ie8 fix

All About Microsoft

Mary-Jo Foley
Home / News & Blogs / All About Microsoft

Which should a small business choose: Windows Home Server or Windows Server Foundation?

By | November 9, 2009, 1:36pm PST

Until quite recently, Microsoft officials emphasized the “home” in Windows Home Server (WHS) when explaining how that product fit into its server line-up.

Last week, however, something changed. Microsoft officials added small office/home office (SOHO) users to its list of potential customers for WHS. On November 5, the WHS team posted a new blog entry entitled “Top 10 reasons to use Windows Home Server in your SOHO.” From that post:

“Don’t let the name Windows Home Server fool you into thinking that this product was created for home use only. A lot of the reasons that you would use Windows Home Server in your home are just as applicable to a small or home office. Windows Home Server provides a dependable and affordable way to organize and safeguard your work on up to 10 computers.”

Up until this point, Microsoft’s business-focused Windows Server family looked like this (with entry-level servers listed first):

  • Windows Server Foundation
  • Windows Server Standard
  • Windows Server Enterprise
  • Windows Server Datacenter

Other “specialty” versions include the Web Edition, Windows Small Business Server and Windows Essential Business Server. (The latter two bundle together various Microsoft applications, like Exchange Server and SQL Server, with Windows Server.)

Microsoft delivered the first release of Foundation Server in April 2009. The R2 version of Windows Server Foundation is globally available (covering all countries in Western Europe, Central Eastern Europe, France, German and Korea and Middle East/Africa) as of this week. Like WHS, Foundation is primarily an OEM product. The first release of Foundation was available preloaded on servers from Dell, HP, NEC and Fujitsu. The R2 version will be sold by these same server vendors, plus IBM, Lenovo, Acer and local OEMs such as Wortmann (in Germany) Datateknik (Turkey) Lanix (Mexico), Positivo (Brazil) and NTT (Japan), among others, according to the company.

So which should a small business user choose: Foundation or WHS? The biggest difference seems to be in the number of users that are supported. Foundation scales up to 15, while Home Server only supports up to 10, company officials said. In addition, Home Server is also designed specifically as a media server, with storage and file backup features for movies, music and photos,” a spokesperson added when I asked for more information.

“Windows Home Server is for people who work and play at home,” said Eugene Saburi, General Manager in the Windows Server & Solutions Division. “And it’s still based on Windows Server 2003,” at this point, he said. “Windows Foundation is more of a general-purpose platform,” Saburi added. “You can install a line-of-business app on it.”

(There’s no official word on when Microsoft plans to upgrade WHS so that it is based on Windows Server 2008 or 2008 R2. Maybe that’s “Vail” — which could be out next year if the latest rumors are right.)

Meanwhile, if you’re wondering when will the R2-inclusive versions of Windows Small Business Server and Windows Essential Business Server will be out, Microsoft officials aren’t saying. They are not talking about a month, a quarter or even a year (!) in terms of shipping commitments for these two products. Sigh.

One would think it wouldn’t take the Softies long to update the existing SBS and EBS products to include the “minor” Windows Server 2008 R2 update… but if they also include the new Exchange Server 2010 bits, it could take a bit longer. And if they wait for the SharePoint 2010 ones, the next releases might not be out until after mid-2010….

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

More from “All About Microsoft”

Topics

Microsoft Windows Server, Microsoft Windows Home Server, Small Business, Microsoft Windows, Servers, Operating Systems, Software, Hardware, Mary Jo Foley

Mary Jo has covered the tech industry for more than 25 years for a variety of publications and Web sites, and is a frequent guest on radio, TV and podcasts, speaking about all things Microsoft-related. She is the author of Microsoft 2.0: How Microsoft plans to stay relevant in the post-Gates era (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).

Disclosure

Mary-Jo Foley

Freelance journalist/blogger Mary Jo Foley has nothing to disclose. WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). I do not own Microsoft stock or stock in any of its partners or competitors. I have no business ventures that are sponsored by/funded by Microsoft or any of its partners or competitors.

Biography

Mary-Jo Foley

Mary Jo Foley has covered the tech industry for 25 years for a variety of publications, including ZDNet, eWeek and Baseline. She has kept close tabs on Microsoft strategy, products and technologies for the past 10 years. In the late 1990s, she penned the award-winning "At The Evil Empire" column for ZDNet, and more recently the Microsoft Watch blog for Ziff Davis.

Got a tip? Send her an email with your rants, rumors, tips and tattles. Confidentiality guaranteed.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
Ask a Question Start a Discussion
57
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Which should a small business choose: Windows Home Server or Windows Server Foundation?
jackson1984-24316069205748857739440257893812 10th Oct
I just subscribed on your RSS feed, unsure black ugg if I did it accurately even though? Superior report from the way.
View in thread
0 Votes
+ -
Competition
DannyO_0x98 9th Nov 2009
The $1000 Mac-Mini with Snow Leopard Server and no user-count limits
may have inspired the outreach.
0 Votes
+ -
One small problem
NonZealot 9th Nov 2009
Then you are stuck running OS X. A bad OS with no user-count limits is useless.

If you want to avoid MS in the server department, going with OS X is just stupid. Linux would be a far better alternative.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes I'd REALLY have to question
storm14k 9th Nov 2009
....someone going to OS X for a server before looking at having the same OS the big boys use for free.
0 Votes
+ -
You're a MORON
itguy08 10th Nov 2009
Why is OSX bad? It's BSD, the server tools are based on Open source (Apache, Postfix, OpenLDAP, etc) and has support.

The only negative would be the laptop hard drives in the Mini but blade servers have gotten away with it...
0 Votes
+ -
Who's a moron?
Joe_Raby 10th Nov 2009
Blade servers don't use laptop hard drives. Sorry. They may be 2.5" form factors, but they're night and day in reliability, and you won't see any laptops shipping with 10,000 or 15,000 RPM drives with SAS interfaces in them.
0 Votes
+ -
He's a moron?
edwards.wb 10th Nov 2009
I thought the big benefit of open source was "free to develop, free to use", that kind of gets lost with the whole "let's pay the $500 dollar Apple premium"
0 Votes
+ -
Clueless
theo_durcan 2nd Dec 2009
Unless Im wrong I think you are clueless about OSX. Care to prove me wrong?

TD
0 Votes
+ -
That depends on your needs.
ye Updated - 9th Nov 2009
WHS is a great solution for file sharing and/or client backups. It's backup feature is a strong selling point, IMO. It would be nice to see this extended to every version of Windows.

If you need more than basic file sharing and client backups WHS is unlikely to be an option.
0 Votes
+ -
I'd second that
Joe_Raby 9th Nov 2009
WHS for a 10-user or less small business is a good option. Shared files, automated backup, internet access to files, and let's not forget that WHS also does Terminal Services Gateway Redirection to workstation PC's.

If a client needs desktop, user, and email management, as well as an onsite, rather than hosted intranet, SBS is a better solution.

WHS with hosted Exchange and Sharepoint is alright, but it depends on whether or not the client allows their data to be remotely hosted. Many companies don't want that, because they're regulated, or are skeptical about the security of cloud services, and so they should be.

Foundation seems to be a niche product. I see it as being a product for a small business that is expecting rapid growth of their business into the enterprise space, but want a server product that offers heavily-componentized AD infrastructure at a budget price, knowing that they can easily expand it. The problem lies in Foundation only offering support of 15 users. That restriction also applies if it's used as a member server on a pre-existing domain. Reseller option kits place it at under $300 for bundling with new hardware. It's cheap, but I don't think it's a wise investment because it lacks the features that most people would look for in a server environment over, say, a NAS. See, there's this other Microsoft product called Windows Storage Server, that ALSO sells on OEM hardware. Foundation doesn't include Exchange, or Sharepoint. Aside from LOB support, I don't see the point here. I tend to think this is a product that an enterprise IT person would recommend to a small business because it's Server 08 stripped down, not an integrated solution. Kudos to Microsoft to fill in a lower price point though.

SBS is a better investment IMO.
0 Votes
+ -
But how much it cost for more than 10 users?
theo_durcan 2nd Dec 2009
Please tell us how much per year.

TD
0 Votes
+ -
Advice for SMB's
Spikey_Mike Updated - 9th Nov 2009
Don't go the MS route. Avoid the lock-in, avoid the costs.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bsa+linux+ernie+ball

"I know I saved $80,000 right away by going to open source, and each time something like (Windows) XP comes along, I save even more money because I don't have to buy new equipment to run the software."

A few companies that use Linux for major systems:
http://www.aaxnet.com/design/linux2.html
0 Votes
+ -
Neither: Ubuntu Server 9.10
D T Schmitz 9th Nov 2009
Price: $0.00
# of copies allowed: Unlimited

See if Windows Home Server or Foundation can beat that!
0 Votes
+ -
WHS: $350 including hardware.
ye Updated - 9th Nov 2009
And a whole lot easier to setup and more reliable in the backup department. It's a great solution for 10 or less people who just need basic file sharing and backup.
0 Votes
+ -
Ubuntu server $250
itguy08 10th Nov 2009
WHS adds about $50-100 to the price of the server.

Combine it with an off-site backup like CrashPlan (works on Linux) and you have a winner that will cost less and be more reliable than anything from MS.
0 Votes
+ -
You're both wrong
Joe_Raby 10th Nov 2009
You won't get a server for $250 or $350. Oh sure, you can buy a desktop and call it a "server", but it isn't server-grade hardware - it's just a repurposed desktop.

Server hardware is expensive. And more reliable. Intel Xeon 3000 series CPU's may just be rebranded Core 2/Core i7 CPU's, but the silicon is validated for server workloads. Also, you won't be able to use a Xeon on most desktop boards, and server boards cost almost twice as much as an average desktop board. Then you have cases and power supplies that offer EATX support that desktops just don't have. Add to that your higher-spec hard drives (enterprise SATA at the very least, and only if you're on an extremely tight budget).

BTW: I would hate to see a $250 PC being used as a server, regardless of OS. To me, that sounds like a refurb, and any self-respecting IT pro steers clear of refurbs.
0 Votes
+ -
Don't get too hung up on the word "server".
ye 10th Nov 2009
The kind of business WHS would be suitable for would not be the kind of business suited for a real server. For such a business it is not uncommon to find a desktop PC acting as a server. For this kind of business WHS is perfect. It offers dirt simple and reliable backups. It acts as a simple file store. And for $350 for hardware and software it's a bargin.
0 Votes
+ -
I don't think of a WHS device as a server really
Joe_Raby 10th Nov 2009
It's for a glorified NAS device but the software is really just Windows Storage Server designed for home users.

The RDP Gateway option is just a bonus.

0 Votes
+ -
That's why I said not to get hung up on the word "server".
ye 10th Nov 2009
WHS was never intended to be the server class you are defining. It's designed to be a simple, easy to use file store/media/backup server. And it works very well at that. A client I worked for a year ago was perfectly suited for WHS. They had an old 486 running Windows NT 4.0 sitting in the back room acting as their file server. A script was configured on the end user workstations to backup certain data deemed important. It was a six person office, one of which was part time. WHS is the perfect solution for such an environment. It offers simple file sharing and a very solid back solution. All of which do not require any interaction from the office staff. And if a computer is off when it needs to be backed up the WHS client software will power it on, perform a block level backup (thus saving huge amounts of disk space on the WHS sever), and the power it back off.

They don't need, nor will they ever pay for a data center grade server. It's overkill. And with a complete WHS solution (hardware and software) costing $350 it's a great bargin (Atom processor, 2GB RAM, 1TB HD with three additional hot swap bays, gigabit ethernet).
0 Votes
+ -
more RDP power
ThinkFairer 10th Nov 2009

Wait till you install software such as ThinServer 2003 and you will have a full functioning MULTIPLE remote desktop server !!
0 Votes
+ -
I prefer a real server
theo_durcan 2nd Dec 2009
It happens also that is less expensive. So I can buy better hardware. Is the wining formula. By the way, I dont know if exists what you describe: "not be the kind of business suited for a real server."

In my world, there is not such a business not suited for a real server.
TD
0 Votes
+ -
And who is going to manage that Linux system?
ye 10th Nov 2009
WHS is dirt simple to use and provides a much easier and reliable backup system than Linux. Before you try and refute this please setup a WHS server and you'll find you can't. It's that easy and good. For a small( 10 user) business WHS is a great backup file server solution.
0 Votes
+ -
Little confused...
dchase@... 10th Nov 2009
"Before you try and refute this please setup a
WHS server and you'll find you can't."

I think what you meant there is try and setup a
Linux based server that does everything WHS
does. I don't think doing so would actually
prove that difficult, but I would agree it's
not going to be as easy as the WHS solution for
most users.

Of course, WHS is limited in its application,
whereas Linux will be more flexible. So the
actual scope of work the small business needs
the server to perform is the most important
aspect.

0 Votes
+ -
I repeat: Set up a WHS server before trying to respond.
ye 10th Nov 2009
Had you you'd know how foolish your response was. For what WHS was intended to do it does it very well and with little effort. Current Linux solutions can't touch it.
0 Votes
+ -
I repeat: You said you can't setup a WHS
dchase@... 10th Nov 2009
First off, you keep saying "WHS server" which literally equals windows home server server.

Second, you said "Before you try and refute this please setup a WHS server and you'll find you can't." So you are saying that a Windows Home Server cannot be setup?

Third, I agreed that WHS is an easier to setup solution and is going to prove a better option for most users. But I contend it is possible to do the same in Linux.

Finally, I have tried WHS and it did not work for my needs. So your assumption is more foolish than any response I could have given.

Regardless, my last point, that one's needs, whether a small business or home user, is the most important aspect in determining the type of server one should have is still the most important part. As you state, WHS works well for its intended purpose, so when you try to use it for purposes it is not intended for, your own statement could be used to reach the conclusion that it doesn't work well.
0 Votes
+ -
@dchase: LOL. More wanna be grammar police.
ye 10th Nov 2009
First off, you keep saying "WHS server" which literally equals windows home server server.

Which is a completely acceptable way of writing it. DNS server is another such example. Stop being so petty about a non-issue.

Second, you said "Before you try and refute this please setup a WHS server and you'll find you can't." So you are saying that a Windows Home Server cannot be setup?

The "...you'll find you can't" is in reference to the inability to refute that Linux is easier and reliable given in the preceeding sentence:

"WHS is dirt simple to use and provides a much easier and reliable backup system than Linux."

For someone who professes to know so much about language you seem to fail at so many levels.

Third, I agreed that WHS is an easier to setup solution and is going to prove a better option for most users. But I contend it is possible to do the same in Linux.

Which is why I said set one up before trying to refute that WHS provides a reliable and easier offering than Linux. And here you are trying to refute it without having set one up. Thus leading to your incorrect conclusion that Linux is the same. It's not.

Finally, I have tried WHS and it did not work for my needs. So your assumption is more foolish than any response I could have given.

Doubtful. Otherwise you wouldn't be making the claim Linux is just as easy. As a user of Linux I know it's not.

As you state, WHS works well for its intended purpose, so when you try to use it for purposes it is not intended for, your own statement could be used to reach the conclusion that it doesn't work well.

Do you know how stupid you sound making this statement?
0 Votes
+ -
Manage?
jasonp@... 2nd Dec 2009
To borrow a line, you just set it and forget it. Just like that Windows server. There is little to no "management" involved. If somebody is computer literate, they should be able to set up a Linux box to be a file server/backup server with no problems. Now if the person is a complete computer illiterate they may do better dropping back to a Windows solution that was made just for them.
0 Votes
+ -
Ye and how much is for 11 users?
theo_durcan 2nd Dec 2009
and more?
TD
0 Votes
+ -
Easy to beat that.
No_Ax_to_Grind 10th Nov 2009
WHS actually works and has value.
0 Votes
+ -
You know what else is 0?
Loverock Davidson 10th Nov 2009
The reliability of a linux server. 0.
0 Votes
+ -
Reliability? Linux wins
crazydanr@... 10th Nov 2009
But as someone else said - it's all about features.

Try setting up a VNC gateway, a Samba share with various permissions, and an intranet portal on your linux box. Sure, I could set that up. Think a small business owner with limited resources can? Nope. They'll have to bring someone in to help, and then rely on them for the future. I bet that will end up costing may more than WHS.

Sure, it's stable as anything. But if it's a pain to configure and setup and has a mish-mash of open source apps that don't integrate well, what's the point?
0 Votes
+ -
you know what else is 0?
ljenux-23043766007667558234416105604265 11th Nov 2009
your intelligence
0 Votes
+ -
Right. As long as they hire you to run it, of course
GuidingLight Updated - 10th Nov 2009
Because there is no such thing as a "user friendly" Linux server.

But you knew that allready, you were just keeping that part to yourself... wink
0 Votes
+ -
I'd prefer a Windows Server Foundation over a Home Server.
Grayson Peddie 9th Nov 2009
I think Windows Home Server is designed only for
novices while Windows Server is geared for general-
purpose/home users who want a small primary domain
controller and a web server. happy

Ah, yes! I've configured Samba under Ubuntu as a
domain controller with simple useradd/groupadd scripts
(no LDAP) and it is not that hard to configure, but I
had to add DNS entries to fool Windows Vista Ultimate
into thinking that my Linux server is a domain
controller. Even though Samba-based primary domain
controller is not that hard to configure, Windows-
based primary domain controller is easier to configure
than Samba under Linux. For example, once you add
Active Directory Domain Services in the Server Role
configuration wizard, you execute dcpromo.exe, enter
your FQDN, master password, let it install DNS server,
and you're done.

The advantage with Windows is I don't have to worry
about useradd/groupadd scripts under Linux with Samba
server. Not even have to worry about directory and
create masks or anything like that, but it works fine.
0 Votes
+ -
why would you use microsoft at all?
ljenux-23043766007667558234416105604265 9th Nov 2009
don't be ridicilous....be journalist
0 Votes
+ -
Take an eye exam.
Grayson Peddie 10th Nov 2009
http://img442.imageshack.us/i/iaams.jpg/
0 Votes
+ -
Why? That's an easy one
John Zern 10th Nov 2009
People use Microsoft because they want to get things done.
0 Votes
+ -
Getting Work Done Quickily and Easily (Phone System is One Example)
Grayson Peddie 10th Nov 2009
When it comes to setting up Asterisk+FreePBX
and getting the phone system to work after I
set it up properly, I once received phone calls
on which their phone keeps ringing after I
answer it. This is even when I set up the
firewall correctly using Webmin. I was able to
make outgoing calls, though. Man, it is so hard
to get Asterisk compiled and get FreePBX to
work... It even required me to configure mySQL.
sad

So then I tried trixbox CE virtualized in my
Ubuntu Server. Even if I configure the firewall
properly to forward packets to trixbox, I get a
message saying that the person I call from an
external phone is not available. I tried to
make a test call, but it rings once and it
establishes with no audio. It could be the
firewall in trixbox that's the problem, but I
gave up... sad

So, I went with 3CX running in Windows Web
Server as a guest and it worked very well.

So here's my summary:

* Asterisk+FreePBX: You have to install
necessary packages that Asterisk depends in and
install FreePBX, making sure you configure it
properly. Outgoing calls work, but I can't
receive incoming calls due to external phone
continuously ringing, even if I hung up.

* Installing trixbox CE will erase all your
partitions from your hard drive unless you back
up from your server to your desktop, so run
trixbox as a guest instead or if you have the
money, build yourself an ultra low-end server.
I can't make outgoing and can't receive
incoming calls. I didn't bother with the built-
in firewall in trixbox VM in VirtualBox.

For those two above, which is Asterisk+FreePBX
(in Ubuntu Server with GNOME) or trixbox, I got
so tired of it and gave up. But of course, I
did have no problems whatsoever configuring the
firewall for NAT'ing, along with dhcp3-server
and BIND9.

* Installing and configuring 3CX is as easy as
pie under Windows. 3CX Phone System gets added
to the list of exceptions in my Windows
firewall and I'm able to make and receive calls
without a fuss.

Oh, and one thing about 3CX Phone System, I do
lose some of the features found in freePBX or
trixbox, but oh well... If I need extra
features in 3CX Phone System, that will set me
back $375.
That's something I cannot afford.
0 Votes
+ -
Centos 5, Unbuntu, OS X server
itguy08 10th Nov 2009
All are 10000x better than anything from MS
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Which should a small business choose: Windows Home Server or Windows Server Foundation?
Loverock Davidson 10th Nov 2009
Sure why not, WHS can be a multitasker! happy
0 Votes
+ -
Another market open source has missed
No_Ax_to_Grind 10th Nov 2009
I would LOVE to see a Linux alternative in the SOHO / Home Server arena but no one has bothered to build it. Build an "out of the box" server that Windows, Macs and Linux clients can attach to with ZERO hassle for automatic back ups, provide VPN into the network, allow it to stream media on the network, maybe toss in home automation and security for those that want it, maybe an email server, etc. and make it easy to manage. Now you have something that will appeal to users.
0 Votes
+ -
Well...
Loverock Davidson 10th Nov 2009
There is FreeNAS which luckily is based off of the superior FreeBSD instead of the inferior linux. Imagine if it was linux based and how often you'd have to update and recompile? That is why they went FreeBSD instead, because it just works. I will admit its not as nice as WHS but still better than anything the linux world could offer.

http://www.freenas.org/
0 Votes
+ -
your beloved BSD seems to have a bug...
SpikeyMike Updated - 10th Nov 2009
Major FreeBSD (underlying OS of FreeNAS) old bug:
Do not write or access to a FAT32 drive across CIFS (Samba) Protocol: It will corrupt some of your file!
(Message for FreeBSD committer/guru? Can you fix this problem please?)

0 Votes
+ -
If Loverock
Viva la crank dodo 10th Nov 2009
does not acknowledge the bug, it does not exist. If he does acknowledge it, it is a user issue.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes imagine
Viva la crank dodo 10th Nov 2009
recompiling, since thats about all you would need to do. And updating? You never addressed another windows supporter who pointed out that you destroy your credibility when you keep repeating this claim. I though disagree with him. You would have had to first establish some form of credibility prior to it being destroyed.

As for updates, what system do you not have to update. Even on Windows, you need to update all applications on the Windows server, not just Windows itself. What ever you choose to install on Linux requires the same due diligence.
0 Votes
+ -
Re: Updates
Joe_Raby 10th Nov 2009
"As for updates, what system do you not have to update."

A system that has limited access to the internet or has limited security vectors that can be compromised, and one where minor changes can cause problems with business applications if they are custom-written and interact with the OS in ways that Microsoft didn't think of. Updates can break functionality in those regards. Just take a look at every previous service pack for Windows for an example. Ditto for every Linux and Mac OS X release. The odds are good that an update that changes the operating system will break SOMETHING. Operating system updates may be important, but business software usually comes first, for most companies. Updates need to be tested for compatibility before they applied in any enterprise environment. Some businesses just can't apply certain updates too, and that is sometimes just the way of life for them. It's unfortunate if security or bugs have to mitigated in other ways, but if it comes between doing a workaround, or possible downtime, most businesses will choose the workaround.
0 Votes
+ -
SME Server
Kerry from BC 10th Nov 2009
SME Server is very close to what you are asking for.

http://wiki.contribs.org/SME_Server:About
0 Votes
+ -
You just described OSX
theo_durcan 2nd Dec 2009
but now we are talking "real server", using Ye's categorization.
0 Votes
+ -
I don't believe MS
bmgoodman 10th Nov 2009
I'll believe Microsoft that they're REALLY aiming for SOHO users when WHS is available via TechNet. grin
0 Votes
+ -
I stand corrected
bmgoodman 10th Nov 2009
I found that it IS now in TechNet. Mea culpa. Now I believe. happy
0 Votes
+ -
WHS is supported for business use
Joe_Raby 10th Nov 2009
WHS can even be used as your complete PC backup solution when connected to a typical SBS domain setup (SBS isn't designed to do that, but it has PC file redirection options that work differently, but still backup files from PC's):

http://msmvps.com/blogs/kwsupport/archive/2009/03/20/sbs-whs-and-backup-software.aspx
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Which should a small business choose: Windows Home Server or Windows Server Foundation?
jackson1984-24316069205748857739440257893812 10th Oct
I just subscribed on your RSS feed, unsure black ugg if I did it accurately even though? Superior report from the way.

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

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

Blog Roll

Blog Archive

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix