Build your own Windows Home Server for only $380
Summary: I’m a huge fan of Microsoft's Windows Home Server OS, the very capable and easy-to-use consumer server software. But the only Windows Home Server-based hardware I’ve had a chance to play around with is the HP MediaSmart Server EX470, which contains just one 500GB hard drive and costs a whopping $599.
I’m a huge fan of Microsoft's Windows Home Server OS, the very capable and easy-to-use consumer server software. But the only Windows Home Server-based hardware I’ve had a chance to play around with is the HP 
MediaSmart Server EX470, which contains just one 500GB hard drive and costs a whopping $599. The MediaSmart, essentially a minicomputer powered by a 1.8GHz AMD Sempron processor and 512MD of RAM, is an awesome product. For those who can afford it.
For those who can’t, the February issue of Popular Mechanics has a barebones article on how to build your own Windows Home Server. The gist is that, since the hardware requirements are so low, you can use most any old PC to create your own home server. Once you set it up, the headless device won’t require a keyboard or monitor, so you can tuck it away (or as away as it can get when connected to your router via Ethernet).
The article also suggests that intrepid do-it-yourselfers can build a server from scratch, and more cheaply by using Ubuntu rather than the Windows OS. I wouldn’t go that route, however, because the Windows OS is surprisingly robust and easy to use—one of the few Windows OSs that is great right out of the box, on the first try. And many people have an old PC and parts laying around.
I have a seven-year-old Dell Dimension tower that works well but never gets any love, thanks to my newer Vista and Mac notebooks. So I’m thinking of building my own Windows Home Server. I checked Newegg.com, and I found Western Digital Caviar 500GB Ultra ATA hard drives for $105 each, and the Windows Home Server OS for $170. Any good home server should have two hard drives (unlike the MediaSmart EX470, which has only one 500GB drive), so two drives would set me back $210. Add the cost of the OS, and I could build my own for $380. By comparison, a dual 500GB drive server from HP, the HP MediaSmart Server EX475, costs almost twice as much at $749.99.
Granted, it won’t look as slick as HP’s MediaSmart devices, but it should work just as well. And as DIY projects go, it’s pretty straightforward.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Then please do
This isn't out of the box however
Building hardware and configuring software are two different things
Each solution has its different advantages, but I would see most people going for the Windows Home Server route even if it costs them a few more bucks, because most people would rather spend a few dollars and know what they are getting than spend a lot of time on something that may not turn out right in the end.
Does Linux
If you are talking about your personal documents, then yes Linux is great. WHS is a nice idea that actually works as it said. HP added a lot of crap and built it around media, but that is not what WHS is about.
How computer savvy are you?
The backups are set up on my Ubuntu desktop machine.
I run two Windows VMachines that write to a Linux shared folder, again on my Ubuntu desktop. That's backed up to the server as well.
This enables me to run my 2K and XP Vmachines with NO VIRUS/SPYWARE PROTECTION WHATSOEVER! I regularly restore the machines from snapshots. They were built with the latest service packs. If I want to install a new program, I restore, then install, then test, then take a new snapshot.
Windows actually doesn't suck too badly without every file having to be scanned on access for viruses.
Of course, the Windows machines get used less and less, one holds the only way I can use an obscure scanner, the other lets me run Dreamweaver and Paint Shop Pro. I'm weaning myself off of DW, and am determined to master the Gimp before it's over.
I ran Windows from 1993-2007. It took me a couple of days to get productive with Ubuntu. It took me at least that long to get productive with Windows 3.1.
WHS may be perfect for noobs who only know drag and drop. But it's really in your own best interest to invest a little time and learn the FOSS movement's safe, secure, FREE, reliable couterparts.
Sure you can. ;)
Then just load the included Ubuntu client tool disk onto your Ubuntu desktop and let the automation begins!
Oh, wait, So you [i]can't[/i] do that?
Then why did you just say you could?
Silly Argument
note the interesting adverb "surprisingly" applied to the Windows product's
adjectives when he discussed why he went W instead of U. From this distant
vantage, it looks to be a matter of whether one would prefer more time or $170 in
one's pocket. By the way, since Mr. Fairlie has at least one Mac, the (impressive)
auto backup feature of WHS is a neutral point of comparison between it and
Ubuntu.
Now I would critique the title of the article. Mr. Fairlie has budgeted $380 dollars
to upgrade a superfluous server to WHS. That's still a good deal.
Not silly at all
My point is that Ubuntu is not "surprisingly simple" to do. It can do it, as can a standard Windows/Server system, but for the average home user to plop this on a spare system and load the client tools on his machine and all the capabilities that it gives them easily surpasses that of a Linux box.
[i]That[/i] is where WHS vs Windows Server/Linux Server differ, beyond the cost, which at 130.00 in not alot to many people interesetd in this
(BTW: My borther in law, who has allways run a Linux server for years was, quite honestly, blown away by the absolute ease of installation and use of WHS he actually purchased it.)
Average home user would buy it
Which is about the same worth...
Honest. 'Cause I'm now an official Linux convert.
Ask me why.
Why? (nt)
And the answer isss.....
silly user
Uh-huh....
If you honestly think the only way you can get a trojan is to visit warez or porn sites, I hope you have a really, REALLY good AV program and firewall installed. ;)
I bet you can't
I suppose all these things WOULD actually be possible if you had the time to create the Web front-end and write a backup that offers the capabilities of WHS.
If time was money, I'll bet you'd be out a grand before you could get close to an apples to apples implementation.
Oops meant for Itanylst
I bet you can't!
I suppose all these things WOULD actually be possible if you had the time to create the Web front-end and write a backup that offers the capabilities of WHS.
If time was money, I'll bet you'd be out a grand before you could get close to an apples to apples implementation.
Question
re: Question
"Does the WHS back up utility work for a Mac? If not then you point is moot."
At this time, remote backup support in WHS is limited to Windows XP and Vista. There is a possibility that MS may extend backup support to OS X at a later date. I think the Linux crowd is SOL, though.
WHS is a great backend