ie8 fix
madison

Hardware 2.0

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

What's the target market for Windows Home Server?

By | October 15, 2007, 4:23am PDT

Just who is Microsoft expecting to buy Windows Home Server?

What’s the target market for Windows Home Server?If you were to ask me for list of two words that don’t go together, I’m pretty that “home” and “server” would be somewhere on my top 10.  Don’t get me wrong, it’s not that I’m against the idea of a home server, in fact, given the huge volumes of data home users now seem to have, a home server is a logical idea.  Also, for homes that have more than one PC, having a centralized location for backups and having the ability for those backups to be created and updated regularly with little to no user involvement is a very sweet idea.  Without a doubt we’ve entered the era where a home server is a very desirable thing.  But …

For home users, losing data is seen as inevitableIn theory, a home server is a good idea, and in practice it would, without a doubt, be a very useful tool, but the reality is that few people are ever going to get their hands on Windows Home Server.  First off, the name is a total turn off.  The only thing that your average Joe or Jane Public is going to hear of the name is that pleasant whizzing sound as the terms go flying above them off into oblivion.  While the name might (to the initiated) hold more meaning that “Home Basic,” “Home Premium” and “Ultimate,” to the average user it’s nonsense.

But let’s put the name on one side for now and consider a more important question - How much value does the average user place on their data?  $0.50?  $1?  $5?  $10?  $50?  $100?  $500?  $1,000?  In my experience home users place a pretty low value on their data, that is, up to the point that it’s gone and then that data they couldn’t be bothered burning onto a DVD or copying onto a USB flash drive suddenly becomes priceless.  My highly unscientific studies suggest that the average home users will spend about $30 protecting their data and they will usually spend this cash on some backup software which they’ll use a couple of times (each time storing the backed-up data on the same drive as the original is on) before losing interest in backing up completely.  Even people who have already suffered serious data catastophes won’t spend much to prevent future data loss.  For home users, losing data is seen as inevitable.  The idea that home users are going to blow $200 on Windows Home Server or $600+ on a pre-configured OEM solution is crazy.  If people really cared that much about their data and were willing to spend the money to look after it, we’d dual-drive PCs, external hard drives and NAS boxes as more of the norm than we do right now.  Right now I can think of dozens of small business owners who have hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of data not backed up who could benefit from Windows Home Server but who wouldn’t dream of spending that kind of money.  A serious data crisis would likely put many of these people out of business within a ninety days yet trying to get them to part with $600 for a system to take care of their worries would be near to impossible.

Another way to look at this is by looking at the type of user likely to invest in such a product.  If you have two or three PCs at home, spending $600 on a Home Server system is a lot of cash, especially for a system that does nothing but back up data.  The kinds of users more likely to spend money on backing up their data (home power users, tech enthusiasts, SOHO, that market) are those with five or more PCs.  But these folks are a tough sell because they’re more likely to have an effective backup and restore regime already in place. Also, if they have more than 10 PCs, they’ve already outgrown Windows Home Server.

Windows Home Server also reeks of first edition omissions.  The lack of 64-bit OS support if probably the most obvious feature that’s lacking (at a time when Microsoft is trying to convince users that 64-bit is the way forward, not supporting it in Home Server is a shot in the foot).  Windows Home Server media sharing and streaming is also pretty basic, and I would have liked a centralized way to manage updates and scan for malware.  Alas, Windows Home Server feels rushed and incomplete.

Poll

Will you be investing in a Windows Home Server?

Thoughts?

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology.

Disclosure

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

All opinions expressed on Hardware 2.0 are those of Adrian Kingsley-Hughes. Every effort is made to ensure that the information posted is accurate. If you have any comments, queries or corrections, please contact Adrian via the email link here. Any possible conflicts of interest will be posted below. [Updated: February 23, 2010] - Adrian Kingsley-Hughes has no business relationships, affiliations, investments, or other actual/potential conflicts of interest relating to the content posted so far on this blog.

Biography

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology -- whether that be by learning to program, building a PC from a pile of parts, or helping them get the most from their new MP3 player or digital camera.

Adrian has authored/co-authored technical books on a variety of topics, ranging from programming to building and maintaining PCs. His most recent books include "Build the Ultimate Custom PC", "Beginning Programming" and "The PC Doctor's Fix It Yourself Guide". He has also written training manuals that have been used by a number of Fortune 500 companies.

Adrian also runs a popular blog under the name The PC Doctor, where he covers a range of computer-related topics -- from security to repairing and upgrading.

49
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Easy for free or Very Very easy at a cost
blc1839 10th Nov 2007
Thank you for your honest evaluation. You made a LOT of sense. I like WHS but I also would LOVE to see the document or manual or whatever that would tell me as a Linux newbie exactly HOW (step by step by step) to set up a Linux back-up server on a windows network. I tried doing this on my own and just could not figure it out. Then when WHS became available to beta testers I went that route and it was sooooo dang easy. I don't hate Linux or Windows or Apple but I do take exception to people who make any of these things into a religion. In olden times, it was a golden calf - now days it seems to be operating systems .... too bad. I just want good documentation, "...so that a newbie need not err therein" to paraphrase a quote from the scriptures. Again, thanks for your honest eval.
0 Votes
+ -
MS Home Server uses a push model
YinToYourYang-22527499 15th Oct 2007
Apple's approach--with Zeroconf (Bonjour), Airport Air-disk and Air-tunes, Apple TV,
and coming soon Time Machine--are all based on auto-discovery and a pull model.

I think the pull model is easier for non-techies to use.
0 Votes
+ -
Absolutely agreed.
frgough 15th Oct 2007
Buy an external hard drive, plug it into your Mac. Your data is now automatically backed up on the fly without you needing to do a single thing. Compare that to the guaranteed nightmare setting up an MS Home Server is going to be. (Simple is not in the Microsoft lexicon).
0 Votes
+ -
Absolutely agreed?
Qbt 15th Oct 2007
I guess you didn't bother to see what is actually involved in adding more storage space to WHS. Complex?

I suggest doing everyone a favor and first getting up to speed with the topic at hand before enlightening us with your "knowledge".
0 Votes
+ -
I'm talking about the software configuration required to set up the home server in the first place, and then administer it.

Just setting up peer to peer networking in a home environment in Vista is a pain in the but. OS X? Turn on file sharing and you're done. Bonjour takes care of the rest.
0 Votes
+ -
re: Absolutely agreed.
M.R. Kennedy 15th Oct 2007
frgough:

"Buy an external hard drive, plug it into your Mac. Your data is now automatically backed up on the fly without you needing to do a single thing. Compare that to the guaranteed nightmare setting up an MS Home Server is going to be. (Simple is not in the Microsoft lexicon)."


Once again, you rush to judgment on something with which you have no knowledge or experience. Have you used WHS? I rather doubt it.

Do you know what it takes to install WHS on a spare box? No. Do you know what it takes to install the Connector app on the client box? No. Do you have any idea whatsoever what it takes to set up accounts on WHS and manage them? Not bloody likely.

FYI, Home Server takes about 30 minutes to install and initially set up on the designated computer. The Connector software takes about 10 minutes to install and set up (including choosing your password.) And it takes less than five minutes to create and initially manage each user account. It takes a bit longer to set up Remote Access (for when you're away from home). It's slower than accessing through your home network since the throttle is based on your broadband upload speed, but it does work.

How do I know all of this? Because I have installed and have been using Windows Home Server RC1 on a spare machine for the past three months. In other words, I have experience with WHS, and you don't. I know what I'm talking about.

And you don't.

I expect know-nothings like yourself to berate and pooh-pooh the WHS concept. Certainly, it's easy to "Buy an external hard drive". Are you willing to do that for each client machine in use? What if you have five client machines?

What saddens me is that knowledgable people like Adrian are doing it as well, and are basing their criticisms on WHS' backup facilities alone, and not on the usefulness of being able to offload all of your media (music, video, and still pictures), from the client computer(s) to the server, without duplication of files.

In addition, should you discover that you're running out of storage on the server, it's easy to add another HDD--WHS will automatically find, format, and add the drive to its storage pool.

Automatic backups of all the client computers is icing on the cake.

And no, Macs (at least their OS X partitions) aren't supported by WHS at this time. Perhaps that's a Good Thing. You clowns would simply find something else to carp about.
0 Votes
+ -
Windows:

1. Spend 30 minutes installing WHS on a box.
2. Spend 10 minutes installing the Connector App.
3. Spend 5 minutes creating an account.

OS X

1. Buy an external hard drive.
2. Plug it in.
3. Check Yes when asked if you want to make it a time machine drive.

Thanks for proving my point.
dis-proof of point....

1) There is only WHS install time if you buy the software separate and want to install it yourself on your own machine. This is not the main intended path for WHS, it's main market is sold pre-installed on a dedicated piece of hardware.

2) 10 Minutes installing the connector is a VERY high estimate, and even most of that time is just waiting for the software to copy over and install. There's only about 1-2 minutes of user interaction.

3) 5 Minutes creating an account is also an extremely high estimate. If you know the username and password you are going to use it's more like about 45 seconds to create the account, including the average person's hunt-and-peck typing.

re: OSX time-machine.

1) Time Machine is designed as a backup only solution so it is FAR FAR FAR from an apples to oranges comparison (no pun intended). That's like comparing a 4-wheeled automobile to the space shuttle, yeah, they're both transportation devises but....

2) It is only for individual machines. You need a separate hard drive for each computer. And even if you didn't you would need to lug it around from computer to computer...I'm sure people would be really likely to do that in a home setting (plus you'd lose your previous versions and only get snapshots of that instance when the drive was plugged in).

I have 6 computers here at my house, they all backup nightly to one device. I never touch a thing.

WHS alerts me if a machine has missed backups over a few days, if AV definitions are out of date or off, if their firewalls are off, if updates are not being done. In addition we have a HP digital document sender, a Roku network media player, multiple windows media players, and photo management software which ALL use the WHS for storage/retrieval of data. I can access any of my computers from an external internet connection. I can access any file on my WHS from an internet connection.

Let's see time machine do that...ANY of that.

You really should at least check rudimentary information about things before you start discussing things you obviously know nothing about...it makes you look stupid. Now please go back to Apple-land where they are still trying to spin non-user-replaceable batteries into a "good thing".
0 Votes
+ -
a server or a good backup method for multiple machines. Not does it provide an access/storage point for all PCs on the network.
0 Votes
+ -
re: You've just told me all I need to know.
M.R. Kennedy 16th Oct 2007
frgough:

And by ignoring the rest of the post, you prove my points.

You continue to be clueless.
0 Votes
+ -
...to know (a) what a server is, and (b) know the advantages of having a home one will also know that Linux boxes, with a very long history as servers, would do a far better job of it than a new, untried, poorly tested, and probably expensive offering from Microsoft.
0 Votes
+ -
Not particularly expensive
laura.b 15th Oct 2007
It is supposedly $599 (several stories have indicated this amount, but it's not for sale yet so it can't be deemed 100% factual). That's not very expensive. Especially for tech products. A lot cell phones are more (without contract at least). But it doesn't matter because you didn't even bother to check it out, just made an assumption.

Bottom line, you're allowed your opinion, and could very well be justified when it comes out, but since you clearly did no research on the product, the testing it has undergone, the testers' opinions on it, or even the suggested price, you really have no right (or ability) to make claims regarding any of those topics.

You think Linux would do it better? You're probably right.

Too bad you didn't bother to get any facts about the product before you decided why it was inferior, though.
0 Votes
+ -
Actually...
Henrik Moller 15th Oct 2007
...I do consider $599 to be expensive. The hardware I use for my Linux-based home server--a little naked white-box--cost me a bit over half that much. And the software was, of course, free. You're right, I did make an assumption about the cost--and I was right.

As to testing, no manufacturer's testing is as good as real-world experience. It doesn't matter in the slightest how thoroughly MS thinks it has tested the gadget, or what their beta-testers think, Version 1.0 of anything is going to be buggy--and Version 1.0 of anything used by the public at large will reveal some truly astounding bugs. Look at Vista. I'm sure MS wore the edges off it in pre-release testing, but the result was still deemed too risky to deploy in a lot of businesses until SP1. By comparison, not only have Linux-based servers of various kinds have been around for years and had most of the bugs worked out, Linux, following Unix, was designed for a networked environment in the first place and has all that experience behind it.
0 Votes
+ -
re: Actually...
M.R. Kennedy 15th Oct 2007
Henrik (or Henry, whichever you are this week):

NewEgg is currently offering the OEM WHS software package for US$190. Add that to an existing spare computer and your cost is...US$190.

The starting price(s) for new, pre-configured WHS consoles will probably be in the US%500-600 range, depending on the amount of HDD storage optioned. And, unlike a Linux server package, they'll be easy for a relatively non-geeky person to set up and configure. Kindly take that into account the next time you want to shoot off your mouth.

I'm not one of Microsoft's "official" beta testers, and never have been. Like thousands of other interested people, though, I downloaded the WHS RC1 .iso images when they became available. I burned them to discs and installed WHS on a spare computer and the Connector software to both my Vista box and an HP Windows XP notebook. Setup was easy on all three machines. Creating and managing the accounts has also been simple, as well as adding media files to the public and private folders.

I even created an account for a friend and had him test Remote Access (through MS's "LiveNode" site), and it worked quite well, if a tad bit slowly. (Net speeds are limited by your network's broadband access upload speed.)

The biggest difference (other than price) between WHS and a hobbyist Linux server) will be in the simplicity of setup. If you have a strong Linux background, you'll be able to use the latter easily enough. But what about someone who has no background in Linux or, shudder the though, "Joe and Jane Average", as Adrian mentioned? Do you really think that they'd be able to successfully set up a Linux server? In less than an hour? In less than a day? Week?

It took me about an hour to install and configure WHS itself, along with the Connector app on all three of my computers. And no, I'd never used Windows Server 2003, on which WHS is based.

And as a beta, WHS RC1 has caused me exactly zero problems. I won't vouch for its ability (or lack) to stream video files over a 100Mbit network. I haven't tried it. But it does stream audio files with no problems whatsoever. Maybe a gigabit network could handle video streaming.

Oh, and BTW, Windows Server 2003/WHS was designed for a networked environment in the first place.
0 Votes
+ -
Match all the features of WHS (back up of all Windows machines, central storage and retrieval, etc.) and give it away to anyone that wants it.

Now there is a ral business plan yes???
0 Votes
+ -
Home Servers based on Linux
M.R. Kennedy 16th Oct 2007
No_Ax:

"Match all the features of WHS (back up of all Windows machines, central storage and retrieval, etc.) and give it away to anyone that wants it."

Oh, yeah. That'll make a bundle of money. wink
0 Votes
+ -
No, you weren't right
laura.b 18th Oct 2007
For many (particularly who this product is aimed at) building a computer is not an option.

The $599 price is for a full box with the software.

The software itself is less than $200, if you intend to just load it on a box you already have.

But my point is that you would have known all this if you had bothered to check before you started yapping.
0 Votes
+ -
Translation:
Wolfie2K3 16th Oct 2007
I expect that people sufficiently into computers...
...to know (a) what a server is, and (b) know the advantages of having a home one will also know that Linux boxes, with a very long history as servers, would do a far better job of it than a new, untried, poorly tested, and probably expensive offering from Microsoft.


So what you're saying here - hard core geeks will know what a server is and it would be a good thing to have and will use Linux.

All well end good - if you're a geek. But there are a LOT of people out there who aren't geeks. They're too busy running around doing their thing to bother learning the necessary skills to install and maintain a Linux box, let alone a Windows server.

Enter WHS. This product is designed specifically for those who have better things to do with their lives than be a geek but DO want to protect their data.

In fact, I can think of several of my clients who fit that description. One such client happens to be a lawyer. He's far too busy being a lawyer to be a geek. His kids are spoiled rotten - have their iPods crammed to the gills with music and by now, probably videos. Losing that data if one of the kid's devices was stolen - and since they're not really into antivirus (you can set it up for them but that won't mean they won't disable it cause it's sucking down too many system resources), the odds of their computer having fatal problems isn't out of the realm of probability. Not to mention it'd be fairly expensive to replace all that purchased content.

So, WHS would be darn cheap insurance for them.

I, myself, think the idea of having a backup of my computers would be a good thing as well - especially if I can do a bare metal reinstall if I needed to - without digging out all the CDs/DVDs, without having to dig up the drivers. Just create a boot CD, pop it into the reformatted computer's drive and launch a full restore of the OS, my data and my settings.

Show me a Linux box that can do that...
0 Votes
+ -
Waste of Money
jpr75_z 15th Oct 2007
Most home users don't have the knowledge or desire to have a server installed at home. Just the idea of that makes me laugh. The PC enthusiast/IT Pro most likely has a server or some other backup solution already, and would not be interested in a "Home Server". So just who is going to buy this waste of money computer??
0 Votes
+ -
I suggest...
Qbt 15th Oct 2007
I suggest people first look into what WHS has to offer before just lumping it into what we typically think of as being a "server". That is why everyone here is jumping on the "it's a stupid idea" bandwagon: They think the concept of a server is too complex for most home users. It is only complex because that has been the only option we had up to now.

WHS makes a lot of the "server" type concepts extremely simple or completely hides the complexities. For example, how many people ever tried to manage a RAID array? Well, with WHS, there is no RAID array. Instead, you can add any drive, in any capacity, with any interface (SATA, USB, Firewire, etc), and they all get added into one large logical storage pool. You can also opt to store data on at least two spindles, ensuring that if any of these drives go down, your data is still protected.

Then there are the people that can set up a typical server at home but just could not care to go through the hassles, like myself. It is like my car: While I know the technology behind an internal combustion engine, I just don't care to spend weekends popping the hood to work on it. I just want it to work. That is what WHS offers me, so I am definitely getting one set up when they become available.

And seriously, if you add up all WHS' features, it would take you a long time to set up a non-WHS solution to perform the same functionality, if you can even get it to do the same. And it would be way more complex to manage. For example, I can connect from any computer with internet access to my WHS running at home, tell it to wake up any particular desktop at my home (using one of the many free add-ins for WHS), and remote desktop into that system to get some file I need while I am away from home.

Check out the list of add-ons people already created:
http://www.wegotserved.co.uk/windows-home-server-add-ins/

But then again, this is an MS product so I don't expect people here to give any kind of response other than your typical ABM rants.
0 Votes
+ -
Really hadn't noticed any ABM rants yet.
DannyO_0x98 15th Oct 2007
I think what people tend to discuss about WHS is marketing and branding rather
than technical. I see above some people make the point that a tech-savvy person
has already built their home server, if they needed one. I've got a FreeBSD machine
which provides cvs services which are internally and externally accessible. An IT
guy at my last job had built a Windows based home media server.

Let's take the no-bother VPN services provided by WHS that you find helpful and
well-executed. I'm guessing that the day mainstream USA needs home files while
away from home hasn't arrived. A lot of people work for companies where data is
not to be taken home. Where data is to be taken home, laptops with security and
encryption are provided. Moving it off the laptop and onto the home machine
happens, but, if the employee is caught doing that, they'll be fired.

Of course they all laughed when the iPod and Microsoft Bob were announced. I
imagine Microsoft's expectations for the product are fairly modest as it looks like
a transitional element that will be part of a future total package. Within those
constraints it may very well be a successful roll-out even while not becoming the
next Walkman.
0 Votes
+ -
Why don't you find it useful?
laura.b 15th Oct 2007
I can see it being useful to lots of situations, even those that aren't necessarily "home uses." Like, I don't know. Small businesses. Very small (like 90% of business in the US are). Businesses with no tech department, few employees. It is a 10 client server, you know, and that's a bit more than most families are going to need. Thousands on a server system is outside the reach of many, but $600 (the most common price I have seen) is quite affordable.

Or, if you're like my previous boss, you work from home. Being the only one, she gets calls when she's not home, and has no access to data. Hasn't bought a server because they are too expensive. Now she just may buy this.

Of course, home users may enjoy having access to their information from abroad so they don't have to carry items that can get lost, such as financial records, insurance information, etc. If you have a home server, you can access that information from your laptop, pocket pc, or even some cell phones. And it keeps you from actually transferring the info to the laptop (or whatever device) so if it's lost or stolen you're still secure.

Also, a lot companies do have remote access to their organization so employees can work from home or on the road, not to mention that work materials are frequently taken home. I would wager a lot more than don't allow it, actually. But that's purely experiential.

And why is the VPN the handiest feature? I would think that backing up the thousands of dollars worth of media, family photographs and movies, and your important (computerized) data such as finances would be the focus for most home users.

Not everyone will want this. But I can see why a lot of people may. For the back-up alone I'm seriously considering it (we're of the 'thousands of dollars in media, family pictures and movies' group).
0 Votes
+ -
I won't invest because I own two macs, and I have another way of doing cloned backup. Then again, I'm not a typical 'home' user.
0 Votes
+ -
There is a need
JimSatterfieldW 15th Oct 2007
My wife is a teacher. She is also a writer. I am webmaster for our science fiction club and its convention. If I can set up a simple system to back up our files so that once I'm done setting it up I don't have to worry about it I'm on board. It also lets the members of our household have one common place to share pictures from our cameras that doesn't rely on someone else's servers. I'll probably build a system with inexpensive components to run it on.
0 Votes
+ -
Is there really an advantage for the average user over setting up, say, XP Pro with shares and backup options? It seems to me that in search for simplicity, almost all of the tools were stripped out.
0 Votes
+ -
Advantages
M.R. Kennedy 15th Oct 2007
nwoodson:

If you have three or four computers in use in your home (and that's not as far-fetched as some might think), then being able to store all of your media files in public (or even private) account folders in a central location is a plus. Moving those files from the client computers makes them easier to manage (more space available on local drives), back up (automatically each night, between midnight and 6am) and restore if there's a disaster on one of them (boot the restoration CD and WHS automatically restores the client PC to its previously backed-up condition.)

Keep in mind that we're not talking about the "lowest common denominator" here. We're talking about a household where there are several computers in use, with a harried guy (or gal) who has to be the home IT person fixing problems on those computers. With the exeption of having to make sure that the a/v and a/s utilities are up-to-date, WHS makes storage, backup, and restoration a snap.

And it appears to be much easier to set up than most Linux solutions. That in itself is a plus.

If you need add-ins that the basic WHS setup doesn't supply, they're widely available on the Net. Any add-in for Windows Server 2003 should work with WHS. There are your "tools".

Simplicity? Yep. Is there a market for WHS? I certainly think so. It's a very attractive option for homes with multiple computers and a home network already in place.
0 Votes
+ -
Anything new takes time in the market.
No_Ax_to_Grind 15th Oct 2007
NOTE: Talking about home servers in general, not just MS offerings.

*IF* this was limited to only doing backups I think I would agree with you, however the real uses will start rolling out over a couple years as developers start building applications for it. The first thing that jumps out as an opportunity (to me anyhow) is automation and security.
0 Votes
+ -
Depends on marketing budget
tombalablomba 15th Oct 2007
It will all depend on the marketing budget Microsoft and it's partners are willing to spend.

The average user won't see the need unless specifically told so via marketing messages.

But it will also be somewhat tricky because backing up on site only provides protection against hard drive failure. Any other occurence like fire etc. will kill most machines anyways and certainly data. (the message should entail this of course)

The remote access is nice, but to be honest I've never had the occasion that i needed access to my home files, my work files is something different, but that's catered for.

There biggest challenge will be companies that will start serving almost the same functionality, but then ofsite in centralized data centers....
I have been a user of WHS for the past 3 months, and can tell you I love it, and its only going to get better. With 5 machines active in the house, it is great knowing:
-They are all backed up
-They are all current on Windows update
-That their virus and firewall protection is on and current.
-WHS reports any issue via SMS or Email to my phone

Additionally, we have a Media Center DVR and a TIVO, who dump their recordings to the WHS so we can watch shows from anywhere in the house.

Also, it may not sway your thoughts about the current product, but WHS has so much potential for the automated home. Imagine X10 lights, alarms, thermostats remote control/video and reporting to you remotely.
0 Votes
+ -
First I am a MS HATER or a Linux ZEALOT. I deal with hundreds of machines daily in a heterogeneous network environment. Good policy is clients MS. Your core data servers ( excluding Mail) linux, Solaris, etc... We used NT server, Adv Server 2000, and Server 2003. For along time. They are not evil/crapware products as MS haters would have you believe. We just spent to many man hours updating, fixing problems and new problems and recovering from blue screens of death out of know where. We switch our Core sevices to Linux and life has been good. At my home I have been running linux to store my files and backups since 1999. I have six MS clients in my house. Linux ZEALOTS setting up Linux( running Ubuntu Now) was easy, but not close to being as simple as setting MS Home server. You have a choice. Easy for free or Very Very easy at a cost.
0 Votes
+ -
??
AdeOghert 15th Oct 2007
You did not make any sense.
0 Votes
+ -
Thank you for your honest evaluation. You made a LOT of sense. I like WHS but I also would LOVE to see the document or manual or whatever that would tell me as a Linux newbie exactly HOW (step by step by step) to set up a Linux back-up server on a windows network. I tried doing this on my own and just could not figure it out. Then when WHS became available to beta testers I went that route and it was sooooo dang easy. I don't hate Linux or Windows or Apple but I do take exception to people who make any of these things into a religion. In olden times, it was a golden calf - now days it seems to be operating systems .... too bad. I just want good documentation, "...so that a newbie need not err therein" to paraphrase a quote from the scriptures. Again, thanks for your honest eval.
0 Votes
+ -
This reeks of XP. Wait! Give it a chance and maybe it will be alright.
0 Votes
+ -
May be worth the price if it just works
kmatzen@... 15th Oct 2007
In theory it should be much cheaper to spend a little extra on one of the PCs on the network and share folders from it. But the process is not easy enough for most users. Setting up security the way I like it is not easy. Figuring out why its not as fast as it should be is not easy. Centralizing all the data makes backups much easier.

If WHS solves the complexity issues, it may be worth the price.
0 Votes
+ -
I am a power user, I have a linux box setup for this. It is an old computer that cost me $0 running software that cost me $0.

I am not a linux zealot, I run windows on my workstations/Desktops. But I have yet to see a server application that isn't better served by running on Linux.

But what I would pay for is a windows Media Center with all this "WHS" added on! I used to run MythTV and it was a great, server based Media Center. Where it fails is in DRM and XBox 360 Frontends.

I now run Media Center on my PC and it drives me nuts. My PC is not stable enough (it's no server) I can't really use my PC when Media Center is activally doing something as it conflicts for CPU and Disk I/O.

I was glad to hear that the WHS team hadn't rulled out adding it. I just hope when version 1 completely flops that the project doesnt' die!
0 Votes
+ -
RE: grammar
NotOnYourLife2 15th Oct 2007
Adrian-

I know it's a blog but could you please utilize some form of grammar when you publish?! This is your job right? As a journalist one would expect to form some sort of complete sentence with all words intact. Seriously, reading your articles sometimes is worse than homework from first-year ESL classes (nothing against people in ESL classes). I'm not asking for high prose, just a normal sentence with spell check and all the words. One example: read your first sentence of the second paragraph aloud.

Thank you.
0 Votes
+ -
Ubuntu Home Server
n0neXn0ne 15th Oct 2007
"If you have two or three PCs at home, spending $600 on a Home Server system is a lot of cash,..."

Ubuntu home server (UHS) can be run/install in a VM on any machine. Hence any OS. Cost $0.

You can get a test vmware image from:
http://forums.ubuntuhomeserver.org/
0 Votes
+ -
And it handles multiple drives without user intervention?


Oh, no huh? No cigar...
0 Votes
+ -
Really?
Qbt 15th Oct 2007
That is pretty good! So you are saying that your $0 Ubuntu server also comes with storage then too?

Pffft - what a joke!

Clue: It is only $0 if your time is worthless...
0 Votes
+ -
RE:Really?
n0neXn0ne 16th Oct 2007
"Clue: It is only $0 if your time is worthless..."

Thanks for redefining free.

"$0 if your time is worthless..."
$600 if your money is worthless...
choice your weapon wink
0 Votes
+ -
typo --fixed
n0neXn0ne 16th Oct 2007
choose your weapon
devil
choice is a helleva thing
0 Votes
+ -
Like all OSs, its about applications.
No_Ax_to_Grind 15th Oct 2007
WHS (Windows Home Server) is like any OS in that its popularity is tied directly to what is available to run on it. Today you see it as a backup device, I see it as a way to move the bar value bar higher.

1. Ask most people about the future and they will tell you the PC is waning and devices are were the smart money is. Well, all those devices need to be backed up and surely it will have a small version of Exchange or a third party competitor to track calendars. (Kids foot game next Tuesday, little Cindy's Dr appointment, pick up, blah, blah, blah.) Hmm, with a home server do I really need to store 1000 hours of music or can I buy the player that's 1/3 the cost and shuffle music around as I like? Do I need a TiVO like device with a terabyte of self storage or can I get the much cheaper model and store everything on the server? The drive for devices is smaller and cheaper. The cost of a server begins to look attractive when you consider what it can replace in our devices.

2. Automation is something that IS happening and WILL become more wide spread. (Remember, everyone said PCs had no place in the home either.) Automation will happen for the cost benefits from energy management alone if nothing else.

3. New uses that expand our capabilities or take them in new directions seen manifest destiny to me.

Imagine, I buy a piece of music (or CD) and put it on my PC. That night it is backed up and made available to all the devices in my home. More than that, it also downloaded it to the car (via WiFI) so its "just there" when I drive to work in the morning.

Oh yeah, last night I looked at my cars power train and body management logs because the server flagged my PC and PDA that something was out of the norm. Ah, "Jr." was driving the car last Saturday and it looks like the engine was over revved badly. Time to have a talk with that boy!

Look at this, the cubic feet of gas used in the furnace for the hours it ran is higher than normal, better get a furnace guy in to look at it.

On the good side, the electric bill has really dropped since I installed the motion detectors in each room and the server shuts lights and appliances off when no one is in the room.


Could these things happen on Linux? No real reason they can't, if someone wants to build/assemble the needed infrastructure, make it compatible with Windows clients and devices, and provides a standard for developers to code against. Of course you also have to get developers to write the apps.

People that have read my posts for a while know I have been saying that Linux NEEDS to move to the home user instead of trying so hard to compete in the corporate environment. This is a space that is still a relatively new market (and is growing) and the chance to lead instead of follow or do more "me too" is right there in front of the community. I just don't think it will happen, that is until MS has a few 10s of million installs and everyone smacks their forehead.
0 Votes
+ -
WHS (Windows Home Server) is like any OS in that its popularity is tied directly to what is available to run on it. Today you see it as a backup device, I see it as a way to move the bar value bar higher.

Well if this is such a great value proposition then where are the developers writing server/backup applications for XP?

XP has been around for years, and is perfectly capable of being used as a platform on which to build a 3rd party backup server.

Yet, it hasn't happened.

Could it be that running server software on XP violates the EULA? Perhaps developers don't want to make Microsoft mad at them.

I wonder what EULA terms WHS will come with that would make it less useful than it could be?



happy
0 Votes
+ -
One word: Messaging
rocjoe71 15th Oct 2007
WHS will be far more valuable once it has an offering for messaging, e.g. "Exchange Server Lite" that will let you configure 5-10 mailboxes with calendar sharing and alerts.

E.g. When is it Mom's turn to pick up the kids for soccer practice? No problem, she'll get a text message reminding her 30 minutes before she's due to pick up.

Add a "home" page on the built-in webserver where kids can log homework and parents can take a hardcopy to the parent-teacher meetings. Why can't Johnny read? Hm. Seems he's got too much math homework to worry about reading.

Really, a PC appliance in the home could be every bit as good as or better than the kitchen refrigerator, but with stronger magnets.
0 Votes
+ -
A Month ago I was thinking of getting a NAS. They as I though about it I realized that there is no point in getting a NAS without RAID. SO I started looking online. A NAS starts at about $200 but to get one with RAID I needed to Spend $600 or more.

Then I can across the old Press announcement for this and started the research. This will get me the shared files I wanted with NAS and the redundancy of RAID (or close) and help me do the back ups I never have time to do now. I have three PCs and two Kids and I do not have time to build a system. I Develop online systems for work and could probably get the NAS to work if I had time but I am sure that a WHS out of the box for less that $600 will be the best solution for me and my family.
0 Votes
+ -
I already have 300+ GB of media on my computer, and it is growing daily. Pictures, music, downloaded video content, and it is beginning to swamp my system. I would love to offload this to a server appliance in my basement and not only have it available to other computers, but also to media player boxes on my TVs and stereos. I don't want a PC on every TV in the house, or even one, for that matter. I want a small, simple, inexpensive set top device that can pull content from my server.

The backup features are neat, but beyond the media content on my computer, the rest will fit on a flash drive, so I am not worried about backing that up. Yes, if my hard drive fails, I will have to reinstall Windows and my software, but that is not a big deal compared to the data, and I prefer to do clean installs anyway.

Adrian, you are focusing on the backup capabilities, and you are right that your average home user won't go for that. What you are missing is the amount of media data that we are collecting, and how this product might offer a solution to not only storing, but organizing and serving this data to the household. From this point of view, I think Microsoft got the name just right.
0 Votes
+ -
This is one example of the type of hardware you can buy that is paired with WHS.

http://www.tranquilpc-shop.co.uk/acatalog/T7-HSA.html

Yes this is a UK site but it gives an example of what you can expect in the very near future. Some of the features that jump out at me are:

1) Fan-less (completely quiet)
2) Only consumes 24W of power
3) Comes with 500GB pre-installed
4) Add up to 4 external USB drives (up to 5TB total)
5) Adding a drive to the storage pool needs almost zero user interaction
6) Small
This writer tries to make the case that people will not buy and will not use Windows Home Server. After reading this article and taking note of the points made to support the notion that people won't buy and use Windows Home Server, I have to conclude that the exact points he makes about people and their apathy toward backing up their files, is in fact the very reasons that those same people *will* be interested in WHS.

If people won't stick to some kind of schedule for backing up their stuff, if they procrastinate the obvious need to do regular backups, and if they just don't have the knowledge or expertise to use complicated backup and sync applications, then these in fact are the very people who need, and should, and I think *will* use WHS.

Add to that the extra convenience of storing music, video, pictures, documents, software, and most anything else they might have on their computer that they need to keep safe but accessible, then you have the exact ticket they need and I think will use.

I think the writer does a good job of *making* the case for Windows Home Server.

..artfudd
0 Votes
+ -
I think most people would probably spend a $150-$200 on a big external USB drive for back-up rather than a Home Server. Very useful for all those GB's of photos!

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix