoft and gotten help. I don't know what's worse, complaining about pirated software not working right (assuming you didn't buy the license), or giving up on $999 software after, apparently, hardly giving it a shot

Incidentally, when you buy Server 2003, it's usually pre-installed on a server, and it comes with no free tech support whatsoever. I agree though. If you just dropped some cash on a non-refundable product, you wouldn't toss it in the bin, you'd figure it out. He probably pirated it.

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[Overzeetop]

Yes, my server runs for a month or two without a single keystroke or mouse movement of management. If it weren't for the inherent need to restart the system (which takes all of 5 minutes when I decide I probably ought to install the updates), there's no reason to believe that it would even need to be restarted. We see no loss of use over those couple of months, and no advantage upon restart. For my purposes (file and print services), it has run without a single instance of required intervention on the OS for 4 years. This is not a five or six - nines machine, just as a home server is not. We have traffic 9-12 hours a day. I don't consider pressing "install updates, restart when complete" to be an onerous task to perform eight times a year.

But hey, if you've got a production server that can't handle being down for 0.008% of the time, maybe you're not really looking for a "simplified" server OS.

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[xanadu-xtroot.com]

Its Bill's old tried and true: "you must be a luddite if you can't operate X"

I'll have to agree with BillyG on this, I do find X very easy to use.

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[fullphaser]

Funny I didn't even pick up a server version of windows. Ran Apache, PHP, and MySQL on Home Edition and anyone within my home network could view the web pages just fine.

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[644bd346996]

He had no experience with servers, Windows or Linux, and in fact no Linux experience at all. But when he tried to set up a simple server, it turned out that it was much easier to do with Linux. Windows servers should be easy to use. Combine that with LAMP's reputation for being more powerful and more secure than any Microsoft platforms, and you have to wonder who in their right mind would chose to use a Windows server. Windows servers should be easy to use.

Apache has the majority of the web server market. It is very popular amongst large corporations, and apparently it is not that hard for newbies to use. That leaves Microsoft with a tenuous middle ground, if anything.

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[shaneh0]

The server roles wizard is about as easy as it gets, so blaming that for the problem is 1) just a guess on your part and 2) not in conflict with my original point that a Server OS is for professional admins, not Mr. Home NetworkGuy.

Not to mention, you can click a checkbox on it and it never gets displayed again.

And you're right, "My Computer" is hidden. In fact, the screen is blank of all icons except the Recycle Bin. Windows XP is the same way. Adding these icons is pretty simple, but in any event the start menu was still there.

If this guy had trouble getting to a folder that he could right click and share, it should be obvious that he is in no way qualified to administer a server.

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

"He had no experience with servers, Windows or Linux, and in fact no Linux experience at all. But when he tried to set up a simple server, it turned out that it was much easier to do with Linux. Windows servers should be easy to use."

Windows servers ARE easy to setup. I rarely hear of people running into the problems the original poster is describing. As long as you're going to deduce that Windows server is hard to setup based on one guy's statement, I'm going to presume he is ignorant based on hearing many more stories of people who have found Windows server very easy to setup.

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[mjwx]

So.. you have to actually be an idiot to use a Mac. Makes sense and explains why I don't like using them.

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[viking80]

1. I find it offensive, and I think it says more about you than me, that you suggest that the copy was pirated. It was not.

2. Of course it is easy to share folders. However, if you have some computers with Windows for workgroups. some with security domains etc, you can *not* just share folders.

3. IIS is easy to set up and run if you dont need any features. Try to set up IIS with multiple domain names, and right security levels for the different parts. Try to do simple load balancing. Try to do simple packet mangling. Or rewrite requested URLs on the fly.

I tried this in good faith, and just gave up on Win. If you know how to do this, I would like to try again.

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[viking80]

Not very competent at setting up web servers apparently. Maybe just impatient.

Did however write an IP stack, file servers, network boot software etc in use in most large router on the net.
Did set up a global network for ATT, and some national networks.

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[ivan256]

The server roles wizard is about as easy as it gets, so blaming that for the problem is 1) just a guess on your part

I do this stuff all the time, and personally I find that for many tasks the roles wizard is obtuse. I prefer to set things up without it.

2) not in conflict with my original point that a Server OS is for professional admins, not Mr. Home NetworkGuy.

I guess I wouldn't argue with that... My comment was more of a pointless rant, really.

If this guy had trouble getting to a folder that he could right click and share, it should be obvious that he is in no way qualified to administer a server.

Insert "Windows" in there, and I'll go along, otherwise I think that's absurd. If you're not familiar with windows servers, why would you think to right click, much less to do that to set up file services? It doesn't work like that on any other OS. Additionally, everybody needs to start somewhere.

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

"network boot software etc in use in most large router on the net."

What's the name of this suite of tools that is used in "most large router on the net"? What company released it?

I think you're full of it.

NAS anyone?

[Library Spoff]

I appreciate people wish to share photos etc online with friends and family.
The slashdot crowd take old pc`s and turn em into servers.

Surely the way forward for home users is networked storage that probably use less AC than a PC?
Especially as we are now seeing combined adsl-router-NAS with built in raid. Is there then less chance of getting owned than with a MS based system? I know server 2003 that this is based on is more secure than previous MS offerings, but still...

Re:NAS anyone?

[nine-times]

If all you want is a NAS, why not go with something from Buffalo? I've never used one myself, but it's a simple Linux-based NAS. From what I hear, you can also buy a version of these things that can be heavily modified, including installing debian or gentoo. But if you want something easy, the Buffalo products themselves aren't supposed to require much expertise.

Re:NAS anyone?

[oatworm]

There's also FreeNAS. The rub here, though, is that, at least when I last tried it, it's the only thing that should be installed on the box. On the other hand, if you have an old PC and a couple of hard drives, it'll let you make a software mirror between them and share files on it. I won't claim my experience with it is authoritative, but it was pretty easy to figure out.

Re:NAS anyone?

[egjertse]

If you have the hardware to run VMWare Server (free) you can always use the FreeNAS VMWare Appliance.

Re:NAS anyone?

[nmos]

Agreed about using a NAS instead of a PC but I don't think I'd want it integrated into a dsl modem/router or anything else that is directly connected to the internet with a public IP address.

FWIW I've used the Buffalo and Infrant ReadyNAS units. Both support up to 4 drives. The Infrant units were more expensive but much faster and generally seemed better designed and built. You could also use something like the Linksys NUSL2 which you plug external USB drives into instead of installing them inside a server. The only problems with this approach is that it fosters a rats nest of wires (seperate power and usb cables for each USB drive) and I have yet to see an external USB drive case that was really appropriate for 24/7 operation. They mainly come in 2 flavors, plastic + a cheap fan guaranteed to die within a year or 2, or Aluminum with no fan but they still tend to run pretty warm. I've been thinking of building a small wooden rack that I could slide these USB drives into, mount a fan on the reer, usb hub inside, and then buy/build a power supply that could feed all 4 (or however many) drives.

Re:NAS anyone?

[happyboy100]

The funny thing is, iomega is already selling this. It is weird because on their site it is called StorCenter and supposed to be about 2K, but Fry's is selling them for $600 with a 50 dollar mail-in rebate. 4 250GB drives that can be run JBOD or RAID, Gig-E, Wireless client or server, print server w/2 USB ports. $600. and it is Windows, which I was really surprised by. Does uPnP. Macs, linux, everyone can connect. Not bad speed on transfers, not an Infrant, but half the price.

That Ease of Use Thing

[blueZhift]

This sounds pretty good, and depending on pricing, something I could use. I can, and have cobbled together various backup sever solutions over the years, but who has time for all of that? Having the choice of a hardware bundle or loading my own custom server sounds like a pretty easy path. Aside from pricing, the only other issue of concern to me is how buggy with the first releases be. I wonder if this will easily integrate with an Xbox 360 at some point. It might be just the thing to address the 20GB hard drive limitation right now.

Cold day in hell

[Divebus]

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.

Huh.

[AltGrendel]

I still wouldn't buy that.

Is it going to be easy..

[Shiptar]

To convince folks that when they go out and buy a new machine they really need 2?

Sure, you can get it retail, but the product doesn't seemed designed or targeted at people who would install it themselves.

I know burning data to DVDs is tough these days, but still, it doesn't seem like an easy sell...

What does this do

[rsilvergun]

that I can't already do with share level access and the appropriate client application? Does it handle sharing removable drives better (i.e. mp3 players)? Will I be able to create NT domains with it? Will mapped network drives finally stop periodically vanishing?

I mean, really, does any home user need the kind of performance a networking OS brings? You're gonna have at most 10 computers hooked up to the darn thing. Now, otoh, it might be a cheap way to build a domain :).

Re:What does this do

[gEvil (beta)]

Now, otoh, it might be a cheap way to build a domain

Yes, but I don't like being master of my domain.

Re:What does this do

[tef]

As far as I've read, it will auto backup all machines on the network so you can do remote restores if one of the workstations dies. And supposidly, if there is the same file on 2 different machines, it only backs it up once so its not hoggging up room.
So your windows xp install, will only be backed up once for however many machines you have.. Will save a tone of room for backups.

Re:What does this do

[sulfur]

I'm pretty sure there will be *absolutely* no way to use WHS as a domain controller. Aren't you familiar with Microsoft policy yet? (WinXP connections limit, etc) Most likely it will lack all the functionality that Microsoft considers Joe Home-User doesn't need.

Re:What does this do

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm out!

512MB RAM

[b0s0z0ku]

Why does something that's essentially a glorified NAS box need 512MB RAM?! This seems a bit bloated for what it does. If you want a good home/small-office server solution, why not go with something like SME Server 7? It's free, runs fast, takes about 10 min. to install and can be setup not *just* to be a NAS box - you can install whatever you want since it's a LAMP box.

-b.

Re:512MB RAM

[ErrataMatrix]

If it's running windows it does

Re:512MB RAM

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.joomla.org/

This is my guess...

Re:512MB RAM

[Gothmolly]

LAMP? You're ghey.

Re:512MB RAM

[Corporate Troll]

My fileserver has 512Meg RAM... Not that it uses it, because top reports 34Meg used. Oh, well, I guess it has plenty of space for caching then ;-)

Back when

[wetfeetl33t]

Back in my day we had Samba, and we were grateful for it!

Re:Back when

[hobbesx]

Back in my day we had Samba, and we were grateful for it!

Heh, In the days of real computers we had to beg, just to use Kermit!

Its a trick, get an axe.....

[gentimjs]

"based on windows 2k3 server" ... so the target users will think "ok, it wont lock down my content like vista will" .... but unbeknownst to them, will have (as usual) more than its share of "critical" fixes neccessitating a service pack in the first 8 months. A service pack that just happens to "upgrade" you to vista-style DRM shit and lock-down existing files.

Tread carefully..

Mote like SBE for Home Media

[Overzeetop]

The SBE (Small Business Edition) is a streamlined (in terms of set up and interface) version of W2003. It's preconfigured for common uses for small groups, but it can be tinkered with however you like. They've hobbled it to make sure nobody with a large group uses it (in which case you should probably have an IT guy who knows what he's doing, and can set up W2003 properly).

At least, that's what it sounds like. I think SBE is about $1k at retail, I think, with promo/NFR versions down in the $400-500 range.

I'm going to guess $600 for the retail software. We'll see how close I was when it really ships.

Home servers cost

[Seismologist]

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.

Re:Home servers cost

[NineNine]

an't see how a home server from MS would be any less complicated than setting up a Redhat Linux server

+1 Funny.

Re:Home servers cost

[westlake]

I haven't RTFA, but knowing what prices MS charges for their products, why would anyone buy into it

WHS will be priced for OEM sales to HP and Dell.

Same as always. The home buyer is not a system builder and doesn't give a damn about retail list.

I can't see how a home server from MS would be any less complicated than setting up a Redhat Linux server.

Let me suggest one reason why Red Hat abandoned the home market:

When Microsoft sought beta testers for Windows Vista, it wasn't looking for just anybody. The company wanted to find a wide variety of testers ranging from novice users to respected experts. Microsoft's search was not limited to individuals, either. 50 families also participated in the testing of Windows Vista.

The program that the families were involved in was called "Life with Windows Vista", and it started around the time of Vista's first beta release. Using videotapes of the families interacting with the operating system, personal interviews, and background reporting, Microsoft was able to create gigs of data reports that the development teams used to uncover bugs and tweak the OS. According to eWeek, the families discovered over 800 bugs. Testing Vista as a family function

Re:Home servers cost

[drsmithy]

an't see how a home server from MS would be any less complicated than setting up a Redhat Linux server

+1 Funny.

+2 Funnier - because he's almost certainly serious.

What if

[D3viL]

Waht if I think I need 0 disks?

Re:What if

[shaneh0]

That's fine. Although, I would add one more for redundancy.

Re:What if

[GungaDan]

GOSH! {/napoleondynamite} You don't *add* for redundancy. You *multiply* for redundancy. So a fully-redundant, failsafe configuration would still involve only zero drives...

Xbox 360?

[shaka999]

Do any other NAS type boxes work with the 360? Thats the one thing that seemed unique about WHS was that you could use it to store media for the 360.

Re:Xbox 360?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's an arbitrary and monopolistic limitation. I love my 360 but am extremely bitter that I have to have "Windows XP Media Center" edition to stream MPEG2 video.

Since I'm primarily a Mac user these days, I'm thinking of just getting the Apple TV unit next month and saying "screw you" to MS because of this issue. 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.

Re:Xbox 360?

[drsmithy]

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"...

Re:Xbox 360?

[Anonymous Coward]

Already own the computer and it'll let me play my "open" MPEG-2 files. Additionally, if I wanted to switch to Windows for some reason, Apple TV will work with that as well.

~$2000 for a Windows Media Center
~$300 for an Apple Media Extender

Easy choice. And having the choice of server OS certainly reduces lock-in. I'm not so interested in purchasing DRM infested media from either vendor. Just playing the clean stuff I have.

Re:Xbox 360?

[drsmithy]

~$2000 for a Windows Media Center

WTF are you talking about. I can buy a low-end MCE device in _Australia_ for under a thousand bucks - it's hard to see how an equivalent would cost much more than US$500. Heck, you could build one yourself with a Mac Mini for under US$800, and that's hardly the cheapest way to go about it.

Holy shit. For US$2000 you could probably buy enough Windows MCE equipment to make it accessible in 4 or 5 rooms at once.

~$300 for an Apple Media Extender

Which has a mere fraction of the functionality of MCE.

If all you want is the few things an AppleTV does and don't mind sacrificing yet another TV input to do it, then great - but comparing it to MCE is just ridiculous. An MCE device is easily worth 2x or more the cost of an AppleTV.

Easy choice. And having the choice of server OS certainly reduces lock-in.

What on Earth are you talking about ?

Real Rocket Science

[Anonymous Coward]

The company will support multiple home servers on the same network, but it's still murky how that will work."

1973 called. It wants its system interconnectivity dilemmas back.

Opportunity for Hardware OEMS and Linux!

[businessnerd]

So now since MS is going to spend a ton of money on marketing the idea of home users running file servers, I think this is a perfect opportunity for the likes of Dell and HP to sell their own, less expensive HomeNAS. They take a NAS device, that they already make for the enterprise, throw on a lightweight Linux. Throw on some Samba, Apache, etc. Write some easy to use "Wizards" to make it really easy for the normal Windows user to connect their PC's, upload files, and do things like schedule backups, and you have a much lower cost solution than the likes of Microsoft. On top of that, it's more secure, more stable, and the software is OSS!

Re:Opportunity for Hardware OEMS and Linux!

[nine-times]

Honestly, I've been wishing someone would provide appropriate hardware for a home server for a long time. Save the price of any sound hardware, an expensive processors or video cards. Give me a cheap but well-made small system with lots of hard drive space. It doesn't need lots of processor or RAM, and it would be fine. Just 500GB-1TB of storage, ethernet, and otherwise just enough hardware to get Linux installed. All I want is a NAS/Apache/E-mail server that I can ssh into, and maybe a serial port that will open to a terminal, just in case.

Re:Opportunity for Hardware OEMS and Linux!

[NSIM]

So now since MS is going to spend a ton of money on marketing the idea of home users running file servers, I think this is a perfect opportunity for the likes of Dell and HP to sell their own, less expensive HomeNAS. They take a NAS device, that they already make for the enterprise, throw on a lightweight Linux.

Those NAS servers from DELL and HP already run Windows Storage Server, so certifying the new MS Home Server is a no-brainer. Certifying LINUX and supporting it is non-trivial, especially if the target market is Joe Consumer who is a long way from ready for LINUX (that or LINUX is a long from ready for Joe Consumer) That said, these boxes are probably overkill for home server applications anyway.

Re:Opportunity for Hardware OEMS and Linux!

[I'm Don Giovanni]

If you read the article, you'd see that HP is already signed up to sell MS Home Server machines.
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/whs_04. jpg

Re:Opportunity for Hardware OEMS and Linux!

[ir]

just use your old pc

Re:Opportunity for Hardware OEMS and Linux!

[westlake]

I think this is a perfect opportunity for the likes of Dell and HP to sell their own, less expensive HomeNAS. They take a NAS device, that they already make for the enterprise, throw on a lightweight Linux. Throw on some Samba, Apache, etc.

Microsoft bears the expense of adapting a mature server OS for the home.

A server the user can access remotely without ever thinking about the difference between a static and dynamic IP address. With data protection perhaps more robust and certainly easier to understand than RAID. No need to power down to add or replace a drive.

Hot Swap at mass market prices.

HP puts it in a box styled to match your Home Theater components. HP sells the product with a Microsoft logo in a market that has a Windows PC in the den, an XBox 360 in the game room, and Sync in the car.

Now make the business case for rolling out your own Linux solution.

Re:Opportunity for Hardware OEMS and Linux!

[daverabbitz]

Joe consumer is a dumbass, and I couldn't give two shits what he's ready for.

now where did I put that shotgun...

Welcome to the year 2000 microsoft

[geoff lane]

Had a home server for years. It used to run Fedora, but I upgraded to Solaris 10.

Why is it that Microsoft is always five years behind the times?

Re:Welcome to the year 2000 microsoft

[red crab]

They release their products 5 years later, claim that they were the ones who invented it and still manage to eat out all the market share.

Re:Welcome to the year 2000 microsoft

[cyclomedia]

5 years? That's fast for MS, in 1985ish the Amiga was born, who's filesystem allowed logical volume names to be attatched to every device and then be intrinsically addressed by that name by the OS or any application, regardless if it was a Hard Disk, Floppy, CD, Ramdisk or a folder in a subdirectory somewhere that you wanted to promote to volume status by running a command called "Assign" ... absobloodyutely astonishingly simple. imagine being able to switch to a backup website by just changing the logical volume "Webs" to point to a different location... And MS is *still* stuck on Drive letters and absolute paths, the best we can hope for is to mount a network drive on letter W and point that back to the location on the same computer.

don't know why i felt the need to rant about that, it's been a stick up my ass for over a decade now

Purest, refined bullsh*t

[NSIM]

A service pack that just happens to "upgrade" you to vista-style DRM shit and lock-down existing files.

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!!!!

Re:Purest, refined bullsh*t

[kseise]

Would like to, but I don't have it installed. Stupid VM limitations. Ubuntu FTW!

Re:Purest, refined bullsh*t

[NSIM]

Would like to, but I don't have it installed. Stupid VM limitations. Ubuntu FTW!

Well, I've been running it for about 18 months and it has never done anything to my non-DRM content except play it without hesitation.

Shutup.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh shutup. Windows has never been difficult in allowing it to share data.

At the MOST you have to say "Yes, I know it's dangerous to share my pr0n". Click Yes and you're sharing.

Drop the OSS fanboy attitude.

Re:Shutup.

[Anonymous Coward]

"At the MOST you have to say "Yes, I know it's dangerous to share my pr0n". Click Yes and you're sharing."

You obviosly have never tried to use windows to share your pr0n. :P

I call BS

[iceperson]

Setting up a windows server is about as straight forward as you can get. Setting up a linux anything on the other hand is a complete crapshoot that works only when the planets are in alignment with all the hardware you have. I gave up my last attempt after spending days trying to get any of the network adapters (both wired and wireless) I had working in linux.

Re:I call BS

[mrbcs]

SME Server http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=smes erver

Re:I call BS

[DaveM753]

Wow...the planets have been lining up a lot lately. I set up Ubuntu for myself two months ago on one PC, installed it on a dual-boot laptop about two weeks ago (using this one now) and on Tuesday I made my XP box into a dual-boot with Fedora. All hardware is working fine. I'm sure other folks out there in the world are having similar success.

Crapshoot? I think not.

Re:I call BS

[mikedeanklein]

How's suspend/resume working on that laptop? Or usb web cameras....or bluetooth...or ?!? I thought so....linux has a ways to go for seamless desktop/laptop install. Progress in this area is at a snail's pace....and I am a linux user.

Let's talk security

[Opportunist]

One thing's for sure. Servers are amongst the most interesting pieces of hardware you can hijack. They run 24/7, they usually have a good bandwidth (ok, not necessarily so for home servers) and they usually also have lots of storage space.

The target audience for those server systems are home users. Who not necessarily have any clue when it comes to security. Actually, it is quite likely that the people buying this kind of system will not have a lot of knowledge in the IT area. And of security.

The systems will also be very similar, if not identical. Unlike Linux boxes, which can almost never be hijacked cookie-cutter style, this would open the venue for boxes which are most likely easier to hack than current implementations of servers.

Not necessarily because MS does a worse job than OSS developers. But it's just like with the other MS systems. The possible gain from a working exploit is incredible, so the effort will match it. And twice so if you can rely on the system running 24/7 and having lots of storage.

I predict a completely new kind of problem for the 'net.

Re:Let's talk security

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh. M$ is building a botnet.

Re:Let's talk security

[Opportunist]

Another one? Isn't the one called "Windows" large enough yet?

Simpler shorter translation

[Alsee]

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

They sure used a lot of words to say:
"stripped everything except DRM services"

-

Microsoft's attemp to change how we use hardware..

[109 97 116 116]

With this home server coupled to what I know about Vista, how it works, and it's licensing stipulations, I have arrived at a conclusion as to what Microsoft wants you to think in regards to computer hardware and it's use in the future.

Knowing that Vista's licensing currently allows limited hardware alterations before requiring a new license, this server is almost a necessity. It seems to me that Microsoft wishes to alter the traditional role of the Personal Computer from it's current form, an upgradeable freely chosen conglomeration of hardware designed to function as a unit, user customizable based on what the user deems is necessary or desirable to a format where content is stored on this home server, and fed to your new box that is practically disposable. This server coupled with Vista is in my opinion what Microsoft thinks the world should have, rather than an all powerful PC with it's potential for upgrades. It looks like they want to close the gap between what a game console and a PC is to the home user. If they could do this I can imagine many marketing positives in this regard. Likely the biggest is a single product line gets all new engineering time.

That said, this might be a positive thing in the future, if hardware technology is released at a faster and faster rate, it may be a good thing to create a nearly disposable PC, except for the environmental concerns (which isn't a small issue).

I have many non-hardware-enthusiast friends who usually buy a cheaper big name PC with the thought that within a year or two they can upgrade to an exponentially better PC for similar money or less, in the end saving likely 50% of buying that real smoking PC the first time around. It works for them, and they always have a newer PC.

109 97 116 116

I've already got a "home server"

[Paulrothrock]

I've got a Mac Mini at home that's set up as a fax server, a fileserver with an external USB 2.0 hard drive, a print server, a web server, and an ssh portal. Setting it up was ridiculously easy: - One click to enable printer sharing. - One click to enable file sharing - A few clicks and keystrokes to make non-admin accounts and home folders for my wife and I Then I did a couple slightly geeky things like partition the external drive and write a cron job to rsync to my web host nightly that most people wouldn't be doing, but the Mac Mini, even without a special "server" OS, is a great way to get a cheap, reliable, Unix-based server. Heck, I've even got mine running as a development server with PHP/MySQL and RoR (thanks to Locomotive). And to make me feel less guilty about having a computer running 24/7, it's running the ClimatePrediction.net BOINC project. In the future, when I get an iTV, I'm definitely going to be having iTunes running in both of our separate user accounts so that we can stream our stuff to our TV. Lately I've been hooking my Powerbook up to our TV using S-Video and the headphone jack. The only problem I can see using iTV is videos I acquire through, *ahem*, alternative distribution methods will require some conversion before they're viewable. However, season passes to shows through the iTunes music store means I can finally, FINALLY, tell Comcast where they can put their $70/month internet access. From what I've read about the Windows Home Server, it doesn't give me much more capability than my Mini, other than it can be installed in tower enclosures

Re:I've already got a "home server"

[radish]

Wow. You mean you can use a desktop Mac as a server? No way!

*ahem*

People have been doing the same thing with many other OS's for a number of years. I have a cheap PC running XP with a bunch of disks and it does a fine job handling print, media and web serving duties. Linux or *BSD would work just as well (the only reason I don't use one of those is that I have some software running on it which is Win only).

The thing that WHS is doing is making this easier for the average user. For one thing, making it controllable from an application on another machine, not using remote desktop. Also automated backups and so-on. It's not doing anything new or unique, just making it a little more plug & play.

What would be the diff between

[majortom1981]

What is the difference between windows home server and a windows xp pro machine with sp2 with shares and permissions setup on it or windows vista home premium with media center or windows media center 2005?

Re:What would be the diff between

[NSIM]

What is the difference between windows home server and a windows xp pro machine with sp2 with shares and permissions setup on it or windows vista home premium with media center or windows media center 2005?

You could always read the article which would help explain it to you, but if that's too much trouble here are the highlights: 1. Simple storage administration, no drive letters, one big filesystem, if you need more capacity just add more disk and the OS takes care of integrating it into the storage pool 2. Backup for XP & Vista clients 3. Simple policies for things virus protection, little Johny comes home and sticks his pox-ridden PC on the network, Home Server will isolate it and prevent it from infecting everybody else. 4. GUI designed for simple admin of a box that is dedicated as headless server

Re:What would be the diff between

[I'm Don Giovanni]

From what I gather, there are a number of differences, both in ease of use and features.

For example, Windows Home Server supports automatic redundancy so if a drive fails, you don't lose the data. But they don't use RAID, they use a setup so that you can just plug in additional internal and external drives, and the drive is automatically added to the pool of available drives. But each piece of data automatically exists on two of the hooked up drives.

Quotiing from the article:

On the server-side, WHS finally does away with drive letters. "No-one gets drive letters in Windows Home Server," Headrick said. "They'd just forget where they put stuff." Instead, WHS aggregates all of the storage attached to the server into a single store pool, regardless of whether that storage is internal, external, or a combination. As you add drives to the server, the available storage pool simply increases.

I asked whether this technology was based on DFS (Distributed File System), but Headrick told me that this was, in fact, yet another example of new software out of Microsoft Research. Data is mirrored at the shared folder level, so that two copies of a folder are always stored on two different physical hard drives. It's quite different from RAID, Headrick says. "RAID is an insect spray," he cracked. "With RAID, you must understand the technology, add disks in sets, and its hard to remove drives." With WHS, storage is hot-swappable. You can plug in an 80 GB hard drive, for example, and configure it quickly with the WHS Add Drive wizard. When you want to remove it and replace it with a 500 GB drive, there's a simple wizard for that as well.

Headrick compares WHS storage to toast in a toaster: It's user-serviceable and there are no screws. I think it's one of the most innovative features in the server, and it could very well help revolutionize how people interact with backups, since it will be so easy to add storage and ensure that you're always retaining a wide range of backups.

One final point about WHS storage. Were you to pull a drive out of WHS and try to access the disk from another Windows-based PC, that system would see the disk as standard NTFS. So it will work anywhere, though of course the backups are written in a proprietary data format.

My Opinion

[guysmilee]

People seem to focus on what this competes with only on the software side (i.e. apache, samba, etc). In the long run windows home server will compete much more with things like "my space", "iblogger", and google ... it will give MS the foothold they need to do things google can't do with their search technology ... and allow some really cool things myspace etc could never compete with. MS gave those windows laptops away for a reason ... it's not becuase the care about apache, samba, etc ... they want to take over blog-land!

Nevermind, its 2003 with a dumbed down interface

[majortom1981]

Nevermind. This windows home server is windows 2003 with a much easier interface. It basically makes serving things out and general server stuff much easier. It can take automatic backups of all the pcs on the network (i mean full images), gets rid of drive letters and stuff liek that. IT has a whole bunch of new "microsoft technologies" . But its basically a much easier and non comp geek friendly server.wich doubles as a computer backup solution.

MythTV?

[SanityInAnarchy]

Anyone want to tell me why Linux isn't already up to the task?

And I imagine "ease of use" is one, but are there any other reasons, assuming I refuse to use DRM which hasn't been thoroughly cracked (DVDs)?

Re:MythTV?

[majortom1981]

This is different. Much different. This will take automatic full image backups at specific intervals. IT has a dumbed down interface to makeseting it up much easier It gets rid of drive letters sort of like dfs but based on a different tech. Basically no matter what physical drive the data is on it will all look like its in the same place. supposedly microsoft states this is not based on dfs. It stores things differently sort of like raid but not using raid tech. Also the servers will intergrate with windows live this also monitors the health of every windows based pc on your network . also these boxes will have no keyboard ports. They will only have an ethernet port, and a power cord port. just like nas devices.

Re:MythTV?

[SanityInAnarchy]

Ok, so this is MythTV + SNMP + AFS/CODA. Which, frankly, I think the AFS/CODA would be a mistake vs traditional Samba/NFS.

Really, is there anything new and compelling, other than that nice interface? (And I'm told MythTV has a nice interface, too...)

Re:MythTV?

[dagamer34]

The individual pieces may not be new, but rarely are you going to come up with a completely new concept to fulfill a need from scratch. WHS brings all those things together in an easy to use fashion so yeah, it's pretty new to the 99.999% of the public that has no idea how to set one up using today's software.

beefed up nas device

[majortom1981]

This is beefed up network storage. ITs more like a nas device then a server. This will have no monitor conenctions or keyboard ports. People read the link paul thurrott explains the whole thing on his site. Its sounds interesting. especially for people who know nothing about computers.

Home Networking Enthusiast??

[D iz a n k Meister]

This is a hobby for some people?

Re:Home Networking Enthusiast??

[eclectro]

This is a hobby for some people?

If you have family members (aka parents) that need it but don't know how to do it, unfortunately yes.

hmmm..i've had one of these for years

[jackdaw]

been doing this for about 5 years now, using old pc's and various flavors of linux...

YoU FAIL it

[Anonymous Coward]

anothe

hardware appliance?

[Gothmolly]

And when the crappy eMachines PC you bought for $299 dies, what happens to your data? What about those backups... oh yeah, there aren't any.

This type of niche is best filled by an appliance, with real HW. Wait, that means it will cost money, which puts it out of the niche market.

Re:hardware appliance?

[majortom1981]

Did you even read the article. The box is not a standard pc. its basically a nas device. It has no monitor ports no keyboard ports. Just an ethernet and poiwer port. This is basically a smart nas device for the home.

Re:hardware appliance?

[Gothmolly]

Did you even read the article.

You must be new here.

'splain this to me, anyone? I call bullshit.

[way2trivial]

Headrick said that they're seeing 15-19 TB of data stored in 300 GB or less of backup space

WHAT?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

overkill

[towsonu2003]

512MB of RAM? for a server? weird stuff...

Grammatical adventures

[Anonymous Coward]

"In any event Microsoft 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."

Ponder the above sentence; perchance, tardily, comprehend it.

what works for me...

[blindd0t]

What has been working for me is Ubuntu Server. I have a nice mini-atx case with a P3 700MHz processor and 512MB of PC133 RAM and a 120 GB hard disk. The server runs very fast, and has been more than I have ever needed for my personal needs. I use it as a small file server that is also accessible via SFTP (allowing me to do some work-related R&D at home and transfer the files to and from the office), I put my wife's portfolio/resume up there for interviews, and so on. It works great, and has never been put under any kind of serious load. It also uses very little power, generates very little heat, and is whisper-quiet. Ubuntu 6.10 server allows me to set up a LAMP server *very* easily, and from there setting up my favorite CMS was also *very* easy.

What I want to know is, even if they "dumb-down" the server administration and (at least to some extent) security, how much else can they dumb-down for this? Does it come with a database server? The average home user would probably like to host a web site, but are they going to include a feature-rich CMS to do this? Probably not...

Re:what works for me...

[pedalman]

It also uses very little power, generates very little heat, and is whisper-quiet.

Must be some really boring pr0n, if it generates very little heat.

Re:what works for me...

[DaveM753]

His wife's resume is prOn? Hmmmmm....

Whatever happened to bloat being bad?

[heroine]

Time was, something like DLNA would be called impossibly bloated. Today whatever the CEO says is the word of God and bloat is suddenly good, immediately requiring the commitment of hundreds of college students to copy every bloated invention Micro* puts out.

DLNA is one of those horribly complex things that works when it works and fills an entire career of debugging when it doesn't work. It seems to have been originally a very simple way for anyone to get home networking but as more companies became involved, it evolved into an embedded, graphical version of Linux kernel config.

You can have multiple servers on the network, if you can get the permissions, security codes, version numbering, and network domains to work. Then there's the issue of file format matching.

Not BS: SIS

[Anonymous Coward]

Single Instance Storage, look it up.

Apple compatibility?

[dlim]

I find it interesting that MS suggests using it to store Apple Time Machine backups. My fiancee really wants a Mac laptop, but she's not technical, and the ability to keep all the backups in one place with redundancy is appealing. Off site copies of the backups are another issue. As for media, I like the ability to stream to the Xbox 360 via Windows Media Connect (although they really need to improve the media player on that thing). In addition, I need to be able to easily:

• get music on my 40 GB iPod (which is usually full to capacity)
• share the music with a mac

I used to keep my media on a headless box filled with hard drives and controlled remotely on the network, but the network lag made it difficult to manage the music library. If I could run a client program on the box that would expose a shared iTunes library and sync with the iPod, I'd be sold. Well, I might need to be able to hack Windows Media Connect to get it to support other video codecs too.

I haven't seen anything about the ability to install software on it, and the article suggests it doesn't have USB ports (while the screen shot shows an external hard drive in the list of drives). I don't believe MS would add any special features to support iPod, especially now that they are pushing the Zune, but I can't see them getting too far selling simplicity of a media server without some type of support for the most widespread portable media player on the market. Without extensibility, this device is just a backup solution / file server. Of course, that may be enough.

NSLU2 for $50?

[Kadin2048]

I think you are off on a factor of 2 with the price; the lowest I can find is $85 with most places around $100.

But a neat box nonetheless. I suspect that it's probably worth the cost even if you have an old PC kicking around, just because of the reduced power consumption over the system's lifespan.

Re:NSLU2 for $50?

[leenks]

I bought one in the UK for £27 from Tesco - this works out to around $51. It's not as fast as a dedicated linux server (I got around 3MB/sec write rates), but you can get a proper Linux dev environment for it and run alsorts of things, including an mt-daapd server to network share your mp3s etc to iTunes. Quite cool!

Re:NSLU2 for $50?

[blackest_k]

do you have a link for this?
I checked tesco's website and i couldnt find it.
searching on froogle the price seems to be around £50.

Re:NSLU2 for $50?

[leenks]

Afraid not - I got it in the big Dragonville? Tesco just outside of Durham. They were labelled up for clearance, along with Linksys USB print servers. I've not seen them elsewhere since (Cheltenham, Gloucester, Stroud)

Aero and Clipper?

[Anonymous Coward]

It comes with Aero 3D hardware accelerated desktop too?
It comes with the annoying Clipper too?

"requires a 1 GHz processor or better, 512 MB of RAM or more", lol, requires a 128 mb graphics memory too?

I can run a Linux box with a 386 or 486 at like 66 MHz and 16 mb RAM.

My friend used to run Apache webserver and an FTP on a 486, it worked great.

Re:Aero and Clipper?

[swordfishBob]

No, it's headless. It's just the fact of it being Win2003 that requires the RAM. I'm appalled at vendors selling PCs with XP and only 256M - it's like selling a car but locking it in 1st gear.

I can run a Linux box with a 386 or 486 at like 66 MHz and 16 mb RAM.
My friend used to run Apache webserver and an FTP on a 486, it worked great.

Memory hog. I ran OS/2 with 8M and it was great. Yes, I ran a web and ftp server on it too!
At the time, Linux enthusiasts were boasting of running networking and GUI in 4M machines, while Win95 was barely useable in 8M. OS/2 was in between.

Mod parent up

[markild]

I know it sounds weird guys, but he's true...

Seeing as most of the computers in a regular household is Windows based, a WHS would be able to provide the clients with a (probably) more transparent and user friendly way of setting the "digital home" up.

I concur

[CranberryKing]

My filesever has 64MB RAM. I found it on the street, it was perfect. I purchased some disks and a controller card.

Serves files, streams video/music, remote access, I'm happy.

Hmm?-Just call me Mister.

[Anonymous Coward]

"And of course using the term 'uneducated Slashbots' really isn't going to garner you any favors around here...ahh, but you knew that already didn't you?"

And "unwashed masses" is going to do any better out there? Let me know when the double-standard is lifted.

Pass on that piece of shit

[Anonymous Coward]

I was lucky to be able to sell mine on ebay for $50. Let some other poor sucker deal with the headaches of that piece of crap.

#1 problem with Windows (Servers)...

[evilviper]

Microsoft does some incredibly stupid things, for no good reason...

The most major and glaring idiocy in Windows is hard disk controller drivers. For this reason alone, I wouldn't ever suggest using Windows as a server (or on ANY type of system that is remotely important in any way).

If you take the hard drive out of one machine (perhaps after it has become a smoldering pile of metal and circuit boards) and install it in different system, there's an extremely good chance Windows NT3.1/NT3.5/NT4.0/2000/XP/2003/Vista/etc. will BSOD. It will crash and burn before you can even boot into safe mode.

You see, for some reason, Windows has a different, incompatible driver for every different brand of controller. For IDE/SATA-based systems, there are basically 4 (VIA, Intel, etc.). Microsoft's only official solution to this problem is for you to buy exactly the same hardware again.

To their credit, they now have an unofficial and unsupported fix... and it only took them a little more than a decade from the onset... Now that's a speedy response!

The solution is to basically extract all the drivers from a .CAB file on the hard drive, and add a load of registry entries that basically enables all 4 of them.

There are a few surprising things about this. First is how screwed you are if you don't know about this BEFORE your machine turns to mud, as you can't boot-up your system in order to add the necessary registry entries to begin with. Thanks to unofficial options like Bart'sPE and it's remote registry editor, you can spend a couple hours sorting out the mess, locating keys, copying, editing, and finally modifying the reg files so they can be added to the non-running system. EVENTUALLY, if you know enough about what you're doing, you can get it to work, and finally be able to boot-up your system.

The second surprising thing about this is that the problem is extremely serious, fixing it after-the-fact is extremely difficult even now, (it was borderline impossible before BartPE), yet the fix is minor and has no negative effects, and still, in the past decade of NT systems with this problem, Microsoft has NEVER made this behavior the default. The files and information are all already on the hard drive of every Windows system installed, the OS simply just won't consider using them.

For some reason Microsoft WANTS Windows to crash when you change the hard disk controller. ALL other hardware changes will be detected by the system, and proper drivers automatically installed by (recent versions of) Windows.

The number of registry fixes I add to any fresh Windows system to avoid bugs, stupid behaviors, bad defaults, and show-stoppers like this on, is absolutely staggering.

Re:#1 problem with Windows (Servers)...

[dtfinch]

I've seen a number of people bitten by this stupid wont-fix bug-by-design. Their motherboard fails, so they move their hard disk to another system, and it won't boot into safe mode, and the official steps for making it boot again demand that they first be able to boot it. I think the logic behind Microsoft's response (or lack thereof) to this bug is that there's a slight chance you'll repurchase Windows if you started with an OEM copy.

Linux systems that fail to boot are much easier to fix. Just pop in a live cd, mount your partitions, and fix it.

To add insult to injury, Windows often fails to mount NTFS formatted hard disks from other systems, attempting unsuccessfully to mount them with the same drive letter as before. C: being taken, it'll quietly fail and you just won't be able to access it, but it'll show up in Disk Management and such, with the "change drive letter" context menu item grayed out (with documentation explanation why it would ever do such a thing). So I end up having to use Linux to recover files from a Windows disk, because Windows itself isn't up to the challenge of reading its own disks. "Just works" my ass.

Bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, with all the bad behaviour Microsoft gets up to, who could trust _anything_ they do?

Patches & Updates

[JaLooNz]

How does it handles patches and updates? Does it require a reboot of the whole system?

SME Server is Excellent!

[WoTG]

I've been using it for years. I think I started when it was on version 4, at the time, a free 486 w/12 MB of RAM did file, print, email, and web serving. OK, it was too slow for serving dynamic webpages, but it did a great job otherwise.

For the last year or so, I've been running SME6 on a Pentium 166MMX w/128MB of RAM. It flies! Plenty fast enough to saturate a 100Mbit network.

I wouldn't recommend it to "regular" folks though -- among other things, backups are a pain.

Re:SME Server is Excellent!

[b0s0z0ku]

backups are a pain.

Not too bad if you run Windows backup software on one of the clients and back up a shared area periodically.

-b.

Re:SME Server is Excellent!

[Corporate Troll]

I don't know SME in particular, but I know the kind of hardware you speak of. I used to run a Pentium 166MMX/256Meg RAM as a home server. What surprises me is that you say that backups are a pain. Hardware of the category you describe most certainly has USB ports and PCI slots. Granted, probably USB 1.1... So invest in a 20€ USB 2.0 PCI card and buy a external USB drive for backups. I do it this way on my parents server (P-III/800MHz/768Meg RAM/Full-SCSI) by running a cron-job every night at 2am. Just for you, I'm going to check the logs: It backs up at about 3MByte/second (actually, I found that low and Wikipedia confirms my findings)

New let's just assume that the machine is basically unused between 2am and 6am. That's 4 hours, this means you can backup about 40Gigs daily. Now, I do admit that I do not have tons and tons of multimedia on that machine and 40Gigs may not be enough for you, but it's still quite reasonable. You could also schedule every day to backup a different part of the machine: in a week you get then 7x40Gig = 280Gig...

Ugh yet another version of windows

[DrXym]

Windows is becoming as hellishly difficult to develop for as Linux. There are just so many versions, with so many different security settings, and so many features that are present or not present that it is rapidly becoming a QA nightmare. I thought it bad enough on XP + Server 2003. Vista and Server 2003 are going to make some QA tester's heads pop.

WH Smith isn't exactly going to be happy

[coralsaw]

about the new M$ acronym. WHS for Brits stands for WH Smith, a big office_supplies/bookstore in the UK. On to more confusion this side of the pond.. /coralsaw

deja vu?

[Sundawn]

thought i got that exact product running at home.... oh wait its ubuntu not M$

Are you Serious?

[shaneh0]

"1. I find it offensive, and I think it says more about you than me, that you suggest that the copy was pirated. It was not." So you went out and purchased a $999 license plus the appropriate number of CALs and you just gave up and installed the free linux solution? Forgive me if I say you're full of it.

"2. Of course it is easy to share folders. However, if you have some computers with Windows for workgroups. some with security domains etc, you can *not* just share folders." Let me get this straight: You're running a domain controller in your home? An active directory implementation? So you could figure out AD but not how to share folders with it? And even if you have 1 PC on a domain (say, a laptop that you bring home from work) and the rest of your PCs on a workgroup, all you need to do is share folders. Period. The only caveat is going into the user management console, create a local account, and use that account to log in from client PCs. And by the way, "windows for workgroups" hasn't been around since 1993. I think you meant that some PCs were part of a workgroup, no?

IIS is easy to set up and run if you dont need any features. Try to set up IIS with multiple domain names, and right security levels for the different parts. Try to do simple load balancing. Try to do simple packet mangling. Or rewrite requested URLs on the fly

Uhh... This is still pretty easy. Setting up multiple domains with their individual settings is done thru the very first IIS management dialog. You don't even need to change tabs.

Load balancing is actually pretty easy in IIS6. Using Microsoft DFS for data sync among the nodes, it's pretty simple to setup basic round-robin load balancing.

And URL rewriting isn't even supported by IIS directly. You have to use an ISAPI filter. You can write your own, or use one of the dozens of free, downloadable rewriters like Op_URL or IIS Rewrite.

And let me get this straight: You needed web server load balancing & URL rewriting on your _HOME SERVER_?

Oh please........

Backup format

[Schrodycat]

I was amused by Thurrott's comment about swapping drives:

One final point about WHS storage. Were you to pull a drive out of WHS and try to access the disk from another Windows-based PC, that system would see the disk as standard NTFS. So it will work anywhere, though of course the backups are written in a proprietary data format.

Of course.
That's like saying "This cell phone will work anywhere -- as long as it's on Cingular".

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

One difference...

[Walter Carver]

One difference, learning how to use the computer has a practical advantage. Just like learning how to use the car.