Coffeehouse Thread

50 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

7 Page Review of Windows Home Server

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    a !

    http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/Windows-Home-Server-the-Ars-Technica-review.ars



    Pros:

    • Minimal hardware requirements mean you can take older hardware and get started right away.
    • The Connector and Remote Access make it easy to administer your Home Server remotely.
    • The ability to use add-ins to extend the functionality of Windows Home Server.

    Cons:

    • No 64-bit Connector.
    • The administrative interface is sometimes too simplistic.
    • Bare-bones media sharing and streaming capabilities.

  • User profile image
    prndll

    hhhhmmmmm........

    Sounds more like a cheap way for MS to take control and watch (all by remote) of personal networks. I personally see nothing about this other than the cheap price that makes it worth having. Sorry guys. I can do the same things with almost any other computer connected to my network already.

  • User profile image
    Vasudev

    prndll wrote:
    hhhhmmmmm........

    Sounds more like a cheap way for MS to take control and watch (all by remote) of personal networks. I personally see nothing about this other than the cheap price that makes it worth having. Sorry guys. I can do the same things with almost any other computer connected to my network already.


    You can do , but everybody cant be a geek like you to do it, that too an average HOME user.
    What you can do is, taken care by Windows Home Server helping a Home user to do.
    I think, if its taken care of properly, in promoting WHS, it'll be a huge success in years to come.

  • User profile image
    prndll

    All I'm saying is:

    It's just another computer to tie into a home network. That's all it is. Home users will need help with it just like they already do with any computer already their.

    now....
    If WHS does become succesful, it will simply be due to that idea that it will further remove end users from controlling their own equiptment. Perhaps I can say all this because I am part of the "geek" way of thinking. But, I am of the beliefe that end users at home on home networks should take full responsibility for things. Although, I am not naive enough to think that people will. I just think they should. Things like WHS helps make it easier for them not to. This has negative effects on security.

    In the end....
    You will control it or someone else will. If it's someone else, that someone else might be through a remote connection and might not be someone with ethics. If your willing give up control to someone else, you have no right to complain when something bad happens (and something will).

    Please keep in mind that I'm of the beliefe that the best computer someone could own is the one they build for themselves (regardless).


  • User profile image
    Skriker V1.0

    No 64bit support??? Bahhh [C] [C] [C] [C]

    Why? Is it really that hard guys?

  • User profile image
    Bas

    prndll wrote:
    All I'm saying is:

    It's just another computer to tie into a home network. That's all it is.


    Yeah, and a nuclear power-plant is just another steam-engine. That's all it is. That doesn't mean that they're both as difficult to control and manage.

    Home users don't want control. Maybe they should want it, but they don't.

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    prndll wrote:
    All I'm saying is:

    It's just another computer to tie into a home network. That's all it is. Home users will need help with it just like they already do with any computer already their.

    now....
    If WHS does become succesful, it will simply be due to that idea that it will further remove end users from controlling their own equiptment.





    So hold on; you setup a WHS server; you install the backup software; you choose what to put on the shares; you setup the users; you setup the exposure to the web; you choose if you want to stream media.

    And it takes you through it step by step. There's no real help needed, if you can boot and put a CD in, that's all you'll need.

    And yet somehow you think that's removing control from end users? What exactly do you think happens here? A crack squad of WHS ninjas descend on your house, install it while you sleep and you can't get rid of it? How is installing a backup device a negative security effect? In fact the darned thing insists on strong passwords. Remote connections are entirely optional, and indeed proxying RDS via WHS is safer than port forwarded, as the WHS device would be compromised not your desktop.

  • User profile image
    Ray6

    prndll wrote:
    
    now....
    If WHS does become succesful, it will simply be due to that idea that it will further remove end users from controlling their own equiptment. Perhaps I can say all this because I am part of the "geek" way of thinking. But, I am of the beliefe that end users at home on home networks should take full responsibility for things. Although, I am not naive enough to think that people will. I just think they should. Things like WHS helps make it easier for them not to.


    I disagree. These days too many people don't back up their computers. If this offers them an easy way to do it, then it's all good. You have to remember that computers are not a way of life for 98% of the population. They just want to get on, do stuff, then go and do something more interesting.

    I'm sure that you could find some software that will automatically pool storage when you plug it in, and also form the basis of a home automation system and also support remoting and will automatically check files as they are backed up to make sure that it can't use an identical one from a different machine ... but most people have better things to do with their time; this is the market that MS appears to be aiming for.

  • User profile image
    Bas

    To add to that: it's basically a version of Windows Server 2003. If you need more control, ditch the connector software and RD into the device itself as an admin. Voila, total control.

  • User profile image
    prndll

    I guess I just don't understand why one would need "software" for making backups (other than maybe software for burning disks). Your "ninja" analogy is just about what can often happen when a network becomes compromised. There are examples of things all over the place as to entire networks becoming vulnerable if just one computer on that network is compromised. You talk about all the things the end user would do but, do you really think the end user will likely be the one to actually do any of that? I can see that if your going to suggest that WHS is more likely to be used by geeks.

    Having a home server is one thing (and is a good thing), but having a special os for that just doesn't make sense to me. But then, I never really understood the point of Windows Media Center Edition either. Especially since every computer out there can handle pretty much all the most common media forms already. That is infact why they are common media forms. Even Win98se could be used as a server for a small amount of video and music files. It could also be used for a server for just about every document that a home owner would be likely to have on a computer. Win98se could be made secure. It's just that most people wouldn't. I'm not advicating 98se here, just the idea that these new things become a redundant waste when most computers already do what these things do.

  • User profile image
    Flashbak

    Isn't WHS somewhat of a product waiting for a market?

    I suspect the number of civilians running mutiple machines at home is fairly low, of those that do they probably use a switch to share their internet connectivity and that's about it.

    Yes, backup functionality is a good thing - but first users need to be persuaded that backups are needed.  Far too many people just don't see it as an issue.

    As for the vast majority of WHS's potential customers, that would be us (Channel 9 members) the compromises made to produce a cut-down Windows Server are a deal breaker, besides which how many people here aren't running at least one server at home?

    So personally, I'll stick with the quarter pounder Windows Server, rather than the diet salad WHS thanks all the same!

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    prndll wrote:
    I guess I just don't understand why one would need "software" for making backups (other than maybe software for burning disks).


    Um, because it's automatic.

    My Mum doesn't want to spend her life burning disks to back things up. Neither do I for that matter.

    I don't understand why someone wouldn't want something to do that all for them. Isn't the whole point of computers to make our life easier?

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    Flashbak wrote:

    So personally, I'll stick with the quarter pounder Windows Server, rather than the diet salad WHS thanks all the same!


    Then you'll miss out. WHS is not a trimmed down Server 2003, it's a custom built Server which focuses on a specific need. In the same way that Windows Storage Server does.

    Now I'll agree the market for it is still quite small, but it's definitely getting bigger. The number of broadband providers offering some form of 'automatic backup' as part of their package is an indication that people are finding this a more and more compelling idea.

  • User profile image
    prndll

    Oh yes, I want to trust my most valued data to webserves (only accessable when online) owned by my ISP as opposed to burning a disk (or a few) that I can keep at my desk (or where ever) and access at anytime. I see nothing compelling about that. I see that as a fools paradise and flawed logic. This is not to mention that fact that with larger amounts of data, the ISP could end up shutting you down under the false assumption that your illegally sharing files through KaZaa or some such thing. There are too many ISP with caps and monitoring controls on band width usage.

    lol...
    Just wait and see what the results would be of a million plus people backing up 500 gigs of data at a time through their ISP. Why make backups at all?

  • User profile image
    Bas

    Fixed:

    creditcard wrote:
    
    well well... Does the average person really need to do regular backups in their house?


    Yes, yes they do.

  • User profile image
    PerfectPhase

    Flashbak wrote:

    Yes, backup functionality is a good thing - but first users need to be persuaded that backups are needed.  Far too many people just don't see it as an issue.


    I was wondering about backups when I read this today.  Someone needs to do something about backup technology because the amount of information and to some extent peoples lives existing on a single physical device prone to errors these days is stagering!!

  • User profile image
    Bas

    prndll wrote:
    Oh yes, I want to trust my most valued data to webserves (only accessable when online) owned by my ISP as opposed to burning a disk (or a few) that I can keep at my desk (or where ever) and access at anytime.


    Congrats, you've just pointed out the single greatest reason why people would want WHS.

  • User profile image
    prndll

    They want WHS because of the problems with online backup? That doesn't make sense????


Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.