Wow how many families need a great place to store the files, and backup the home computers. I am testing Home Server and I love it. It gives our household a way to store files among the different computers, and offers universal access. One of the best features I tried on experience is the home computer restore feature. This helps you restore your crashed computer back to a previous backed up state fromo the Home Server. One of my computers had a full hard disk with no room even for windows explorer, I popped in the Home computer restore CD and followed the prompts to restore the computer to a desired backup date and after a couple of hours my computer was humming along just fine.
I can't wait for the final build and release of this software.
My recommendation for you is to sign up for the Beta test at homeserver.com and try it for yourself.
Best success to you
Windows Home Server installation
by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes | April 25, 2007 10:23am PDT | Image 1 of 36
Previous | Next
Windows Home Server Build 3790
This screenshot gallery takes you through the installation process for Windows Home Server.
Click on any image to zoom in for larger view.
Click on any image to zoom in for larger view.
Just In
A server requires hardware and Sever hardware generally costs more. Who'd pay for this?
I like the idea of a Server especially one that works easier with the Windows Desktop OS. Sure Linux is free and I can install that but it's still a bit of pain to set up. Thing is even with free Linux I don't use that as my second set of hardware isn't going to be a Server. I'll set it up as desktop. A second working PC is of more value than a server no can use directly.
What would this server do anyways? I mean what server components would it do? Seems to me like it's still Windows Vista with a few more features. Compare it to say a corporate server. Is it just a dataserver or is more? If so what justification could I use to say buy one. I need to take that to the board, my wife, to see if this something we want to budget for. If it doesn't make the budget it doesn't get bought so I need good justification. I could see buying for myself for curiosity and well it's server. My wife isn't going to buy those arguments.
I like the idea of a Server especially one that works easier with the Windows Desktop OS. Sure Linux is free and I can install that but it's still a bit of pain to set up. Thing is even with free Linux I don't use that as my second set of hardware isn't going to be a Server. I'll set it up as desktop. A second working PC is of more value than a server no can use directly.
What would this server do anyways? I mean what server components would it do? Seems to me like it's still Windows Vista with a few more features. Compare it to say a corporate server. Is it just a dataserver or is more? If so what justification could I use to say buy one. I need to take that to the board, my wife, to see if this something we want to budget for. If it doesn't make the budget it doesn't get bought so I need good justification. I could see buying for myself for curiosity and well it's server. My wife isn't going to buy those arguments.
Certainly a server that serves 100 or more clients needs better hardware, but if we're talking about enough to serve a family of as many as ten people even a three year old computer will have more than enough computing power to handle their requests. Video requirements are practically nil, sound requirement are nil, processor speed isn't nearly as high as your local machine (unless you are running network apps like a database, and I don't think we are, and even if you are it won't be a large database), and memory is cheap (although again you may not need any). You can probably even go without a monitor if you know what you're doing, but if you don't then a second hand one would be more than adequate.
If all we're doing is serving files, and maybe running a small database engine, the biggest things you'll need are fast hard drives with a bit of space (a $100 SATA hard drive and a $30 SATA adapter is quite adequate for most families) and a fast internet connection (preferably a wired gigabit adapter connected directly to the router). If you are running with four or more concurrent connections then a gig of RAM would help out quite a bit too, but again RAM is cheap.
So really if you have a three year old computer you are going to retire that should fulfill most of your hardware requirements. Maybe you'll need $100 worth of hardware upgrades, maybe you won't. So then it comes down to the price of the software, which I don't know.
If all we're doing is serving files, and maybe running a small database engine, the biggest things you'll need are fast hard drives with a bit of space (a $100 SATA hard drive and a $30 SATA adapter is quite adequate for most families) and a fast internet connection (preferably a wired gigabit adapter connected directly to the router). If you are running with four or more concurrent connections then a gig of RAM would help out quite a bit too, but again RAM is cheap.
So really if you have a three year old computer you are going to retire that should fulfill most of your hardware requirements. Maybe you'll need $100 worth of hardware upgrades, maybe you won't. So then it comes down to the price of the software, which I don't know.
and a fast internet connection
Make that a fast local network connection. Fast internet is nice but not necessary for the Home Server's functionality.
Make that a fast local network connection. Fast internet is nice but not necessary for the Home Server's functionality.
That's my point. If I'm going to buy another PC for a server then Why? I'd buy it to use a regular PC first. That is unless I have money to burn.
First, this product will initially be sold as a pre-built pre-installed solution -- buy it at Best Buy or Circuit City, take it home and plug it in. Second, "Home Server" requirements are not as strict as "Business Server" requirements. (Whether or not they should be is a discussion I'll leave for later.)
That said, the hardware requirements for this aren't all that large. As a beta tester, I'm running this on a Dell GX150 that cost $35. Since the final server will run headless, I didn't even have to buy a keyboard or monitor for it. For what I'm using it for (automated hassle-free backups of several PCs). There are a lot of other uses that I just haven't taken the time to explore, i.e., installing Windows Sharepoint Services 3.0 to have a common family calender system, or setting up my router so that my family will be able to backup their PCs remotely.
That said, the hardware requirements for this aren't all that large. As a beta tester, I'm running this on a Dell GX150 that cost $35. Since the final server will run headless, I didn't even have to buy a keyboard or monitor for it. For what I'm using it for (automated hassle-free backups of several PCs). There are a lot of other uses that I just haven't taken the time to explore, i.e., installing Windows Sharepoint Services 3.0 to have a common family calender system, or setting up my router so that my family will be able to backup their PCs remotely.
I have a SK8N asus mother board w/opteron processor and it's a beast with anything available onboard. Was built to be server but also works as blazing desktop. Ican use it either way and Never worry about upgrades as all new processors and memory I will upgrade to for YEARS works with this motherboard!!!!
It doesn't take a rack-mount or tower server -- or an MCSE -- to run this. Think of it as a NAS on steroids. 1 GHz Pentium, half a gig of ram, and as much hard drive as you can afford. Expect to see it served up on systems like HP's media server. Or, if you have a spare PC that's relatively current, you might be able to buy the OS alone and install it yourself. Automatic backups, shared folders with mirroring-like duplication, easy to use for your average home user...it hits a lot of buttons. Watch for it!
Why not have more screenshots of the actual OS? Most of these screenshots are just generic pics of the install. Have some pics of new features differences between existing Server 2003 installs.
Most linux distros are easier to set up, and can do the same functions much cheaper. Not only will linux run faster, it will do it on less expensive hardware. Use the difference in hardware costs to drive space and you'll have a great home server at low costs.
Have you tried it yet, or are you basing your opinion off these installation screenshots? These screenshots are kind of worthless because the installation process does not vary in any significant way from any other version of Windows. The real question is what is in that Windows Home Server Console.
The average Joe cannot set up a Linux/Samba server. It simply is not easy enough to do.You need at least a baseline knowledge of UNIX systems to grasp that kind of setup, which most people don't have. They can learn it easily enough, but if this Windows Home Server Console allows them to do the same things without having to learn something then it may be worth it to them to spend a bit of money. Plus the local Best Buy will support it.
The average Joe cannot set up a Linux/Samba server. It simply is not easy enough to do.You need at least a baseline knowledge of UNIX systems to grasp that kind of setup, which most people don't have. They can learn it easily enough, but if this Windows Home Server Console allows them to do the same things without having to learn something then it may be worth it to them to spend a bit of money. Plus the local Best Buy will support it.
Most of the Linux people on these boards think that Linux is as easy to use as Windows, if not easier, and that if Joe Sixpack picked up a linux distro, they'd get it in no time.
The reality is that Linux is a for tech geeks only OS. Joe doesn't want to see a command line, much less edit a profile.
Whether or not this windows server is going to be good or not, I don't know, but I'm certain the various flavors of Unix/Linux don't fit the bill. Most people want to mess with their OS about as much as I want to mess with my Car's engine.
The reality is that Linux is a for tech geeks only OS. Joe doesn't want to see a command line, much less edit a profile.
Whether or not this windows server is going to be good or not, I don't know, but I'm certain the various flavors of Unix/Linux don't fit the bill. Most people want to mess with their OS about as much as I want to mess with my Car's engine.
while most of the linux people that comment seem the type who love to play with the inner workings and such, I'm not really. I like tinkering, yes, however, I tinker with stuff tweaking the way it works. I don't want to bother setting it up only after a day of work, I don't know many console commands by heart...
but Kubuntu does the trick for me.
if the 'buntu server installs like the buntu desktop at all, then it'd be perfect (plus, feisty comes with the option to install a LAMP server, preconfigured... so, not that big a deal... at least to those who're willing to *look* before they say it'll never fit.)
and before anyone gets the wrong idea, I'm stuck on crappy download speeds, so, my iso files haven't finished bittorrenting yet.
but Kubuntu does the trick for me.
if the 'buntu server installs like the buntu desktop at all, then it'd be perfect (plus, feisty comes with the option to install a LAMP server, preconfigured... so, not that big a deal... at least to those who're willing to *look* before they say it'll never fit.)
and before anyone gets the wrong idea, I'm stuck on crappy download speeds, so, my iso files haven't finished bittorrenting yet.
I've installed Linux quite a bit. It's simple and in my opinion even easier than Windows. Now making it work in a network is also simple if you connect Linux or even Unix workstation. Microsoft workstations take a little more work. You could set up Samba, a pain, or you could download the Unix Tools for Microsoft (assuming they are still free). Either case interoperating is a paid and not so easy. All Microsoft is much easier as is all Linux.
the screen prompts. If you take any decent Linux distro like Slackware or Mandriva you are guided through the process to set it up as a workstation or a server. At every point the prompts are very precise. Every warning is usually repeated a couple of times. Unfortunately people have developed the the habit of simply clicking on the default choice without bothering to read anything at all. For them it might be a nightmare. But I consider myself an average Joe when it comes to Linux but I have never had a problem in installing a workstation, a server or a development environment under Linux - ever!
I beg to differ. This OS was very easy to set up. The number of reboots needed was tedious, but that's all done automatically and it should only need to be done once. I can't speak for "running faster". Since this product is still in beta, any benchmarks would not be accurate. I will say one thing -- the hardware I'm using is something I bought to teach myself linux. Initial Linux setup was OK and interesting. However, when I wanted to add a drive, it took most of the evening figuring the commands I needed to have the PC recognize the drive and mount it in the place where I could actually use it. With WHS, all I had to do was plug in the drive. The WHS OS handled prepping, formatting, and putting the drive into the storage pool. It also did duplication of files to the new drive automatically, so there was some redundancy of data there -- not like a RAID 5, mind you, but I didn't have to crack open any manuals to set it up, either.
In short, if I wanted to be a techie at home as well as at work, I'd go with the Linux solution. If I just wanted something to plug into the network, set it up, and forget about, WHS is what I'd use.
It might even allow me to forgive Microsoft for that POS Vista. (Maybe. I haven't quite decided yet.)
In short, if I wanted to be a techie at home as well as at work, I'd go with the Linux solution. If I just wanted something to plug into the network, set it up, and forget about, WHS is what I'd use.
It might even allow me to forgive Microsoft for that POS Vista. (Maybe. I haven't quite decided yet.)
I usually stay current with news about new operating systems but I have never heard of Windows Home Server. I am even more mystified by the screen shot that says: Windows Home Server 2003. If this has been on the market for the last four years then why are you writing about like it was NEW.
It's in beta testing. Most likely they are using 2003 Server as the backbone because Longhorn Server is still in early beta itself, and they are more interested in testing the home user features than kernel and hardware features.
This OS hasn't been released to the public yet. It's still in beta. A lot of the core OS is based on Windows Server 2003 SMB (ergo the "Home Server 2003") meaning that anything that has drivers for WinServ2003 will be able to be loaded on this thing. However, it's so stripped down from Windows Server 2003 that the "2003" is about the only thing they have in common.
The actual product hasn't been released yet. When it IS release, its first incarnation will be in pre-built plug-n-play devices, such as the HP MediaSmart Server. You can find a description of this device on the HP web site. If it's released to the public as a separate product, it will be some time after its release on these Home Server Devices.
The actual product hasn't been released yet. When it IS release, its first incarnation will be in pre-built plug-n-play devices, such as the HP MediaSmart Server. You can find a description of this device on the HP web site. If it's released to the public as a separate product, it will be some time after its release on these Home Server Devices.
I ran a home server for 3 years using Mandriva Linux. Setup was a breeze, was never re-booted, never down, never hacked, several tries,but no one got through. I doubt that windoze can do that, plus it will help the spread of Virus, Infections, Spyware, Trojans, and Adware.
Whats wrong with a good old workgroup with one 'old' PC, plenty of RAM, a large harddrive and a good Firewall/Router for your internet connection?
I haven't come across that many homes with more than 5-6 PC's/laptops.
This is just another way of Bill Gates extracting more money from the home user
I haven't come across that many homes with more than 5-6 PC's/laptops.
This is just another way of Bill Gates extracting more money from the home user
The Home Server will, when released, serve files, do automated backups of the home pc's, allow access from anywhere via a home server web site to your server so you can access your files. Yes it will track your dynamic IP from your ISP. It is going to be sold as an "appliance". Plug it in, set it up via a web browser and your done. At least that's the plan.
I think the concept is cool and I'd like it but I certainly don't need it. If I had money to burn I'd buy one when it comes out but I doubt that will happen. Most people even techies don't even know what a server is. I just don't see any value in this to justify it's cost because it won't be cheap. By cheap I mean less than the price of the workstation PC. I could see it being about a grand in price.
In the future I could see more need for this though. Today not so much. In 5-10 years it could be very useful.
In the future I could see more need for this though. Today not so much. In 5-10 years it could be very useful.
A server gives you a central location to store all the data files. Of course, I am running Linux on a $400 dell server (2.8 Gigahertz, 1 gig ram, 160 gig hard drive). Since it is a server, I don't need to spend much money on graphics. This machine works great! The reliability of a Dell coupled with reliability of Linux is a great network solution. Between me, my wife, and the kids, I have plenty of pcs in my house.
Besides, setting up one pc as a "server" in a peer to peer group is a security nightmare. I wouldn't trust my data on a Windows machine. It would probably get hacked, or the kids would trash it. For better security, I block all internet access to the server via the router (blocking ALL TCP, UDP, and ECHO ports for the server IP. That way, all the client machines can access it, but no one from the internet can.
Besides, setting up one pc as a "server" in a peer to peer group is a security nightmare. I wouldn't trust my data on a Windows machine. It would probably get hacked, or the kids would trash it. For better security, I block all internet access to the server via the router (blocking ALL TCP, UDP, and ECHO ports for the server IP. That way, all the client machines can access it, but no one from the internet can.
This system will fulfill the backup, central storage, and remote access requirements for a family without requiring a degree in computer science to set up and administer. To quote Ron Popeil, "Just set it, and...forget it!" Once installed and each of your workstations is associated with it, you don't have to talk to it any more -- until you need to restore a system after a hard drive crash. It's easy to set up, and easy to run. The fact that you've set up your own Linux server shows there's a vast, untapped market out there. Microsoft is making a good business decision here, and with what I've seen in the two beta versions I've tested, it's a winner! I think Windows Home Server will be welcomed by Windows users with multiple PCs at home. If you don't fit that description, well, this system isn't for you.
I am proof that servers are a good idea. I am also proof that you don't need a computer science degree to set one up. I use Suse Linux (which Microsoft recommends by the way) and setting it up can mostly be done through the graphical interface. The only command line entry I had to make was
sudo smbpassword -a familymembername
where familymembername was the name of the windows login account for myself, wife, and kids. It was easy! You are right when you say that it is a good idea for Microsoft to get into this market; but you also should realize that Microsoft is a late arrival to this party, and they have a bad habit of over charging. Still, if Microsoft could control its greed, I would welcome the new entry into the already established home server market.
sudo smbpassword -a familymembername
where familymembername was the name of the windows login account for myself, wife, and kids. It was easy! You are right when you say that it is a good idea for Microsoft to get into this market; but you also should realize that Microsoft is a late arrival to this party, and they have a bad habit of over charging. Still, if Microsoft could control its greed, I would welcome the new entry into the already established home server market.
...WAY geekier even than a Linux server. The version is 0.6x? Many utilities are CLI only?
Surely you jest.
Surely you jest.
I have been using the beta of home server for several months now and I can say without reservations that it really is a useful addition to any home network. It nags about backups, which most of us need to do far more frequently. It provides individual and shared network storage which is far more useful than I originally thought it would be. And it provides assess to files through an internet connection which can be a godsend.
I had a hard drive on one of my PCs begin to go bad at one point and while I could have recovered the data it would have ment reinstalling the operating system on a new hard dirve. With the backups on home server all I had to do was boot with the recovery CD and it restored the operating system to a new drive and I was back in business. I really cannot express how easy the process was.
If you have the opportunity to try the Beta, do it.
I had a hard drive on one of my PCs begin to go bad at one point and while I could have recovered the data it would have ment reinstalling the operating system on a new hard dirve. With the backups on home server all I had to do was boot with the recovery CD and it restored the operating system to a new drive and I was back in business. I really cannot express how easy the process was.
If you have the opportunity to try the Beta, do it.
I wish I got to the point of seeing these beautiful pictures! I downloaded the Windows Home Server Beta through the File Transfer Manager but I don't know where to find the files! Using Vista Search to search for Windows Home Server or whs.exe does not render any result. Does anyone know how to get from Point A to Point B?
The download will automatically go to your TEMP file. The *.* exe file does not exist because you have to burn the iso on a DVD. The software will load only from a DVD drive.
I have set up the Windows Home Server Beta software and it is a lot easier for me because I am familiar with the interface. I have tried to remember Linux command lines and what drives I need on my system but it was a steep learning curve for me.I think this is a good product and I will use it in my home to backup the 6 computers I have and stream video.
Man, I've been saying right here in this forum that Linux needs to take another look at home intigration along with developing some great applications. Nope, to worried about Red Hat and Novell for business...
I have my own Suse Linux Home Server. I know several other people who also have a Suse Linux Home Server. The main idea with a home server is to have a central place to store your files that can be accessed by one or more client pcs (Hence the term "server"). Although other flavors of Linux can be used, Microsoft has decided to back Suse as the preferred Linux distro. Almost all of the work can be done through the KDE graphical interface (which is most similiar to Windows GUI).
Your complaint about applications really doesn't make sense in this area, since all you need to share files is built right in. Home servers are not meant to be workstations. They're primary job is to backup and share files between computers.
I think Microsoft's decision to enter this market is long overdue, since more than half of computer owners own more than one pc. Further, file sharing on a server for small collection of pcs is a light workload for just about any server; so there is no need to go off the deep end in terms of hardware. An old workstation can make a wonderful home server (especially with Suse Linux, which runs very well on older hardware). With Suse, you get the added benefit that they're are very few viruses or malware programs directed at Linux, helping to keep your data secure.
Still, I welcome Microsoft's overdue entry into this established market; especially if they can keep the price low and the hardware requirements to a minimum.
Your complaint about applications really doesn't make sense in this area, since all you need to share files is built right in. Home servers are not meant to be workstations. They're primary job is to backup and share files between computers.
I think Microsoft's decision to enter this market is long overdue, since more than half of computer owners own more than one pc. Further, file sharing on a server for small collection of pcs is a light workload for just about any server; so there is no need to go off the deep end in terms of hardware. An old workstation can make a wonderful home server (especially with Suse Linux, which runs very well on older hardware). With Suse, you get the added benefit that they're are very few viruses or malware programs directed at Linux, helping to keep your data secure.
Still, I welcome Microsoft's overdue entry into this established market; especially if they can keep the price low and the hardware requirements to a minimum.
It's really neat, in terms of how a family member can buy the home server appliance from Best Buy or Circuit City, take it home, plug it in, set it up, and a family member is finished! 
Me? I'll buy Windows Longhorn Small Business Server when it comes out by Microsoft before I build a new 4U rack-mount server. It'll be used as a router (DHCP Server and DNS Server), file server, web server, "home automation" server for automating the lights, etc.
Maybe I could install Windows Home Server in a virtual machine that is hosted in a rackmount server, for making it as a file server, but I think that would be useless--heh heh. However, I can't buy Windows Home Server from a retail store unless I am a system builder selling computers and appliances, which I don't plan to sell computers...
I'm a "Windows Everywhere" kind-of-guy who likes to have Windows in every devices and appliances like stove/ovens, microwaves, etc.
Me? I'll buy Windows Longhorn Small Business Server when it comes out by Microsoft before I build a new 4U rack-mount server. It'll be used as a router (DHCP Server and DNS Server), file server, web server, "home automation" server for automating the lights, etc.
Maybe I could install Windows Home Server in a virtual machine that is hosted in a rackmount server, for making it as a file server, but I think that would be useless--heh heh.
However, I can't buy Windows Home Server from a retail store unless I am a system builder selling computers and appliances, which I don't plan to sell computers...I'm a "Windows Everywhere" kind-of-guy who likes to have Windows in every devices and appliances like stove/ovens, microwaves, etc.
Any one Dual booting this home server with XP?
I do not want to fully wipe my current system to test server for a few months just in case it is not right for me..
I do not want to fully wipe my current system to test server for a few months just in case it is not right for me..
Cannot get by the nr6, i cannot choose any time and currency or keybord, they are blank and if I click next anyway it reboots...
Join the conversation!
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Vendor Showcase
