Slashdot Mirror
Windows Home Server Details
phorest writes "Perhaps Microsoft read the comments from the Slashdot community on Windows Home Server? In any event Microsoft is opening up WHS for users to construct their own system after all; though I'd like to see the price of this OS release before making the jump. From the review: "At the 2007 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas this week... Microsoft previewed its long-awaited Windows Home Server product, a Windows Server 2003 R2-based server for consumers that dispenses with the complexities of most Windows Server versions and provides the core storage, sharing, and remote access functionality that digital media and home networking enthusiasts require... Microsoft will make WHS available in two ways: Bundled with new WHS hardware and software-only, the latter so that enthusiasts can install the system on the hardware of their choice... If you're building your own home server, Microsoft requires a 1 GHz processor or better, 512 MB of RAM or more, and as many disks as you think you need. The company will support multiple home servers on the same network, but it's still murky how that will work."
The company will support multiple home servers on the same network, but it's still murky how that will work."
Easy... Lots of Money.
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
"I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
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...)
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.
"I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary." Through the looking glass and what
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...
Acid House saves Souls
Great move but it'll be a cold day in hell when I let Microsoft manage what's on my home server. Not being a deliberate troll or flamebait, I'd look for them to sell out and start locking up my media files. I just would approach this with a long stick - or just keep using my home-brew server.
Most of the stuff on
I 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.
Microsoft cheerleader, blue flag waving, you got a problem with that?
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
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Server 2003 is a whole lot more than XP Pro. Where as Windows 2000 Professional and Windows 2000 Server shared a lot of underlying tech, XP Pro is a whole different internal version (windows 5.1) than 2003 (windows 5.2), and the additional functionality added by 2003 R2 makes it do even more.
"I want to get more into theory, because everything works in theory." -John Cash
Linux, BSD, Windows, all work fine as servers if you aren't an idiot.
And Macs work great if you are! ; )
This guy's the limit!
It's NOT WinXP. In fact, it's not "just another version of windows" at all! It's a network appliance (based on win2003, but it's not 2003 either), aimed primarily at backups and sharing files. Headless and all that. Pretty well made seemingly - uses the Single Instance Storage (SIS) so only one copy of the same file is kept across multiple backups, and very expendable (better than RAID). There was a video about it on channel9 yesterday.
I'd get one if I didn't already have a server to do this stuff (and more).
///<sig
There is nothing, repeat nothing in Vista that locks down non-DRM content, you can rip CDs and DVDs with the same tools you used in XP and Vista does nothing to them. How long will mindless knee-jerk anti-MS folks continue to push this BS.
Here's a challenge, find one example of Vista applying DRM to non-DRMed content, come on, just one example!!!!
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).
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
WHS is for media? Are you sure Microsoft didn't mean "VHS" or...is it still Beta? :)
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
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.
Microsoft cheerleader, blue flag waving, you got a problem with that?
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
me and my thinkpad, sittin' in a tree, c-o-d-i-n-g...
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.
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....