Windows Home Server Details

phorest writes "Perhaps Microsoft read the comments from the Slashdot community on Windows Home Server? In any event Microsoft is opening up WHS for users to construct their own system after all; though I'd like to see the price of this OS release before making the jump. From the review: "At the 2007 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas this week... Microsoft previewed its long-awaited Windows Home Server product, a Windows Server 2003 R2-based server for consumers that dispenses with the complexities of most Windows Server versions and provides the core storage, sharing, and remote access functionality that digital media and home networking enthusiasts require... Microsoft will make WHS available in two ways: Bundled with new WHS hardware and software-only, the latter so that enthusiasts can install the system on the hardware of their choice... If you're building your own home server, Microsoft requires a 1 GHz processor or better, 512 MB of RAM or more, and as many disks as you think you need. The company will support multiple home servers on the same network, but it's still murky how that will work."

Multiple Servers

[by Anonymous Coward]

The company will support multiple home servers on the same network, but it's still murky how that will work."

Easy... Lots of Money.

Re:Multiple Servers

[PFI_Optix (936301)]

How appropriately named you are.

Microsoft thinks people:

1) Are increasingly moving toward a multi-PC household, with a desktop, laptop, and one or more computers for their children.
2) Are willing to spend money on a low-end server to accomodate the growing demand for shared files and applications.
3) Are looking for a way to get the most out of their WMC PC and their new XBOX 360 by streaming video.

Personally, I've been predicting this move since Media Center was announced. It's a logical step toward the "digital home" that we've heard so much about. WHS won't do anything near everything I want it to, but it's a step in the right direction. I'm hoping this will up the ante and get some good, easier-to-use OSS servers designed around home use.

Re:

[toadlife (301863)]

Hehe. She's holds a degree in English Literature and is working towards her doctorate.

If I asked her to take the time to learn how computer worked, I'm afraid she'd ask me, in return, to read and analyze some 500 page book written in middle-english from the year 1500.

I'm not willing to take that chance. ;)

Re:

[laffer1 (701823)]

Oh its possible for me. I've got 10 computers here. If I were to use a windows based central file server, I could potentially use it up. Then again, I would probably use MidnightBSD with NFS, samba and netatalk. Prior to starting the MidnightBSD project, I had a FreeBSD file server/router setup. It worked out rather well. I did use it primarily for backup on my iBook, but I mapped my home directory to it in BSD and My Documents in windows to it. It worked out very well. I later needed the machine as

IdiotProof-Lockup

[Constantine XVI (880691)]

I really think that MS needs to lock up WHS to be idiot-proof tight. If you need to put software on it (plugins for mediacenters, game servers, etc.) you should have to burn it to a CD, put it in the server, and then go back to the interface to see what you're going to install, and confirm it by pushing a button on the server. Yes, it's a hassle, but makes sure it's near 99% idiot-proof. Clicking through boxes is one thing. Having to physically push different things should set off alarms for someone

Re:

[Mister Whirly (964219)]

This is precisely the reason to have a home server with all your important stuff on it - so if you do something stupid and bork your workstation, all is not lost. Just re-install the OS and hook back up to your server...

Now we just need to train the unwashed masses about NOT surfing shady porn sites from the server, but to do it from their workstations...

Basic AIDA, folks.

[xxxJonBoyxxx (565205)]

Perhaps Microsoft read the comments from the Slashdot community on Windows Home Server?

More likely they are currently flooding the market with "educational" pieces designed to increase the public's awareness of a new category of product; its no coincidence that the forthcoming product will match what the public has been trained to expect of it in advance.

(Hint: look up "AIDA" as a marketing term sometime...)

Hmm?

[joshetc (955226)]

Windows Home Server = Windows XP Pro? I was under the impression that Windows 2003 was simply Windows XP with some goodies for servers, if they take that aspect out aren't they basically selling your Windows XP with a couple patches?

I don't see why they would market something based on Windows 2003 right now anyway, with Vista here / around the corner (depending on who you are)

Re:

[bealzabobs_youruncle (971430)]

If you really thought that was all Windows Server 2003 was, you are confused.

Re:

[kcurtis (311610)]

I could be wrong, but I think I read at one point that XP and 2003 are different platforms -- but that XP64 and 2003 share code.

This is why the XP SP cannot be applied to XP64, but XP64 and 2003 share a service pack.

I think also that Vista is based off of 2003/XP64 not the 32-bit version of XP.

Mote like SBE for Home Media

[Overzeetop (214511)]

The SBE (Small Business Edition) is a streamlined (in terms of set up and interface) version of W2003. It's preconfigured for common uses for small groups, but it can be tinkered with however you like. They've hobbled it to make sure nobody with a large group uses it (in which case you should probably have an IT guy who knows what he's doing, and can set up W2003 properly).

At least, that's what it sounds like. I think SBE is about $1k at retail, I think, with promo/NFR versions down in the $400-500 range.

I'

Re:Hmm?

[ErMaC (131019)]

Server 2003 is a whole lot more than XP Pro. Where as Windows 2000 Professional and Windows 2000 Server shared a lot of underlying tech, XP Pro is a whole different internal version (windows 5.1) than 2003 (windows 5.2), and the additional functionality added by 2003 R2 makes it do even more.

Re:

[suv4x4 (956391)]

Windows Home Server = Windows XP Pro? I was under the impression that Windows 2003 was simply Windows XP with some goodies for servers

You're apparently very well informed. That would explain why Microsoft dropped the XP-based Vista code and spend two extra years porting it on top of the 2003 codebase.

Simply put: Windows 2003 is not just XP with "server goodies", it's a major improvement in terms of modularity, security and contains a lots of improvements centered around running in an enterprise environment.

Re:Hmm?

[Nik13 (837926)]

It's NOT WinXP. In fact, it's not "just another version of windows" at all! It's a network appliance (based on win2003, but it's not 2003 either), aimed primarily at backups and sharing files. Headless and all that. Pretty well made seemingly - uses the Single Instance Storage (SIS) so only one copy of the same file is kept across multiple backups, and very expendable (better than RAID). There was a video about it on channel9 yesterday.

I'd get one if I didn't already have a server to do this stuff (and more).

Re:Hmm?

[pilgrim23 (716938)]

WHS is for media? Are you sure Microsoft didn't mean "VHS" or...is it still Beta? :)

Video Interview from Channel9

[N8F8 (4562)]

WHS Video Interview [msdn.com]

Re:

[binaryspiral (784263)]

How did this interviewer get his job? And more specifically what job does he do?

He's dumb as a post.

Re:

[x2A (858210)]

"He's dumb as a post"

A post on slashdot?

New Apple Base station

[moofo (697416)]

By the way, the New Apple Airport Extreme Base station supports sharing USB 2 Hard drives on the network. 50 Users Limit and there is a small utility to put privileges.

That makes an almost solid state device to:

Provide wireless Access (N) in your home
Act as router (3 ports)
Share USB printers
Share storage

To me, it's a more integrated and "out of the box" solution.

I know, it can't serve webpages...

But still, it seems a little easier for laymen.

Re:

[b0s0z0ku (752509)]

I know, it can't serve webpages...

Can it back up the data on the USB drive automatically? Can it share other devices like scanners? What would be a cool application of this is if it could read music off of the USB drive directly and only need a computer (or a wireless remote) for control. Combine AirTunes and a USB drive. Sort of like a Sonos box with the advantage of built-in storage.

-b.

Re:New Apple Base station

[mspohr (589790)]

The Linksys NSLU2 network storage link is a handy little unit (less than $100) that will share USB drives and serve web pages. It's open source so of course it runs Linux http://www.nslu2-linux.org/wiki/Main/HomePage [nslu2-linux.org] and an amazing number of applications have been ported to it.

Re:New Apple Base station

[mspohr (589790)]

Yes, Apple always excels in design.

However, it is a closed system. As long as it does what you need (and you don't want a web server), it should be fine but the Linksys NSLU2 is an open system that can be customized to do whatever you want.

BTW, the Linksys WRT54G WiFi router also is open source and people have added an amazing range of capabilities. there are about five different open source projects customizing it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WRT54G [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[LWATCDR (28044)]

I for one don't care how slick the case is.
You are right in that for just sharing some hard drives the apple solution isn't bad but I can get a WiFi Access point for less than $80.
With the NSLU you have the option to.
Use it as a web server http://www.nslu2-linux.org/wiki/HowTo/SimpleHomeW e bsite [nslu2-linux.org]
Mail server http://www.nslu2-linux.org/wiki/HowTo/SetUpAnEmail Server [nslu2-linux.org]
VPN http://www.nslu2-linux.org/wiki/HowTo/SetUpOpenVPN Server [nslu2-linux.org]
FTP http://www.nslu2-linux.org/wiki/HowTo/SetupFtpd [nslu2-linux.org]
Act as a Bluetooth access point htt [nslu2-linux.org]

Re:

[GeckoX (259575)]

I'm not suggesting that, not at all.

I'm only digging at the mindset here specifically actually. Sony is evil for selling a high tech gadget for 600. Apple can do no wrong for doing the same. It's just a bizarre viewpoint around here. I'm not intending an actual comparison between the two by any means.

My biggest question is why, when people here on slash are much more informed and have a pretty good idea what things are worth, is this the case? $600 is a bloody expensive phone. (Sure, that's pretty norm in t

Re:

[paeanblack (191171)]

But because it's Apple...the Apple tax is ok, even respectable to pay. Arguably, they're charging more than it's worth to produce.

With Sony, even with them selling bleeding edge tech at a LOSS, that's not good enough.

Really, I just don't understand how the average /.er places value on things, none of it makes much sense

It's all about reputation.

Apple wants to copulate with you. Sony waits for you to drop the soap.

NAS anyone?

[Library Spoff (582122)]

I appreciate people wish to share photos etc online with friends and family.
The slashdot crowd take old pc`s and turn em into servers.

Surely the way forward for home users is networked storage that probably use less AC than a PC?
Especially as we are now seeing combined adsl-router-NAS with built in raid. Is there then less chance of getting owned than with a MS based system? I know server 2003 that this is based on is more secure than previous MS offerings, but still...

Re:

[nine-times (778537)]

If all you want is a NAS, why not go with something from Buffalo [buffalotech.com]? I've never used one myself, but it's a simple Linux-based NAS. From what I hear, you can also buy a version of these things that can be heavily modified, including installing debian or gentoo. But if you want something easy, the Buffalo products themselves aren't supposed to require much expertise.

Re:

[egjertse (197141)]

If you have the hardware to run VMWare Server (free) you can always use the FreeNAS VMWare Appliance [vmware.com].

That Ease of Use Thing

[blueZhift (652272)]

This sounds pretty good, and depending on pricing, something I could use. I can, and have cobbled together various backup sever solutions over the years, but who has time for all of that? Having the choice of a hardware bundle or loading my own custom server sounds like a pretty easy path. Aside from pricing, the only other issue of concern to me is how buggy with the first releases be. I wonder if this will easily integrate with an Xbox 360 at some point. It might be just the thing to address the 20GB hard drive limitation right now.

Cold day in hell

[Divebus (860563)]

Great move but it'll be a cold day in hell when I let Microsoft manage what's on my home server. Not being a deliberate troll or flamebait, I'd look for them to sell out and start locking up my media files. I just would approach this with a long stick - or just keep using my home-brew server.

What does this do

[rsilvergun (571051)]

that I can't already do with share level access and the appropriate client application? Does it handle sharing removable drives better (i.e. mp3 players)? Will I be able to create NT domains with it? Will mapped network drives finally stop periodically vanishing?

I mean, really, does any home user need the kind of performance a networking OS brings? You're gonna have at most 10 computers hooked up to the darn thing. Now, otoh, it might be a cheap way to build a domain :).

512MB RAM

[b0s0z0ku (752509)]

Why does something that's essentially a glorified NAS box need 512MB RAM?! This seems a bit bloated for what it does. If you want a good home/small-office server solution, why not go with something like SME Server 7? [smeserver.org] It's free, runs fast, takes about 10 min. to install and can be setup not *just* to be a NAS box - you can install whatever you want since it's a LAMP box.

-b.

Home servers cost

[Seismologist (617169)]

I haven't RTFA, but knowing what prices MS charges for their products, why would anyone buy into it... I can't see how a home server from MS would be any less complicated than setting up a Redhat Linux server, especially when Redhat has gui's for just about configuring everything... Plus Redhat, oh sorry, Fedora, is free. Just wondering out loud here.

Xbox 360?

[shaka999 (335100)]

Do any other NAS type boxes work with the 360? Thats the one thing that seemed unique about WHS was that you could use it to store media for the 360.

Re:

[drsmithy (35869)]

I'll still use my 360 for games, but won't by bullied into either converting all my video to WMV or purchasing a pre-built (since the OS is only OEM) XP Media Center box.

So instead you'll limit yourself to Apple's proprietry formats and having to purchase stuff from the iTunes Store ?

The mind boggles at how someone could think moving from Microsoft to *Apple*, would reduce "lock-in"...

Opportunity for Hardware OEMS and Linux!

[businessnerd (1009815)]

So now since MS is going to spend a ton of money on marketing the idea of home users running file servers, I think this is a perfect opportunity for the likes of Dell and HP to sell their own, less expensive HomeNAS. They take a NAS device, that they already make for the enterprise, throw on a lightweight Linux. Throw on some Samba, Apache, etc. Write some easy to use "Wizards" to make it really easy for the normal Windows user to connect their PC's, upload files, and do things like schedule backups, and you have a much lower cost solution than the likes of Microsoft. On top of that, it's more secure, more stable, and the software is OSS!

Let's talk security

[Opportunist (166417)]

One thing's for sure. Servers are amongst the most interesting pieces of hardware you can hijack. They run 24/7, they usually have a good bandwidth (ok, not necessarily so for home servers) and they usually also have lots of storage space.

The target audience for those server systems are home users. Who not necessarily have any clue when it comes to security. Actually, it is quite likely that the people buying this kind of system will not have a lot of knowledge in the IT area. And of security.

The systems will also be very similar, if not identical. Unlike Linux boxes, which can almost never be hijacked cookie-cutter style, this would open the venue for boxes which are most likely easier to hack than current implementations of servers.

Not necessarily because MS does a worse job than OSS developers. But it's just like with the other MS systems. The possible gain from a working exploit is incredible, so the effort will match it. And twice so if you can rely on the system running 24/7 and having lots of storage.

I predict a completely new kind of problem for the 'net.

I've already got a "home server"

[Paulrothrock (685079)]

I've got a Mac Mini at home that's set up as a fax server, a fileserver with an external USB 2.0 hard drive, a print server, a web server, and an ssh portal. Setting it up was ridiculously easy: - One click to enable printer sharing. - One click to enable file sharing - A few clicks and keystrokes to make non-admin accounts and home folders for my wife and I Then I did a couple slightly geeky things like partition the external drive and write a cron job to rsync to my web host nightly that most people wouldn't be doing, but the Mac Mini, even without a special "server" OS, is a great way to get a cheap, reliable, Unix-based server. Heck, I've even got mine running as a development server with PHP/MySQL and RoR (thanks to Locomotive [raaum.org]). And to make me feel less guilty about having a computer running 24/7, it's running the ClimatePrediction.net BOINC project. In the future, when I get an iTV, I'm definitely going to be having iTunes running in both of our separate user accounts so that we can stream our stuff to our TV. Lately I've been hooking my Powerbook up to our TV using S-Video and the headphone jack. The only problem I can see using iTV is videos I acquire through, *ahem*, alternative distribution methods will require some conversion before they're viewable. However, season passes to shows through the iTunes music store means I can finally, FINALLY, tell Comcast where they can put their $70/month internet access. From what I've read about the Windows Home Server, it doesn't give me much more capability than my Mini, other than it can be installed in tower enclosures

Re:First?! Hmm...

[CDarklock (869868)]

I really like all the things WHS says it will do, because it means I can put my mind on other things. I'm just not really sure how good a job it does.

Many of the things in WHS are things I've been saying I was going to do for years. "I'm going to set up a SAN for all our documents and pictures," I keep saying, "and I'm going to schedule nightly rolling backups for all the PCs in the house." Well, I just don't have time. But if I could go out and pick up a $1500 PC, click a few buttons, and be finished... I'd do it.

My major concern is the same as yours: will it actually do what I want? If it does, great, but what if it doesn't? At least if I buy $1500 worth of commodity hardware and cobble up a home-grown solution, I can make it do SOMETHING. So the hardware+software option looks like it might be a bad deal; I think I'll do better if I buy my own components with an eye toward the manual solution, in the event that the software proves inadequate.

Hey, I may work at Microsoft, but I'm not stupid. Since when is v1.0 of anything trustworthy? Screw the party line, I want my shit to work. I'll give it a fair shake, but if it rolls over and plays dead, it can stay there.

Re:First?! Hmm...

[CDarklock (869868)]

Somehow, I'm not convinced. Ubuntu is still Linux. You can never click a few buttons and be finished with Linux, or indeed with any UNIX derivative. After you spend enough time doing the recurring tweaks, you just stop noticing them, and think it's being finished.

I could be wrong, but I don't think it's likely enough to investigate.

Re:

[Corporate Troll (537873)]

You do pay a plumber to do plumbing, or an electrician to setup electricity, or a mechanic to service your car, don't you? How is this different? Don't come with the "I can do this myself". Sure you can because you learned something about it. I can't do plumbing, I can't install electricity and I can't service my car, but I damn well can maintain my own Unix servers.

A plumber probably does his own plumbing, but pays a mechanic to service his car....

Re:

[Kadin2048 (468275)]

Ubuntu is really not the solution someone like the GP was looking for. It's a nice general-purpose server distro, but it's certainly not plug and play. And with Ubuntu's server installation, you're not going to be clicking any buttons, because by default there's no GUI.

I think that the dedicated home-server distros like Smoothwall or maybe Coraid's NAS distro would be more what he's looking for. They're not much harder to set up than a typical broadband router -- you just install from a CD and then do your

Re:

[tehsoul (844435)]

what a useless comment.
if you're a tech geek with server experience, of course this isn't the product for you, just like you won't be using some fully automated linux installation if you've been compiling your own kernels since the age of 12.

choo choo, it's the obvious train. last stop: you.

on another note
i'd probably like it. easy to set up, that's the way i want it

Re:

[(A)*(B)!0_- (888552)]

"If you pick windows for a server you have to be crazy."

Because you couldn't get Windows setup on your own (with your stellar credentials of being some guy on the Internet) we must conclude that only the crazies are using Windows? That's a very poor argument. You never even come close to explaining why you couldn't get the setup working. Your comparison to how you setup a Linux server is meaningless because we don't know what caused you problems with the Windows server;

Based on your language of "picked S

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Huh, I've set up lots of 2003 servers as file and web servers with no issues.

My windows boxes don't become unstable after weeks of running.

If you only had the 2nd problem, I would have guessed you had a bad driver.

Since you also had the first problem, my guess is you are just clueless.

Editing some .conf files is easy for Apache and Samba, but no easier than the windows GUI settings.

Linux, BSD, Windows, all work fine as servers if you aren't an idiot.

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[gEvil (beta) (945888)]

Linux, BSD, Windows, all work fine as servers if you aren't an idiot.

And Macs work great if you are! ; )

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[shaneh0 (624603)]

Like others have said: This is Microsofts fault how?

IIS isn't that difficult. Changing the setting from integrated windows security is, seriously, 2 or 3 clicks from the control panel.

And what do you mean you couldn't get the file server to work? That's as simple as SHARING A FOLDER and giving it appropriate security settings.

And no, it's not "idiot proof" but you're talking about a SERVER PRODUCT. A standard license runs for $999. It's meant for PROFESSIONAL ADMINISTRATORS, it's NOT meant for the home. Thus, WHS.

And by the way, had you actually paid $999 for the legit license (which, I'm guessing, you didn't) you could've called Microsoft and gotten help. I don't know what's worse, complaining about pirated software not working right (assuming you didn't buy the license), or giving up on $999 software after, apparently, hardly giving it a shot (assuming you did buy the license).

Re:You have to be crazy to pick WHS

[shaneh0 (624603)]

The server roles wizard is about as easy as it gets, so blaming that for the problem is 1) just a guess on your part and 2) not in conflict with my original point that a Server OS is for professional admins, not Mr. Home NetworkGuy.

Not to mention, you can click a checkbox on it and it never gets displayed again.

And you're right, "My Computer" is hidden. In fact, the screen is blank of all icons except the Recycle Bin. Windows XP is the same way. Adding these icons is pretty simple, but in any event the start menu was still there.

If this guy had trouble getting to a folder that he could right click and share, it should be obvious that he is in no way qualified to administer a server.

Re:

[Overzeetop (214511)]

Yes, my server runs for a month or two without a single keystroke or mouse movement of management. If it weren't for the inherent need to restart the system (which takes all of 5 minutes when I decide I probably ought to install the updates), there's no reason to believe that it would even need to be restarted. We see no loss of use over those couple of months, and no advantage upon restart. For my purposes (file and print services), it has run without a single instance of required intervention on the OS f

Purest, refined bullsh*t

[NSIM (953498)]

A service pack that just happens to "upgrade" you to vista-style DRM shit and lock-down existing files.

There is nothing, repeat nothing in Vista that locks down non-DRM content, you can rip CDs and DVDs with the same tools you used in XP and Vista does nothing to them. How long will mindless knee-jerk anti-MS folks continue to push this BS.

Here's a challenge, find one example of Vista applying DRM to non-DRMed content, come on, just one example!!!!