Windows Home Server

The Discussion

• 

  this is going to be one handy piece of software, i just hope we can deloy our own applications
  

• 

  Cool video. The ability to connect directly to the machine with Remote Desktop is a great feature and definitely makes it more appealing. I was glad to hear the operating system will be available separately for the DIYers.
  
  Since it seems like these machines won't have CD-ROM drives, what happens if the operating system needs to be reinstalled? Will the user have a disc they can restore from with a USB CD-ROM drive or is there a partition on the hard drive to recover from? Since it looks like these machines don't have video cards either, the process would have to be entirely automated.

• 

  die-Sel wrote:

  this is going to be one handy piece of software, i just hope we can deloy our own applications
  

  
  
  Watch the video.
  

• 

  I want to know two important things:
  
  If I have two users with the same username on two seperate PCs, does the system recognise (or can it be made to recognise) that it's the same user and keep all their documents / e-mails in sync?
  
  If my PC is turned off, does it still wake up, backup and then go to sleep?
  

• 

  First censored video on Channel 9?

• 

  This is an amazing piece of software. It really turns the tables on GDrive or Live Drive. Why would I want to store my documents at Microsoft or Google, when I can have the privacy of storing them on my own server, and yet have the zero-maintenance anyway. I love the Desktop Search right on the storage server (as opposed to on every PC in the house), the super-quick easy backup and the ability to restore a complete computer on a blank disk in just 1 hour (that is going to save me time! I'll sell one to my parents too ), the ability to store documents centrally with infinite storage (no more manually mounting disks anymore), with resiliance to a crashing harddisk (can't do that with an ordinary mount). The central management of the security of all home PCs, without the hassle of complex policies and settings. I'm sold. And throwing in the remote access to applications over the Internet is the ultimate selling point for Vista on my other PCs, in my case.

  I have just two requests for Charlie Kindel:
  
  1. You mentioned that Windows Media Center initially was too closed for geeks (and ISVs) to extend. Could your team please please provide an API that allows an external service to plug a page and top tab in the Home Server Console? I'm thinking of third parties providing an easy interface to do home automation, for instance.
  
  2. On the client PC with Home Server Connector, could you please provide a system tray icon which allows to take a backup immediately (like I know is already possible from the Homer Server itself for that PC).
  Or alternatively the ability to create a backup every time the computer shuts down (with max of once a day).
  This is just so that computer don't consume energy while waiting to be backed up over night. I'm sure my parents will NOT keep their PC on just to back it up.
  
  
  PS. Can this Home Server also do ASP.NET web serving?

• 

  Very Cool
  
  

• 

  This IS very cool.

  I wonder if there will be an email server for this?  That would seem to be a logical extension of this...

• 

  This is really exciting, even though there are similar NASs out there none seem as smooth or powerful as this. I wonder if I'll be able to run AD on this and have myself a little domain.
  
  I didn't understand how the shared folders worked exactly, do they aggregrate everything contained within each individual users special folders like Video and Pictures into a virtual folder? How about privacy, are permissions set on the computer retained? Can you view each disk backup separately and see all the files? Does the search link into Vista search? I thought network search was cut from the release.
  
  This really seems like a good time to reintroduce the castle concept that was cut from Vista, or something domain like for central management in a simple way. Maybe V.2
  

• 

  As long as my FTP server runs on this I am buying one ASAP.  So let's not forget about releasing it in Europe.
  
  Makes a nice change from my 1Ghz Duron w/ 256MB of RAM running Windows XP thats in my cupboard now.  Which is well a lot of hassle to keep running, making sure all the drives are mirrored and so on.

• 

  Remote desktop over the net har been posible via LogMeIn.com for some time now, but nice to see that MS is doing it to
  

• 

  daSmirnov wrote:

  As long as my FTP server runs on this I am buying one ASAP.  So let's not forget about releasing it in Europe.
  

  
  
  Seconded. Having to wait for it until the second half of 2007 is bad enough. Having to wait for until 2008 would seriously, seriously suck.

• 

  Who is the target audience for this?
  
  Sounds overly complex for the average home user. (Looking at the On10 Video)
  
  For me, it's great, but it would be much easier for me to simply install an XP box and open up file sharing (which I actually do now with my media center).
  
  Microsoft still hasn't learned simplicity or timing. The UI is improved, it seems.. A nice start, but it isn't easy enough for the average mon/dad home user.
  
  This technology, from what I can determine, is nothing majorly new. The Media Center PC has been out since 2004. MP3s etc., have been mainstream since Napster v1.0 (at least 1999). Why has it taken Microsoft so long to do this? Any why will it take forever to RTM?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

• 

  The on10 video only made me want one sometime after they come out... this one made me want/need now... now now now now now.

  Granted I’ve got zero chance of getting into the private beta... so in the mean time I’ve got to ask... any chance of being directed towards some API documentation? I’ve got a pin handy and will sign over my soul in blood if you let me at it.

• 

  Sadly, it's this kinda thing which pizzes me off, rather than wanting to buy it... Blindingly obvious technology marketed years too late to Microsoft's own developer following.
  
  
  
  

• 

  Thanks guys.  I must admit after thinking about it more, I am perplexed.  On the one hand I see the value in a simple on/off device with a simple front-end for "Peter".  But why would "Gear-head" want this?  I mean, if I want WinServer, I would just install winserver on some ~$600 box and config file sharing and remote desktop and do all normal stuff.  Am I missing something?  It sounds like the "secret sauce" is really just the "App" shell that abstracts everything into one app.  Why not just market it as an app?  I could use the app too when I don't want to deal with all the std srv goo.

• 

  Peronally you killed this video for me with this censored crap. I don't think I've ever watched a channel9 video that was censored like ths...truly sad.

• 

  It is not just to share files/mp3/and live TV is yet to come from what I have heard.  And even for a "gear head" setting up previous versions/a winserver is very time consuming.  Remote desktop to multiple PC's is "doable", but no where near as slick and easy as this WHS.
  
  Even the backup of desktops I think can be done with 3rd party apps.  Retrospect comes to mind.
  
  Now I have nothing to base this on other than the videos I have watched, all the blogs etc, but I have seen thrown out brand name WHS box for ~500.00.  SO the OS is what 150 or less?
  
  So for a buck and a half, you get all this stuff that works in less time than it takes to get it out of the box.
  
  Previous versions of your files. (This does not "happen" on home networks)  The abilty to restore your desktop by booting from a cd.  (Not a restore cd, a restore from the automatic backup)  Did I mention that it only backs up a file once?  As in if you have 5 desktops running XP Home, only one set of the OS is stored?
  
  I would think that the remote desktop also alows for remote printing which is a pay service for the 3rd pary apps.
  
  Your data/docs/mp3's are redundant.
  
  I agree there is nothing here than you can not do yourself.  But I will say that ther is no way you can do all this for less money, time, or simplicity.
  
  And as always, who has ever totally loved version 1   It looks like a great starting place to me.
  
  Still,
  
  Grey

• 

  Arg... on the way out of my day job I had a couple of questions come to mind... which lead to others which lead to still more... Sorry to bother Charlie but I’ve got to ask...
  
  1. The on10 video told us that WHS was able to keep up to date and inform you of the security status of the machines in your house with tidbits such as the status of the firewall, Windows Update and what not... does WHS get involved with anything more than monitoring of those subsystems such as... being central repository for in-house WU downloads (ie so only a single copy of each patch is required)?
  
  1a. If it is able to be more involved in the updating and management... how much control can it grant/restrict to the desktop? Can a WHS user/admin choose which updates to apply to which PC's?
  
  2. Given the relationship between 2003 and WHS... is it safe to say that the same will be for vNext and Longhorn Server? Will the WHS SKU be available around the same time?
  
  3. 2003 comes with support for numerous different servers out of the box like HTTP, FTP, DNS, DHCP... will a Sam using WHS have the same control over them that he/she would on a 2003 box today?
  
  4. Given that WHS will likely be updateable automatically via WU or manually through a separate download or WU... what sort of recovery/troubleshooting mechanisms does it have built in/support in case failed upgrades or other software/hardware issues that render the unit unable to boot to a normal state where software based troubleshooting (ie event log, gui, etc) could begin?
  
  5. So as to extend the lifetime of the hard drives, does WHS support hybrid drives?
  
  6. What kind of (if any) network/application limitations (other than raw bandwidth) exist to prevent a user from setting up their desktop with a remote WHS?
  
  7. Is there any in box support for backing up and recovery of the archive of the WHS to some external device such as a tape or another WHS? Mmm... WHS on WHS.
  
  8. Are there any built in artificial limitations to WHS to keep it from eating away at current/future business/enterprise servers that accomplish a similar task? Limitations such as # of desktops that can use a given WHS, maximum disk space, backup age, backup count.
  
  9. Assuming a user is say... backing up nightly (and disk space is infinite), what kind of depth of history does a user have available to them at restore time? Rather than restoring to the last backup... can they recover to the day before last? Last week? Last month? (again, assuming HD space is infinite).
  
  10. Is there any support for federation between multiple WHSs so as to further extend the reliability?
  
  11. What sort of protection exists (aside from WHS password(s)) to prevent malicious access to backup data via open wifi connection or screwdriver?
  
  If you can't tell... I'm psyched and believe you me... it doesn't happen all that much.
  
  Given that my mind is still racing with ideas of how to exploit and extend (in good ways) such a device I'm going to ask just one more question before digging into a few ideas.
  
  So last but not least...
  
  12. Is your team hiring? How about in July? (I've got a bit of indentured service due to tuition reimbursement until around then).

• 

  XxDesmus_MODxX wrote:

  Peronally you killed this video for me with this censored crap. I don't think I've ever watched a channel9 video that was censored like ths...truly sad.

  
  
  There's nothing sad about it.
  
  Many C9 videos have been censored - there just wasn't disclosure.
  
  In this case, I asked some questions that revealed information which is not yet supposed to be publicly available (I didn't know at the time that the information wasn't supposed to come out - I was just interviewing, trying to get the details on a product I was learning about as the interview took place).
  
  These were my choices:
  
  1. Scrap the video entirely
  
  2. Do a simple dissolve transition and hope nobody thought too much about it
  
  3. Make it clear that I had to cut parts of the video because I asked questions which put him in a hard place (in other words, be honest and transparent about why information was cut)
  
  I chose option #3. It's not his fault I asked questions about something that wasn't yet supposed to be revealed.
  
  Just so you know, each C9 video goes through a process - we don't just toss them up on the web straight from the camera. We first have to run the unedited video by certain stakeholders to make sure everything in the video is OK. Most of the time, things are cool. But, from time to time, and especially when dealing with something that's just being announced, it's hard to know what can be said and what can't.
  
  The same thing used to happen on .NET Rocks when I was the co-host. We sometimes asked people questions that revealed more information than they wanted, and we obliged our interviewees by cutting the bits they didn't want broadcasted.
  
  If we didn't do that, then there wouldn't be any Channel 9 - Carl and I never would have had .NET Rocks. There would just be nothing. Believe it or not, people can get fired for revealing too much - whether intentionally or not. This product is not the work of one person, but the work of a team, and everybody on that team deserves respect, consideration, and the right to reveal information in a manner they see fit. If we operated differently, people very well could get fired, and C9 would disappear overnight.
  
  If that's what you want, then fine - complain about it. But, I think most people can see the sense in editing out portions of the video that the product group didn't want broadcasted.
  
  Think about it. If I had put this out unedited, then, yeah, we would have had an "exclusive" take on the information. But, we'd also lose the trust of everybody in the process. C9 would suddenly be seen internally as a threat rather than an asset.
  
  Censoring has been done before. The only difference here, as I noted earlier, was that I was open about it.
  
  I see now that this may have been a mistake. Perhaps being honest isn't the best move.
  
  You do realize, I hope, that you're basically asking that we either ruin our own reputation or lie to you.
  
  I find both of those options to be out of the question.
  
  So, I edited.
  
  Keep in mind as well that the only reason I had to cut segments was that I was asking questions that brought out details you might not have otherwise had - they may have let us get away with revealing a little more information than originally intended, asking us only to cut the most sensitive information.
  
  To the rest of you who seem to implicitly understand the need for controlling the flow of information when a new product is coming to market, I thank you. Seriously. Until you've seen how a product release can spin out of control thanks to bad info being released, it's hard to understand why it's so important to control what is and isn't released. Your trust in the process is much appreciated.
  
  Anybody who doesn't understand the reason for having to edit these videos is asking too much. The only reason product teams are willing to talk to us at C9 is that, through the work of everybody from the beginning of the site, trust and respect has been built. That's very important.
  
  If we did things any other way, then there would be no videos here. There wouldn't be a Channel 9. You'd never get to see Ballmer or Gates in these videos - these rather special videos (if you ask me). We're not the press, so we get to provide people with a look at the inside of the company in an unusual way - it can be very informal, and that's what's so great about it.
  
  Anyway, I'll stop there. If you get it by now, then good. If you don't, then I don't know how to make you understand.

• 

  Rory wrote:

  I see now that this may have been a mistake. Perhaps being honest isn't the best move.

  
  
  You at least had the decency to point it out and address it... rather than leave it vague and people wonder "was that a bleep?" "did I just see an edit?" "what are the evil lawyers not wanting us to see and hear?"

  Personally, I much preferred your way of doing it over those quick edits we've seen in past.

  Do promise us though that if/when the cut content is finally announced... that you come back and post here what it was.

• 

  Jack Poison wrote:

  Who is the target audience for this?
  
  Sounds overly complex for the average home user. (Looking at the On10 Video)
  
  For me, it's great, but it would be much easier for me to simply install an XP box and open up file sharing (which I actually do now with my media center).
  
  Microsoft still hasn't learned simplicity or timing. The UI is improved, it seems.. A nice start, but it isn't easy enough for the average mon/dad home user.
  
  This technology, from what I can determine, is nothing majorly new. The Media Center PC has been out since 2004. MP3s etc., have been mainstream since Napster v1.0 (at least 1999). Why has it taken Microsoft so long to do this? Any why will it take forever to RTM?

  
  
  When I was conducting the interview, I was also having Media Center thoughts. But, that's not what this product is for. It's not competing with Media Center - it doesn't do the same thing.
  
  As you probably learned in the interview, it's mainly about providing home users with a relatively simple way to deal with managing their networked machines.
  
  Granted, it's not for everybody - just as Media Center isn't for everybody. For it to be a value, I imagine some basic criterea need to be met:
  
  1. You aren't an IT Pro, and you would like to have an easy way to do backups, access your network remotely, etc. (this might not be hard for devs and admins, but for the rest of the population, some hand-holding is going to be appreciated)
  
  2. You care about the information on your machines, and you want an easy way to back it up (some people really don't care - or at least they don't think they care - losing your data just once, as many of us know, is enough to convince you that backing up is probably a good idea)
  
  3. You have enough machines that it would be a bit of a pain to perform the backups manually - sure, it could be done, but how much time is it going to take, and how much will that time have cost, say, but the end of a month? or a year? how much time could you have been doing something else instead of worrying about performing backups? is it worth a few hundred? for some people, it most definitely is (and this is ignoring the many other features of Windows Home Server - there's more going on, some of which I can't talk about because the info isn't supposed to be out yet)
  
  I think you definitely have a point about this not being all that compelling for certain power users, but I also think those users are the exception. It's easy for those of us who are in the tech industry to forget just how good we are at what we do. We take it for granted. But, our skills aren't as widely dispersed as you might believe.
  
  Even for some people (such as yourself) who could already rig a solution that performs a subset of the functionality covered by Windows Home Server, it might not be worth it, unless you really take some joy from creating your own system.
  
  Like most geeks, I love to fiddle and create and push buttons and wire things and take things apart and put them back together and so on. But, like a lot of geeks, I also have a day job, as well as a lot of things I do outside that day job, and it's to the point that I have to pick my projects.
  
  I'd personally rather spend my time playing with Windows Mobile stuff in my spare time than setting up an automatic backup solution. My spare time is very limited, and I like to get as much out of it as I can. I don't think I'm rare in that way, particularly in this industry where, for so many of us, our jobs are basically a way of life. We just don't ever pull the plug - we're wired, and we like it that way.
  
  But, like I said, time is limited.
  
  With Windows Home Server, I can just plug in a box, install some client software on my machines, and be done with it. Provided my router supports UPnP, I won't even have to fiddle with it to poke a hole into my server so that I can manage my network remotely.
  
  Slick, methinks.
  
  And, as you'll learn over the coming months, Windows Home Server is more than what we've been able to show you so far. Understandably, the team wants to hand out information bit by bit when they feel it's appropriate.
  
  By the time it's all out there, I think you'll have a better understanding of how this product provides value for a larger demographic than you think.
  
  I hate to say it, given that I work for the company and am biased (it's natural to be partial toward the company for which one chooses to work), but trust me when I say that there's much more to this story than what we've shown, and it's going to be pretty cool.
  
  Or, don't trust me - I'd understand. I'm not impartial at all.
  
  You'll still have a chance to see the benefits of the technology when it finally comes out.
  
  Then you'll have all the facts, and you'll have a much better idea of whether or not WHS is something that would help you out.

• 

  dahat wrote:

  

  Rory wrote: I see now that this may have been a mistake. Perhaps being honest isn't the best move.

  
  
  You at least had the decency to point it out and address it... rather than leave it vague and people wonder "was that a bleep?" "did I just see an edit?" "what are the evil lawyers not wanting us to see and hear?"

  Personally, I much preferred your way of doing it over those quick edits we've seen in past.

  Do promise us though that if/when the cut content is finally announced... that you come back and post here what it was.

  
  
  While I can't promise what you ask, I can say that I'll do my best.
  
  The only reason I won't promise is that I don't want to unintentionally break that promise.
  
  I really want to be able to tell everybody about what was in those gaps that were edited out, but I just can't yet, and, by the time it's announced, you won't need me to tell you, and I'll already be on to the next round of interviews.
  
  What I can promise is that, with or without me, you'll find out
  
  And, thank you very much for speaking up about understanding the editing. I'm an honest guy - it's how I made a good living as a contractor (I didn't lie to clients - I never overbilled (this happens so often) - I did what I said I'd do - etc.). It's really frustrating to put so much effort into being honest, only to find out that people don't believe you, or think you're trying to cheat them out of some bit of info. I mean, it really sucks.
  
  So, your comment made my day, yo
  
  Thank you.

• 

  Rory, don't worry about the edits. It's only natural that a video that comes out on the day of the announcement cannot reveal everything. In fact, I'm pretty sure there are questions/answers you will not be allowed to publish even post-launch. It's a commercial company with trade secrets, which help them outcompete the competitors. So?

  The video was really an amazing source of information on what you can do with this thing, and the edits were sort of funny.

  Regarding the target audience, my father in law (+65) wants one (let me clarify that: he needs one and knows it). 
  
  My own home definitely need one (count me on the Sam side), but I'm actually pretty sure my wife will be the one working mostly with it (and she's not a geek). And I'm excited to rid myself of work I really don't want to do.
  
  My brothers with teenage children were going through the roof when I told them about Home Server.
  
  My family (incl inlaws) wants 5 home servers, counting only the early adopters, provided that Windows XP is sufficient on client PCs. 5 of 13 households isn't bad, so I don't understand what this "lack of target audience" is about.
  
  But just release it to the European market in time for 2007 holiday shopping, and we'll see what happens.

• 

  Rory wrote:

  And, as you'll learn over the coming months, Windows Home Server is more than what we've been able to show you so far. Understandably, the team wants to hand out information bit by bit when they feel it's appropriate.
  
  By the time it's all out there, I think you'll have a better understanding of how this product provides value for a larger demographic than you think.
  
  I hate to say it, given that I work for the company and am biased (it's natural to be partial toward the company for which one chooses to work), but trust me when I say that there's much more to this story than what we've shown, and it's going to be pretty cool.

  
  
  As Hemingway would have put it: Poppa like.
  
  Man, 2007 is going to be a great year.

• 

  Rory wrote:

  
  You do realize, I hope, that you're basically asking that we either ruin our own reputation or lie to you.
  
  I find both of those options to be out of the question.
  
  So, I edited.
  

  
  You are right, I do apologize. I guess it was just one of those "I am so excited for this product" and then to have some of the info be left out just felt...something. Anyways, I apologize.
  
  To be honest, I am quite impressed with this WHS, but I was really hoping for some kind of minimal Exchange support. I would love to have easy access to Outlook Web Access and all the other wonderful benefits of Exhange. Also, I was hoping for the possibility of roaming profiles which would have been a cool addition for multiple home computers.
  
  Either way, this is a great product, but I do also think it will be a hard sell right out the door simply because "normal" people associate anything Server with complexity.
  
  Also, do we have any kind of 100% confirmation on if this software is going to be available separately for custom builds? Their seems to be a great deal of confusion regarding this on the web. Some sites say yes, software can be purchased separately (Such as Paul), and others say no, it won't be available outside of OEMs and system builders.
  
  So any final definitive answer?

• 

  This product appeals to me and I'm an IT Pro. Knowing how to do backups isn't enough for me to actually do them, its just too much hassle to manage it, never gets done. If it becomes successful it'll start from the more tech savvy who know what can happen, don't think most people are aware of how unreliable HDDs can be. I'd definately recommend to friends, so many horror stories of lost photos.
  
  Even though backup is the coolest feature, I think a central media store would be the appealing thing to most people. Eg/ Shows downloaded on xbox live could be uploaded to the server automatically for sharing around the house, and spare the puny xbox hdd.
  
  Releasing the software separately would be a great way to start off, no more of that Media Center tie in stuff please. The mirroring and one copy store filesystem should be brought to Vista too.
  

• 

  XxDesmus_MODxX wrote:

  To be honest, I am quite impressed with this WHS, but I was really hoping for some kind of minimal Exchange support. I would love to have easy access to Outlook Web Access and all the other wonderful benefits of Exhange.

  
  
  I thought the same thing for a lil while but realized that given that WHS will be remotely accessible, there’ll likely be a free DNS service made available for owners of WHS that gives em an A record to find their way home... and likely an MX record will be thrown in for free so that you could use Windows Live Custom Domains.

  Sure it’s not Exchange, but it’d be a heck of a lot more reliable than your email server being on a dynamic ip address.

• 

  dahat wrote:

  

  XxDesmus_MODxX wrote:To be honest, I am quite impressed with this WHS, but I was really hoping for some kind of minimal Exchange support. I would love to have easy access to Outlook Web Access and all the other wonderful benefits of Exhange.

  
  
  I thought the same thing for a lil while but realized that given that WHS will be remotely accessible, there’ll likely be a free DNS service made available for owners of WHS that gives em an A record to find their way home... and likely an MX record will be thrown in for free so that you could use Windows Live Custom Domains.

  Sure it’s not Exchange, but it’d be a heck of a lot more reliable than your email server being on a dynamic ip address.

  
  
  I could have sworn during the On10 video they said that a free domain was going to be included to provide access to your WHS ...so yeah, perhaps Windows Live Custom Domains with Windows Live Mail is a OK option, but definitely not quite ideal. I guess we'll see.
  

• 

  Hi All. Charlie Kindel here...
  
  My apologies for taking so long to reply to this thread. I had hoped to post something right away, but I'm here in Las Vegas for CES and it has been insane.
  
  As I get time, I will try to go through all the messages in this thread and address the questions people have posted the best I can.
  
  In the meantime here's a list of resources on Windows Home Server with more information and other perspectives:
  

  
  cek.log (My blog)
  CJ's on10.net video (basically a full demo of the product)
  Todd's CES show floor interview (another demo)
  www.homeserver.com
  Stop Digital Amnesia (viral marketing site with product information)
  
  As I indicated in my interview, I am extremely excited about the potential of Windows Home Server as a platform.  Some of you know me from my prior life at MS when I was a technical evangelist and later focused on building platform technologies. I am pumped about the fact that I get to get back into the "developer evangelism" buisness again and being more than just a lurker on channel9.
  
  
  

• 

  Just found this interesting tidbit that claims to be "100% fact"
  
  

  Home Server owners will be able to set up a free internet address, like username.homeserver.com, to remotely access their servers.

  
  
  Found at WHS Details
  
  perhaps we can attach our own custom domain as well?
  
  More interesting info (that actually kinda sucks because we're being forced into having to buy Ultimate).
  
  

  Some features are only available with Windows XP SP2 or Windows Vista Business (or higher) systems, making the only way to get certain features is through Vista Ultimate. In other words, Home Server is going to be a major reason to buy Vista Ultimate, and Media Center aficionados will have to have at least one Ultimate PC to use certain features I can’t talk about and take advantage of Previous Versions.

  
  

• 

  That... doesn't make much sense. Some features are only available on XP SP2 and Vista Business or higher, so the only way to use them is via Vista Ultimate?

• 

  Very cooool...
  
  Will Windows Home Server acts as an application server too?
  
  For example: We could install MS Office on the server harddisks and MS Office is runnable on any Windows PCs connected to the home network. Of course a license should be installed for each simultaneous use of the Application.

• 

  XxDesmus_MODxX wrote:

  

  Rory wrote:  You do realize, I hope, that you're basically asking that we either ruin our own reputation or lie to you. I find both of those options to be out of the question. So, I edited.

  
  You are right, I do apologize. I guess it was just one of those "I am so excited for this product" and then to have some of the info be left out just felt...something. Anyways, I apologize.

  
  
  Um. Wow.
  
  I don't think I've ever actually gotten an apology before
  
  Apology accepted.
  
  I understand where you're coming from, and I understood why you were upset. It was just the tone, you know? This job is harder than it looks, and when you join the Channel 9 team (or another JeffSand team), you're doing it because it is exactly what you want to do. So, there's this pride issue - you do your best to do a good job, and it actually hurts a bit when you get slammed for what you thought was a good decision. Criticism is understandable, but when people get mad because you had to make a tough choice... well... yeah. It hurts
  
  It's hard not to get personally, emotionally invested in a job like this. Especially considering the team I'm working with - I've never gotten to work with so many "good" people (by that, I mean people who are capable, honest, respectful, and so on - those qualities, unfortunately, are rare).
  
  A result of that emotional investment is that you feel like the work you're doing is an extension of yourself. So, if someone slams your work, it feels like that person is slamming you.
  
  And then you get big, angry posts from me in the forum
  
  It was also an opportunity to talk about C9 and editing, though. It's a slightly touchy concept around here. We try not to cut anything, but sometimes we have to. We know it takes away from the experience, so it actually bums us out as much as it does viewers.
  
  This is getting to be long-winded (not all that rare for me). I just wanted to explain my strong reaction yesterday, especially in light of the fact that you totally broke web forum protocol by being mature
  
  (Thank you.)
  
  

  XxDesmus_MODxX wrote:

  Either way, this is a great product, but I do also think it will be a hard sell right out the door simply because "normal" people associate anything Server with complexity.

  
  
  That's a good point, and one I hope the team pays attention to.
  
  As geeks, it's easy for us to forget what certain words (like "server") mean to the outside world.
  
  Naming isn't a strong point at Microsoft. It's often mentioned by customers (when I was working as a remote employee, flying around, I heard a lot about that from the people I met).
  
  As someone who wants to see this company succeed, I'd like to ask that you continue to point out where such thing can be improved.
  
  The whole idea behind WHS is to simplify life, and you're right - if the product sounds complicated, then it might not get a chance to make it (although there's so much excitement about it that I doubt it'll have a hard time thriving).
  
  I guess it'll really be up to OEMs. I don't know who's going to build these suckers, but I think WHS is just the technology driving the experience. The actual product names will probably wind up being completely different.
  
  That is just speculation, though. This whole WHS thing is news to me just as it is to everybody else.
  
  

  XxDesmus_MODxX wrote:

  Also, do we have any kind of 100% confirmation on if this software is going to be available separately for custom builds? Their seems to be a great deal of confusion regarding this on the web. Some sites say yes, software can be purchased separately (Such as Paul), and others say no, it won't be available outside of OEMs and system builders.
  
  So any final definitive answer?

  
  
  I certainly can't answer that - both because I don't know, and I don't know if I'd be allowed to say even if I did know.
  
  But, I suspect the details behind the product will be start to be unveiled fairly quickly. I mean, it's been announced, it's real, it's going to happen - at some point, the marketing machine will start, and the answers to your questions ought to arrive.
  
  Just realized right now that they might be restricting the flow of information in part not to do what many tech companies do so often, which is to overhype products.
  
  I think we all know how frustrating it can be to hear about a product over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Or, to hear about a feature that is later removed.
  
  It's probably that they're just being smart.
  
  Yeah.
  
  So.
  
  Yeah. That's all I have to say on that right now...

• 

  Rory wrote:

  
  I think we all know how frustrating it can be to hear about a product over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Or, to hear about a feature that is later removed.
  

  
  
  I am sorry, I have very little self restraint... it kind of sounds like Longhorn Vista Don't hate me
  

• 

  All the hard work and great information is appreciated, Rory.

• 

  I do have a question about the way WHS ensures reliability of data. In the video you say it doens't actually use a raid, but something easier. The question is... how much space doesn't it use for redundancy? Does it waste half the space, or it is smarter like a raid5? I think this is a very important issue, that can bring real geeks to use WHS instead of building a NAS by themselves.
  
  Thanks!
  

• 

  Vince 15 wrote:

  I do have a question about the way WHS ensures reliability of data. In the video you say it doens't actually use a raid, but something easier. The question is... how much space doesn't it use for redundancy? Does it waste half the space, or it is smarter like a raid5? I think this is a very important issue, that can bring real geeks to use WHS instead of building a NAS by themselves.
  
  Thanks!
  

  
  
  We've built a new technology as part of Windows Home Server we call "Drive Extender". Drive Extender is a file based replication system that provides three key capabilities:
  
  - Multi-disk redundancy so that if any given disk fails you do not loose data
  - Infinite and flexible storage expansion by supporting any type of HDD (SATA, USB, 1394, etc...) in any mixture and capacity
  - A single folder namespace (no drive letters)
  
  DE was designed specifically for consumer storage scenarios and radically reduces the number of concepts users are exposed to.
  
  Users (specifically, "Peters" who configure a family's home server) deal with storage at two levels: Shared Folders and Disks.
  
  The only concepts relevant regarding disks is whether they have been "added" to the home server's storage pool or not and whether the disk appears healthy to the system or not.
  
  Shared Folders have a name, a description, permissions, and a flag indicating whether duplication (redundancy) is on or off for that folder.
  
  If duplication is on for a Shared Folder (and it is on for all shared folders by default on multi-disk WHS boxes) then the files in that Shared Folder are duplicated.
  
  What this means is that, by default, all of the files stored on a Windows Home Server are duplicated and you (effectively) have a 2:1 storage ratio. However, in many scenarios there is data a consumer may NOT want duplicated (e.g. TV shows that have been archived to a WHS server from a MCE machine)...  DE gives you the flexibility to not duplicate stuff if you have capacity problem.
  
  However, because it is so insanely easy to add storage to a Windows Home Server, and the cost/GB of HDDs is so rapidly going down we believe that the point is relatively moot to begin with.

• 

  This product does look very interesting to me!  I, too, wonder if it will support Active Directory, so that each person in the household needs to only have one account on the network, log into any machine with the same username/password, update it in only one place, etc.

• 

  RodAtWork wrote:

  This product does look very interesting to me! I, too, wonder if it will support Active Directory, so that each person in the household needs to only have one account on the network, log into any machine with the same username/password, update it in only one place, etc.

  I suspect AD might be a bit much for the target customers, but I am curious as to how authentication works. If I have a family desktop on which everyone has an account and a laptop I use for my own personal use, is there a way to indicate that the "Bryan" on both machines is the same person? And how do you account for spoofing (since login name can be changed)?
  
  I'm also curious as to what kind of scenarios you have in mind for businesses. Obviously, this is a win for home business, but I also think that this, perhaps used in concert with some of the Live services, would meet the needs of most small businesses. And when someone is ready to upgrade to a more full-featured branch server or what have you, will there be any mechanisms to aid the process?

• 

  You probably just have to manually ensure the login/passwords match on each computer, and if not you get a login dialog as usual. Some kind of AD-lite would be awesome for the future though. There was that serverless Castle idea that got dropped from Vista.
  
  I'd like to know how disks and shared folders map to one another. Can you share an entire disk belonging to a particular PC, and if so, how do those permissions work? Is a shared folder just a folder belonging to one of the PCs? I thought I read somewhere that the Music, Picture folders etc aggregate content from multiple PCs, or am I confused?
  

• 

  So, is there any chance that we may see drive extender in future versions of windows, or as an add-on? Sounds like this is a great way to ensure data reliability on your client PC's, too, without the need to get into RAID.

• 

  Bas wrote:

  So, is there any chance that we may see drive extender in future versions of windows, or as an add-on? Sounds like this is a great way to ensure data reliability on your client PC's, too, without the need to get into RAID.

  
  
  Perhaps someday. What I do know is that this is something we're going to get right for WHS and not try to boil the ocean with. "Innovate then Integrate".

• 

  Thanks, that's pretty much what I had hoped for. Obviously WHS is the only goal right now, but who knows?
  
  One other thing that popped in my head: on my laptop and my desktop PC at home, I have subscribed to the same bunch of RSS feeds. Sometimes I catch some feeds while working on my laptop, but when I read them, they're still marked as 'unread' on my desktop, because it will have found the new content from the same feed too.
  
  In the end, it turns out that whenever I see a feed appear in bold in IE7 or Outlook 2007, I need to open it and check if there is actually new content, or if it's just content that I've already read on another PC.
  
  Long story short: will there be a way to use a centralised RSS feed store on WHS, so that if I read a feed on one PC, it'll be marked as 'read' on all other PC's too?

• 

  Im not trying to insult rory.  But are you an intern because it seams from this video you went off one on on multiple occasions and it seams you dont really understand about MS Products.  the word appliance ouch me being a technie would call anything with some sort of Mobo and CPU. Its been a while since i was last on this but is this your first time doing podcast.
  
  Why did Robert Scoble go .  He knew how to do PodCast.

• 

  Will it have the ability to put the machines on a domain and control user accounts via group policy? Because that would be the kind of thing I'm looking for at home at the present.
  

• 

  I have an extremely technical and on-point question:
  
  What was the little video screen on the left of his monitor, um, monitoring?
  
  I wanted to pull it up like they do on all the shows these days and instantly see a pixel perfect view of it just by selecting it, but I don't have the make believe application that does that.
  
  Very cool vid btw.  Please send a WHS to my home address as soon as it is available.
  

• 

  trafficreport wrote:

  I have an extremely technical and on-point question:
  
  What was the little video screen on the left of his monitor, um, monitoring?
  
  I wanted to pull it up like they do on all the shows these days and instantly see a pixel perfect view of it just by selecting it, but I don't have the make believe application that does that.
  
  Very cool vid btw.  Please send a WHS to my home address as soon as it is available.
  

  
  
  That's my VAIO VGN-TX770G notebook. Running Vista with the Bubbles screensaver.  My desktop background is Hugh MacLeod's Blue Monster (http://www.gapingvoid.com/Moveable_Type/archives/003388.html).  In the video the screen saver is running over it obscuring it.
  
  Aren't you glad you asked?

• 

  Evoroth wrote:

  Will it have the ability to put the machines on a domain and control user accounts via group policy? Because that would be the kind of thing I'm looking for at home at the present.
  

  
  
  WHS will not be an Active Directory doman controller in the first version. The scenario you describe is absolutely on our roadmap but that is a mountain we choose not to climb in v1.
  
  (I view building products as a series of adventures up huge mountains. With the amount of time available, the resources, and other factors a product team has to carefully pick what mountains to climb for a particluar release. Pick to many and you may not get to the top of any of them. Pick too few and you are not being ambitious enough.)
  

• 

  It seems like the PC Backup feature is rather separate from the shared folders feature.
  
  User --------- Client PC  -------------- WHS ---------------- Remote Access
                                                             
  Peter <----------------------------->  Shared Folders -------------> Peter
  Paul   <-----------------------------> (Previous Versions)
                                                     (Data Redundancy)
                                                     (User Access Controls)
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Peter's Machine ----->PC Backup
                     Paul's Machine   ----->(Single Instance Storage)
                                                        (Data Redundancy)
                                               <-----(Complete PC Restore)
  
  Assumptions:
    
     1. Only files stored in shared folders can be accessed remotely.
     2. Only files stored in shared folders will provide previous versions.
     3. Paul cannot access a file backed up from Peters machine that is not in a shared folder.
     4. Only the most recent backup can be restored?
     5. Users can restore individual files that have been backed up from their PCs?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
         
  

• 

  Since you are still around Charlie could I get you to take a stab at some of my previous questions?

  Note: from reading here and elsewhere it sounds like 8 and 9 have been answered (10 user max, yes)

• 

  eddwo wrote:

  

  It seems like the PC Backup feature is rather separate from the shared folders feature.
  
  User --------- Client PC  -------------- WHS ---------------- Remote Access
                                                             
  Peter <----------------------------->  Shared Folders -------------> Peter
  Paul   <-----------------------------> (Previous Versions)
                                                     (Data Redundancy)
                                                     (User Access Controls)
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Peter's Machine ----->PC Backup
                     Paul's Machine   ----->(Single Instance Storage)
                                                        (Data Redundancy)
                                               <-----(Complete PC Restore)
  
  Assumptions:
    
     1. Only files stored in shared folders can be accessed remotely.
     2. Only files stored in shared folders will provide previous versions.
     3. Paul cannot access a file backed up from Peters machine that is not in a shared folder.
     4. Only the most recent backup can be restored?
     5. Users can restore individual files that have been backed up from their PCs?

  
  
  Good breakdown. You grok it.
  
  On #4: Any previous backup can be restored (modulo the mechanism that ages out backups in a mostly automatic way...you *can* mark specific points in time as "don't delete"). 
  
  

• 

  dahat wrote:

  

  Arg... on the way out of my day job I had a couple of questions come to mind... which lead to others which lead to still more... Sorry to bother Charlie but I’ve got to ask...
  
  1. The on10 video told us that WHS was able to keep up to date and inform you of the security status of the machines in your house with tidbits such as the status of the firewall, Windows Update and what not... does WHS get involved with anything more than monitoring of those subsystems such as... being central repository for in-house WU downloads (ie so only a single copy of each patch is required)?
  
  1a. If it is able to be more involved in the updating and management... how much control can it grant/restrict to the desktop? Can a WHS user/admin choose which updates to apply to which PC's?
  

  
  
  We provide monitoring of those 3 things currently. Our roadmap expands to some of the other things you suggest though.
  
  

  dahat wrote:

  
  2. Given the relationship between 2003 and WHS... is it safe to say that the same will be for vNext and Longhorn Server? Will the WHS SKU be available around the same time?
  

  
  It is waay to early to speculate on things like that. I like to think my team is pretty bright and forward thinking though .
  

  dahat wrote:

  
  
  3. 2003 comes with support for numerous different servers out of the box like HTTP, FTP, DNS, DHCP... will a Sam using WHS have the same control over them that he/she would on a 2003 box today?
  

  
  
  Some yes, some no. We look at it like this:
  
  Our #1 goal is to nail Peter's experience.  If Peter always acts like a Peter we do everything possible to guarantee that he/she(?) has an "appliance like" experience of simplicity, consistecy, and reliability. 
  
  Sam wants what Peter gets, but also wants to be able to "play" some. Sam needs to undertand though, that, his/her playful nature carries some risk depending on how hard he/she plays.
  
  Some things will definately break Peter's expereince ("net stop whsbackup" or running Disk Manager and changing properties of drives WHS is managing for example).  Some, *might* break Peter's experience...we can't (and won't) test every server application out there that runs on W2K3. Or every built-in W2K3 service that WHS is not natively utlizing for that matter.
  
  

  dahat wrote:

  
  
  4. Given that WHS will likely be updateable automatically via WU or manually through a separate download or WU... what sort of recovery/troubleshooting mechanisms does it have built in/support in case failed upgrades or other software/hardware issues that render the unit unable to boot to a normal state where software based troubleshooting (ie event log, gui, etc) could begin?
  

  
  
  We have a recovery mechanism. It will not be in Beta 2. Can't say more than that at this time.
  
  

  dahat wrote:

  
  5. So as to extend the lifetime of the hard drives, does WHS support hybrid drives?
  

  
  
  We do nothing to NOT support them.
  

  dahat wrote:

  
  
  6. What kind of (if any) network/application limitations (other than raw bandwidth) exist to prevent a user from setting up their desktop with a remote WHS?
  

  
  
  No comprende your question. Sorry.
  
  

  dahat wrote:

  
  
  7. Is there any in box support for backing up and recovery of the archive of the WHS to some external device such as a tape or another WHS? Mmm... WHS on WHS.
  

  
  
  Maybe.
  
  

  dahat wrote:

  
  
  8. Are there any built in artificial limitations to WHS to keep it from eating away at current/future business/enterprise servers that accomplish a similar task? Limitations such as # of desktops that can use a given WHS, maximum disk space, backup age, backup count.
  

  
  
  Duh. Do you think I'd get this project approved if we hadn't thought that through? I'm not prepared to discuss details right now.
  
  

  dahat wrote:

  
  
  9. Assuming a user is say... backing up nightly (and disk space is infinite), what kind of depth of history does a user have available to them at restore time? Rather than restoring to the last backup... can they recover to the day before last? Last week? Last month? (again, assuming HD space is infinite).
  

  
  
  I think if you go view the screenshots that are floating around (Paul Thurrott's site has some I believe) you'll see a server settings screen that will illuminate this for you.  (Short answer: yes).
  
  

  dahat wrote:

  
  
  
  10. Is there any support for federation between multiple WHSs so as to further extend the reliability?
  

  
  
  No comment at this point in time.
  
  

  dahat wrote:

  
  
  11. What sort of protection exists (aside from WHS password(s)) to prevent malicious access to backup data via open wifi connection or screwdriver?
  

  
  
  Trying to make people's home secure (either physically or just with wireless networks) is a bit like tyring to boil the ocean.  As much as we'd like to be able to, we can't force people to not be stupid about how they configure things (not securing their wireless or leaving their front door unlocked).  We're confident that as long as someone does not have physical access our solution is solid.
  
  

  dahat wrote:

  
  
  If you can't tell... I'm psyched and believe you me... it doesn't happen all that much.
  
  Given that my mind is still racing with ideas of how to exploit and extend (in good ways) such a device I'm going to ask just one more question before digging into a few ideas.
  
  So last but not least...
  
  12. Is your team hiring? How about in July? (I've got a bit of indentured service due to tuition reimbursement until around then).

  
  
  We have open positions for a senior Program Mananger and for Software Development Engineers in Test. 

• 

  ckindel wrote:

  
  
  We have open positions for a senior Program Mananger and for Software Development Engineers in Test. 

  
  
  I'm probably breaking some rule about doing recruting here on C9, but I literally just discovered that we have on other open position: A very experienced developer who can twiddle bits at the lowest level but can also deal with huge algorithmic complexity.

• 

  Thanks for the answers Charlie, good stuff.
  
  

  ckindel wrote:

  

  dahat wrote:  3. 2003 comes with support for numerous different servers out of the box like HTTP, FTP, DNS, DHCP... will a Sam using WHS have the same control over them that he/she would on a 2003 box today?

  
  
  Some yes, some no. We look at it like this:
  
  Our #1 goal is to nail Peter's experience.  If Peter always acts like a Peter we do everything possible to guarantee that he/she(?) has an "appliance like" experience of simplicity, consistecy, and reliability. 
  
  Sam wants what Peter gets, but also wants to be able to "play" some. Sam needs to undertand though, that, his/her playful nature carries some risk depending on how hard he/she plays.
  
  Some things will definately break Peter's expereince ("net stop whsbackup" or running Disk Manager and changing properties of drives WHS is managing for example).  Some, *might* break Peter's experience...we can't (and won't) test every server application out there that runs on W2K3. Or every built-in W2K3 service that WHS is not natively utlizing for that matter.

  
  
  My concern isn’t so much if they are supported or tested (granted if they aren’t adequately tested we won’t see em in the box) as to if they exist... even if in a disabled by default state.

  I’m just having some ideas that would be best use on a WHS like box but that might rely on the option of some of the backend server options being there... or being provided elsewhere (good thing I’ve been writing my own DNS server in C# out of curiosity and boredom).
  
  

  ckindel wrote:

  

  dahat wrote:  6. What kind of (if any) network/application limitations (other than raw bandwidth) exist to prevent a user from setting up their desktop with a remote WHS?

  No comprende your question. Sorry.

  
  
  To explain that better in... two ways:

  As grand WHS is and useful as it is to most PC users out there... there are those who I wouldn’t want to let near one physically even though I’d think they’d benefit immensely from ones use so I’m forced to wonder... would it be possible for me to setup a WHS at home internet connection and configure my parents PCs out of state to backup to my WHS (assuming bandwidth is not an issue on either side).
  
  The also can be viewed from a road warrior prospective... your laptop is backed up every night while at home... but if you find yourself on the road for an extended period of time... is your laptop able to call home and get backed up (assuming bandwidth is not an issue) using the normal means? ... or would the user have to backup their desired files manually to the file share? (also assuming they aren’t using some sort of enterprise WHS at work)
  
  That does lead to another interesting query... regardless of if a backup is happening locally or remotely (if possible) is the actual communication along the wire encrypted?
  
  

  ckindel wrote:

  
  

  dahat wrote:  11. What sort of protection exists (aside from WHS password(s)) to prevent malicious access to backup data via open wifi connection or screwdriver?

  
  
  Trying to make people's home secure (either physically or just with wireless networks) is a bit like tyring to boil the ocean.  As much as we'd like to be able to, we can't force people to not be stupid about how they configure things (not securing their wireless or leaving their front door unlocked).  We're confident that as long as someone does not have physical access our solution is solid.

  
  
  That’s the big thing... what the defense in depth strategy sounds like... while you make it sounds like there is likely weak or no encryption on the physical end… elsewhere I’ve heard talk of a proprietary or encrypted format for the actual backup store... hum.

  Any encryption at all on the disk for the backup and/or share contents?

  EFS? ... no, that’d make key recovery tricky...  Key based on admin password? ... changing pw would ruin things fast... don’t mind me, just trying to read your team’s mind... none at all but possibly broken into smaller pieces (based on changes or block size) is starting to sound better.
  
  

  ckindel wrote:

  We have open positions for a senior Program Mananger and for Software Development Engineers in Test. 
  
  I'm probably breaking some rule about doing recruting here on C9, but I literally just discovered that we have on other open position: A very experienced developer who can twiddle bits at the lowest level but can also deal with huge algorithmic complexity.

  
  
  You aren’t recruiting... you are just answering questions

  Darn none the less, I’m more of a SDE person and my bit twiddling skills are good... but likely not to the level that you are looking for... so I’ll have to keep watching.

  Any idea which team yours is listed under on the Careers site?

• 

  This looks like a great product, and I'm really excited to get a copy to start playing with.
  
  One of the biggest questions I have concerns the security of the remote access feature. From the little bit I've seen, it looks like the device may be remotely accessed over HTTPS directly from a browser. My question is how does the device get an SSL certificate to start an SSL session.
  
  So far, the responses I've gotten to this question seem to tell me that the server is using a self-signed certificate. This is pretty surprising for two reasons: First, won't self-signed certificates teach the Peters of the world really bad habits that will put him at risk in the future? And secondly, aren't self-signed certificates really frowned upon in the IE7 world (as well as with all of the newer browsers).

• 

  The concept is awesome, it is just unfortunate it took/taking so long to become a reality.  I'd already have this purchased, configured and running if it was available.  Anyway at all to get on the private beta list?

  Sounds very similar to a product I have been using for many years, Mirra, except with many additional features that Mirra should have come up with ages ago.  Such as remote access to the server or workstations on the home network not just the files.  Ability to share the backed-up files on the network.  Abilty to expand HD space by adding internal or external storage devices.
  
  2 things specific to my personal scenario which would definitely sell me on the WHS.
  
  1.  If there are shared folders on WHS, such as music, videos, pictures, will the only way to access them be through a "media connect" compliant device?  Or as long as the device can see a shared folder in XP it will be able to see a shared folder in WHS?
  
  2. Since the WHS, is likely to be online at all times, is it possible to use the WHS to run a website so it is not necessary to have two computers running at all times?
  
  You definitely have a very, very, very eager fan of this application only a couple things possibly stand in the way of me selling my Mirra to change to this solution.  I am amazed at how long it took to create an alternative solution, but it sounds like this is worth the wait.  Keep up the good work! 
  

   

• 

  Tharnax wrote:

  
  1.  If there are shared folders on WHS, such as music, videos, pictures, will the only way to access them be through a "media connect" compliant device?  Or as long as the device can see a shared folder in XP it will be able to see a shared folder in WHS?
  

  
  
  Any device or software that can access SMB shares will be able to access the shared folders on WHS.
  
  Any device or software that supports Windows Media Connect will be able to access the content via that mechanism.
  
  In addition, other media access stacks from 3rd parties could be enabled on a WHS server providing access to even more devices.
  
  

  Tharnax wrote:

  
  2. Since the WHS, is likely to be online at all times, is it possible to use the WHS to run a website so it is not necessary to have two computers running at all times?

  
  
  Yes.
  

• 

  What about recording TV, any feature? I don't get it why MS simply doesn't add this feature, consolidates Xbox as the "living room" hardware and exterminate Windows Media Center.
  
  If all the library will be into WHS, Xbox can stream anything from it, we just need a video capture board to stream TV.

• 

  This presentation was so sexually biased that I had a hard time focusing on the content.    Every competent person was referred to as he and women are all clueless users in his universe.
  
  Give me a break!  This guy needs some intensive training.
  

• 

  I have 5 PCs setup in common areas of the house and with a family of 6 I got tired of my kids, wife, and me complaining about the location of their files and email accounts.  This prompted me about 3 or so years ago to setup a SBS in my house.  Ever since then I've been wondering why MS hasn't come out with a server product that was designed for the home user.  To my pleasant surprise it looks like they will be coming out with one.
  
  However, since I bit the bullet and figured out how to install a SBS at home, I wonder if WHS will offer me anything more than what my SBS is giving me?  After some initial learning curve, SBS has been a "set it and forget it" product for me.
  
  I primarily use the SBS for:
  
  1. "My Documents" redirection to the server.
  2.  MS Exchange to store email accounts and messages.
  3.  Shared network drives
  4.  IP Router
  5.  Remote Web Workplace
  
  What I would like it to do:
  
  1.  Parental controls at the server level (internet filter, pc time limits, etc.)
  2.  Media distribution (Sling type service, dvd server)
  3.  Firewall, virus, spam, protection at the server level rather than configuration at each PC.
  4.  When a new PC is added to the network all user configuration is pushed down from the server from internet favorites to drive mapping (I know, SBS can probably do this but I'm a CPA not an IS guy.)
  
  Good luck to the MS team and waiting patiently for my private beta test invite.

• 

  Get over it. This is a geekfest and last time I looked, geeks are 90+% male.
  
  This reminds me of when I was in the vid-game business and women complained that the games were violent. Well, guess what? The target audience was overwhelmingly male and they loved it.
  
  We don't need to parse our language to accomodate a small minority. The small minority needs to understand that they are a small minority and accept the language.
  
  

• 

  Hi,

  is there any location where can i find stuff on the Drive Extender technology? how files are spread across disks an so on...?
  
  Regev

• 

  This guy cracks me up,
  
  
  
  
  I could not live without my Homeserver. I love it.
  
  I would have to say it is one of the best ideas MS has ever had.
  
  Thank you.

• 

  felicitaciones muy útiles los comentarios continúen adelante desde Carora Venezuela para ustedes