Guest - Bobb - Posted July 3, 2008 Posted July 3, 2008 I looked and couldn't find specific newsgroup for WHS, so if this is the right group... I've looked around and still wondering: 1. Who / what is the target market for it ? If it's homes with a lot of PC's - it that market really big enough ? 2. Getting HOME server vs. "regular server 2003" ... Would you know ... I would assume that the ISP charges for " a server" as opposed to PC ? My reason for asking is that I've been watching it since release and thinking "what can this do for users that Server2003 couldn't". I thought there would be some software app included / some big reason to "have to have it", but I don't see anything. From the write-ups, it didn't offer the buyer 'anything extra'. In fact, the reviews show the interface is pretty stark and for users that DID have lots of stuff to hook up, the HP model doesn't even have many connections. ( I know some folks that wouldn't mind the price - but I'd find it hard to justify WHS for just internet file access or " just getting another PC" for file sharing /backup. ) I'll try it but wondering if anyone has/tried it and can provide insight ? Thanks.
Guest Meinolf Weber Posted July 3, 2008 Posted July 3, 2008 Re: WHS Windows Home Server Hello - Bobb -, Windows home server, but only german: microsoft.public.de.windows.homeserver Think this will be yours: http://forums.microsoft.com/windowshomeserver/default.aspx?siteid=50 http://blogs.technet.com/homeserver/ http://mswhs.com/ Best regards Meinolf Weber Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. ** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups ** HELP us help YOU!!! http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm > I looked and couldn't find specific newsgroup for WHS, so if this is > the right group... I've looked around and still wondering: > > 1. Who / what is the target market for it ? > If it's homes with a lot of PC's - it that market really big enough ? > 2. Getting HOME server vs. "regular server 2003" ... > Would you know ... I would assume that the ISP charges for " a server" > as > opposed to PC ? My reason for asking is that I've been watching it > since > release and thinking "what can this do for users that Server2003 > couldn't". > I thought there would be some software app included / some big reason > to > "have to have it", but I don't see anything. From the write-ups, it > didn't > offer the buyer 'anything extra'. In fact, the reviews show the > interface > is pretty stark and for users that DID have lots of stuff to hook up, > the > HP model doesn't even have many connections. > ( I know some folks that wouldn't mind the price - but I'd find it > hard to > justify WHS for just internet file access or " just getting another > PC" > for file sharing /backup. ) > I'll try it but wondering if anyone has/tried it and can provide > insight ? > Thanks.
Guest - Bobb - Posted July 3, 2008 Posted July 3, 2008 Re: WHS Windows Home Server Thank you for the pointers "Meinolf Weber" <meiweb(nospam)@gmx.de> wrote in message news:ff16fb66a2b4f8caab22034d2023@msnews.microsoft.com... > Hello - Bobb -, > > Windows home server, but only german: > microsoft.public.de.windows.homeserver > > Think this will be yours: > http://forums.microsoft.com/windowshomeserver/default.aspx?siteid=50 > > http://blogs.technet.com/homeserver/ > > http://mswhs.com/ > > Best regards > > Meinolf Weber > Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and > confers no rights. > ** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups > ** HELP us help YOU!!! http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm > >> I looked and couldn't find specific newsgroup for WHS, so if this is >> the right group... I've looked around and still wondering: >> >> 1. Who / what is the target market for it ? >> If it's homes with a lot of PC's - it that market really big enough ? >> 2. Getting HOME server vs. "regular server 2003" ... >> Would you know ... I would assume that the ISP charges for " a server" >> as >> opposed to PC ? My reason for asking is that I've been watching it >> since >> release and thinking "what can this do for users that Server2003 >> couldn't". >> I thought there would be some software app included / some big reason >> to >> "have to have it", but I don't see anything. From the write-ups, it >> didn't >> offer the buyer 'anything extra'. In fact, the reviews show the >> interface >> is pretty stark and for users that DID have lots of stuff to hook up, >> the >> HP model doesn't even have many connections. >> ( I know some folks that wouldn't mind the price - but I'd find it >> hard to >> justify WHS for just internet file access or " just getting another >> PC" >> for file sharing /backup. ) >> I'll try it but wondering if anyone has/tried it and can provide >> insight ? >> Thanks. > >
Guest Florian Frommherz [MVP] Posted July 3, 2008 Posted July 3, 2008 Re: WHS Windows Home Server Howdie! - Bobb - schrieb: > 1. Who / what is the target market for it ? > If it's homes with a lot of PC's - it that market really big enough ? I guess they wouldn't ship it, if there wasn't enough market ;) > 2. Getting HOME server vs. "regular server 2003" ... Technically, it would best be compared to Small Business Server 2003 as it's built on top of that technology. But we're talking about real benefits here, not only technical stuff... Compared to a full-blown server OS, there's the licencing stuff - you don't to buy an expensive license since you don't wanna run clustering services, domain services and stuff. Besides that, WHS offers a rich set of "tools" that help you create shares and create a remote web interface logon to the box so you can access your pictures and files and stuff from everywhere. It comes with a connector software that lets you image all "client" pcs around and restores them in case they're messed up. The imaging works with sort of deltas as every file gets imaged only once - no matter on how many machines it is (that's at least how I got it). I guess all the media service don't really come with WS2003 - at least not in a way you could use them right-away. Made simple, WHS is for home users that don't care about technical issues much. It's mostly wizard-based. If you're an IT-Pro, I guess you'll not find much that you can use that WS 2003 wouldn't offer you. From a home user's perspective, it's a product you could use to backup and store your files on - including a backup solution for the machines around. It's even cool to use as a media station. I personally wouldn't use it as I've no need for it. Others might think different :) cheers, Florian -- Microsoft MVP - Group Policy eMail: prename [at] frickelsoft [dot] net. blog: http://www.frickelsoft.net/blog. Use a newsreader! http://www.frickelsoft.net/news.html
Guest - Bobb - Posted July 3, 2008 Posted July 3, 2008 Re: WHS Windows Home Server "Florian Frommherz [MVP]" florian@frickelsoft.DELETETHIS.net wrote in message news:OSiBVDQ3IHA.2060@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > Howdie! > > - Bobb - schrieb: >> 1. Who / what is the target market for it ? >> If it's homes with a lot of PC's - it that market really big enough ? > > I guess they wouldn't ship it, if there wasn't enough market ;) They could "offer it" for sale , but I was just wondering how many real-world buyers ( since I don't know any " backup hungry" homeusers). As you say: "I personally wouldn't use it as I've no need for it. " - that's my feeling too. I'll check out your website/blogs. Danke schön > >> 2. Getting HOME server vs. "regular server 2003" ... > > Technically, it would best be compared to Small Business Server 2003 as > it's built on top of that technology. But we're talking about real > benefits here, not only technical stuff... > > Compared to a full-blown server OS, there's the licencing stuff - you > don't to buy an expensive license since you don't wanna run clustering > services, domain services and stuff. Besides that, WHS offers a rich set > of "tools" that help you create shares and create a remote web interface > logon to the box so you can access your pictures and files and stuff > from everywhere. > > It comes with a connector software that lets you image all "client" pcs > around and restores them in case they're messed up. The imaging works > with sort of deltas as every file gets imaged only once - no matter on > how many machines it is (that's at least how I got it). I guess all the > media service don't really come with WS2003 - at least not in a way you > could use them right-away. > > Made simple, WHS is for home users that don't care about technical > issues much. It's mostly wizard-based. If you're an IT-Pro, I guess > you'll not find much that you can use that WS 2003 wouldn't offer you. > From a home user's perspective, it's a product you could use to backup > and store your files on - including a backup solution for the machines > around. It's even cool to use as a media station. > > I personally wouldn't use it as I've no need for it. Others might think > different :) > > cheers, > > Florian > -- > Microsoft MVP - Group Policy > eMail: prename [at] frickelsoft [dot] net. > blog: http://www.frickelsoft.net/blog. > Use a newsreader! http://www.frickelsoft.net/news.html
Guest - Bobb - Posted July 3, 2008 Posted July 3, 2008 Re: WHS Windows Home Server From a link on one of your links ... I found this : http://download.microsoft.com/download/b/4/9/b491dc53-fbbf-4763-9c7d-bc6657776450/WHS_Reviewer_Guide.pdf " You may need to add services from your broadband provider to use Windows Home Server’s remote access features. For example, you will need certain "ports" to be open to use these features. Some broadband providers block certain ports for customers on some service plans. Also, some broadband providers’ terms of service may limit or prohibit setting up and running of "servers" on their networks by some customers on some service plans. Make sure that your use of Windows Home Server features follows your broadband providers’ terms of service." THAT's a big part of what I was looking for ! My ISP charges $175 per month for a server connection - instead of $42 for my current setup. So I wouldn't be using that feature. "- Bobb -" <bobb@noemail.123> wrote in message news:Ooy$KKR3IHA.3500@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > > "Florian Frommherz [MVP]" florian@frickelsoft.DELETETHIS.net wrote in > message news:OSiBVDQ3IHA.2060@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> Howdie! >> >> - Bobb - schrieb: >>> 1. Who / what is the target market for it ? >>> If it's homes with a lot of PC's - it that market really big enough ? >> >> I guess they wouldn't ship it, if there wasn't enough market ;) > > They could "offer it" for sale , but I was just wondering how many > real-world buyers ( since I don't know any " backup hungry" homeusers). > As you say: > "I personally wouldn't use it as I've no need for it. " - that's my > feeling too. > I'll check out your website/blogs. > Danke schön > > >> >>> 2. Getting HOME server vs. "regular server 2003" ... >> >> Technically, it would best be compared to Small Business Server 2003 as >> it's built on top of that technology. But we're talking about real >> benefits here, not only technical stuff... >> >> Compared to a full-blown server OS, there's the licencing stuff - you >> don't to buy an expensive license since you don't wanna run clustering >> services, domain services and stuff. Besides that, WHS offers a rich >> set of "tools" that help you create shares and create a remote web >> interface logon to the box so you can access your pictures and files >> and stuff from everywhere. >> >> It comes with a connector software that lets you image all "client" pcs >> around and restores them in case they're messed up. The imaging works >> with sort of deltas as every file gets imaged only once - no matter on >> how many machines it is (that's at least how I got it). I guess all the >> media service don't really come with WS2003 - at least not in a way you >> could use them right-away. >> >> Made simple, WHS is for home users that don't care about technical >> issues much. It's mostly wizard-based. If you're an IT-Pro, I guess >> you'll not find much that you can use that WS 2003 wouldn't offer you. >> From a home user's perspective, it's a product you could use to backup >> and store your files on - including a backup solution for the machines >> around. It's even cool to use as a media station. >> >> I personally wouldn't use it as I've no need for it. Others might think >> different :) >> >> cheers, >> >> Florian >> -- >> Microsoft MVP - Group Policy >> eMail: prename [at] frickelsoft [dot] net. >> blog: http://www.frickelsoft.net/blog. >> Use a newsreader! http://www.frickelsoft.net/news.html >
Guest Kerry Brown Posted July 3, 2008 Posted July 3, 2008 Re: WHS Windows Home Server > 2. Getting HOME server vs. "regular server 2003" ... > Would you know ... I would assume that the ISP charges for " a server" as > opposed to PC ? My reason for asking is that I've been watching it since > release and thinking "what can this do for users that Server2003 > couldn't". I've installed it just for the backup features. It is the best backup solution I've seen for a SOHO network. It can be installed on minimal hardware. I use a Duron CPU, 512 MB, and a couple of 500GB hard drives. Other than the hard drives the hardware was sitting in a junk pile in the basement waiting to go to the recycle depot. It has built in redundancy and is fully supported when doing bare metal restores. It even backs up my SBS server, although I recommend a second backup for this as it's not a supported solution for SBS. I also do a standard SBS backup to a USB drive once a week. To answer your question. Server 2003 costs considerably more, especially when you add in the hardware costs to get the same level of file system redundancy. Server 2003 does not have the same backup capabilities without adding 3rd party software or doing some very advanced scripting with NTBackup. The only backup solutions I've tried that even come close to the same ease of use are Acronis and Shadowprotect which are both ~$1,000.00 to get the same capabilities for a SBS server and nine clients. Even though it's called Home Server I'm recommending it for my SOHO/SMB customers as a backup solution. I can install a decent backup solution for less than the cost of the software alone with a Server 2003 solution. All the other features are just a bonus for me. -- Kerry Brown MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/
Guest - Bobb - Posted August 4, 2008 Posted August 4, 2008 Re: WHS Windows Home Server I just got my trial DVDs in the mailbox ( Airborne Express !) I didn't realize that I needed to install client sw on each PC (CD for that) : will install it this weekend. Thanks. "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message news:B525E081-8940-4093-A2FE-6FDCC53BAF92@microsoft.com... >> 2. Getting HOME server vs. "regular server 2003" ... >> Would you know ... I would assume that the ISP charges for " a server" >> as opposed to PC ? My reason for asking is that I've been watching it >> since release and thinking "what can this do for users that Server2003 >> couldn't". > > > I've installed it just for the backup features. It is the best backup > solution I've seen for a SOHO network. It can be installed on minimal > hardware. I use a Duron CPU, 512 MB, and a couple of 500GB hard drives. > Other than the hard drives the hardware was sitting in a junk pile in > the basement waiting to go to the recycle depot. It has built in > redundancy and is fully supported when doing bare metal restores. It > even backs up my SBS server, although I recommend a second backup for > this as it's not a supported solution for SBS. I also do a standard SBS > backup to a USB drive once a week. > > To answer your question. Server 2003 costs considerably more, especially > when you add in the hardware costs to get the same level of file system > redundancy. Server 2003 does not have the same backup capabilities > without adding 3rd party software or doing some very advanced scripting > with NTBackup. The only backup solutions I've tried that even come close > to the same ease of use are Acronis and Shadowprotect which are both > ~$1,000.00 to get the same capabilities for a SBS server and nine > clients. Even though it's called Home Server I'm recommending it for my > SOHO/SMB customers as a backup solution. I can install a decent backup > solution for less than the cost of the software alone with a Server 2003 > solution. All the other features are just a bonus for me. > > -- > Kerry Brown > MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration > http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/ > > >
Recommended Posts