Coffeehouse Thread

35 posts

Forum Read Only

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

Windows Home Server

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Zeus

    LarryLarsen said:

    I think Home Server is one of our best products. There's an update that's been in beta for some time now. I've got plans to meet with that team on their Vail release so if you have more questions leave them here.

    Are there any plans to improve the performance of the disk-balancing procedures, and maby allow the user to configure that in some way? I get very frustrated sometimes because it starts every day @ 00:00, and if I am streaming video from my WHS, I run into problems.

     

    Regarding the backup, I don't want to take a whole image backup, just back up some of my folders. In the current system I can't do that. I have to let it back up all my C drive, and then exclude the folders I don't want backed up. It should also be the other way around.

     

    I have never gotten the photo sharing thing to work, are there any improvements on that?

     

    Other than this I am very happy with my WHS, give the team my regards ... I am a very happy customer.

  • User profile image
    JoshRoss

    Ray7 said:
    JoshRoss said:
    *snip*

    Mmm. Not sure you can really count a hardware failure as a problem with Windows Home Server.

     

    I thought about that for a moment before writing the post, and then a moment of clarity came to me. The hardware and software come in the same box. There comes a point where the line between hardware and software become blurred, and it is at that instance, where I can say the whole amalgamation was either beneficial or detrimental to my workflow.

     

    -Josh

  • User profile image
    Bas

    JoshRoss said:
    Ray7 said:
    *snip*

    I thought about that for a moment before writing the post, and then a moment of clarity came to me. The hardware and software come in the same box. There comes a point where the line between hardware and software become blurred, and it is at that instance, where I can say the whole amalgamation was either beneficial or detrimental to my workflow.

     

    -Josh

    So if it's an amalgamation, why are you laying the blame on Windows Home Server and not on HP Mediasmart Server, which is the amalgamated product you bought?

  • User profile image
    JoshRoss

    Bas said:
    JoshRoss said:
    *snip*

    So if it's an amalgamation, why are you laying the blame on Windows Home Server and not on HP Mediasmart Server, which is the amalgamated product you bought?

    I am, or at least that was my intention. Yes, to be clear, in my experience the hardware was shoddy. However, the software was designed to run on shoddy hardware. And if I recall correctly, Microsoft had approved the hardware by means of a sticker vis-a-vis their hardware quality labs assurance program. The last bit was complete speculation, so let me know if I am off my rocker.

     

    Perhaps if it is not WHQL's purpose to identify shoddy hardware, but instead just ensure compatibility, then there is opportunity for them to expand their offerings. If you are concerned about toes being stepped on, look back at when Microsoft lowered the requirement bar for Intel, so they could have sub-par graphics cards released while maintaining sticker adornment. The end result of that was a net loss for nearly everyone, Intel, Microsoft, and the Consumer, with the notable exception of a few law firms.

     

    -Josh

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    JoshRoss said:
    Bas said:
    *snip*

    I am, or at least that was my intention. Yes, to be clear, in my experience the hardware was shoddy. However, the software was designed to run on shoddy hardware. And if I recall correctly, Microsoft had approved the hardware by means of a sticker vis-a-vis their hardware quality labs assurance program. The last bit was complete speculation, so let me know if I am off my rocker.

     

    Perhaps if it is not WHQL's purpose to identify shoddy hardware, but instead just ensure compatibility, then there is opportunity for them to expand their offerings. If you are concerned about toes being stepped on, look back at when Microsoft lowered the requirement bar for Intel, so they could have sub-par graphics cards released while maintaining sticker adornment. The end result of that was a net loss for nearly everyone, Intel, Microsoft, and the Consumer, with the notable exception of a few law firms.

     

    -Josh

    Mmmm. Can't say I understand your argument. To begin with, you haven't actually proved the hardware was shoddy. All we know is that your unit broke and I'm not sure how MS would write the software in such a way to detect that your particular box was the bad one in the batch.

     

    Even if you had proven that there is something inherently wrong with the HP Media Server, I'm still not sure why this is Microsoft's fault.

     

    I did have a HP printer break down on me a few years back. Strangely enough, I didn't blame the paper manufacturer for not warning me about it.

     

  • User profile image
    JoshRoss

    Ray7 said:
    JoshRoss said:
    *snip*

    Mmmm. Can't say I understand your argument. To begin with, you haven't actually proved the hardware was shoddy. All we know is that your unit broke and I'm not sure how MS would write the software in such a way to detect that your particular box was the bad one in the batch.

     

    Even if you had proven that there is something inherently wrong with the HP Media Server, I'm still not sure why this is Microsoft's fault.

     

    I did have a HP printer break down on me a few years back. Strangely enough, I didn't blame the paper manufacturer for not warning me about it.

     

    I'm not sure if I can argue two arguments effectively on one thread.  Can we agree that Microsoft does more for the Windows Home Server market than just write the software? If not, I will give-up trying to persuade you otherwise.

     

    I completely agree with you that a sample size of one unit is utterly inadequate for any statistically validated conclusion. So my situation could be a complete fluke, I may never know otherwise.

     

    As for your printer issue, Hewlett Packard did not certify the paper for your printer. However, Microsoft certified the hardware for the software with the WHS badging. If any blame should be aimed towards Microsoft, it would be their certification process, not their software development.

     

    If you agree that Microsoft does more than just write the software, ask yourself should Microsoft be in the badging business to satisfy partners or consumers? If you say both, then who should they side with when a conflict arrises?

     

    -Josh

  • User profile image
    Bas

    JoshRoss said:
    Ray7 said:
    *snip*

    I'm not sure if I can argue two arguments effectively on one thread.  Can we agree that Microsoft does more for the Windows Home Server market than just write the software? If not, I will give-up trying to persuade you otherwise.

     

    I completely agree with you that a sample size of one unit is utterly inadequate for any statistically validated conclusion. So my situation could be a complete fluke, I may never know otherwise.

     

    As for your printer issue, Hewlett Packard did not certify the paper for your printer. However, Microsoft certified the hardware for the software with the WHS badging. If any blame should be aimed towards Microsoft, it would be their certification process, not their software development.

     

    If you agree that Microsoft does more than just write the software, ask yourself should Microsoft be in the badging business to satisfy partners or consumers? If you say both, then who should they side with when a conflict arrises?

     

    -Josh

    So what it all comes down is that when hardware fails, it's not the hardware manufacturer that's at fault, but the company that certified the hardware?

  • User profile image
    JoshRoss

    Bas said:
    JoshRoss said:
    *snip*

    So what it all comes down is that when hardware fails, it's not the hardware manufacturer that's at fault, but the company that certified the hardware?

    I would say that they are both at fault. However, only Hewlett Packard is on the line, as far as the warranty goes. I wouldn't say that it would be reasonable to for me to go Microsoft demanding that they do something about this particular failure. That said, most consumer electronics equipment is junk. And almost all of it is endorsed by Underwriters Laboratories, a company from what I can tell is completely useless.

     

    If you find a gem of a WHS, let me know, I'm in the market.

     

    -Josh

  • User profile image
    Bas

    JoshRoss said:
    Bas said:
    *snip*

    I would say that they are both at fault. However, only Hewlett Packard is on the line, as far as the warranty goes. I wouldn't say that it would be reasonable to for me to go Microsoft demanding that they do something about this particular failure. That said, most consumer electronics equipment is junk. And almost all of it is endorsed by Underwriters Laboratories, a company from what I can tell is completely useless.

     

    If you find a gem of a WHS, let me know, I'm in the market.

     

    -Josh

    I'd say that you're misunderstanding what the certification means. It is meant to assure that the software will run on those hardware specifications, which is undeniably true: there are plenty of Mediasmart Servers out there on which WHS runs without problem. What you seem to think it means is some sort of magical assurance that the hardware it is running on is unable to ever break or fail.

     

    As for buying a new system, I'd personally wait until Vail comes out. Although that probably won't be until next year or something. If you don't want to wait that long, there's a pretty good WHS system out there from HP, called the Mediasmart Server.

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    JoshRoss said:
    Bas said:
    *snip*

    I would say that they are both at fault. However, only Hewlett Packard is on the line, as far as the warranty goes. I wouldn't say that it would be reasonable to for me to go Microsoft demanding that they do something about this particular failure. That said, most consumer electronics equipment is junk. And almost all of it is endorsed by Underwriters Laboratories, a company from what I can tell is completely useless.

     

    If you find a gem of a WHS, let me know, I'm in the market.

     

    -Josh

    I don't know, I have a home built WHS that gets down only when I add more (internal) drives. It's always up and it runs a couple of web services for me. Never had a fault, zero unplanned downtime.

     

    So far, it's the most worry-free piece of software I've ever had.

  • User profile image
    JoshRoss

    Bas said:
    JoshRoss said:
    *snip*

    I'd say that you're misunderstanding what the certification means. It is meant to assure that the software will run on those hardware specifications, which is undeniably true: there are plenty of Mediasmart Servers out there on which WHS runs without problem. What you seem to think it means is some sort of magical assurance that the hardware it is running on is unable to ever break or fail.

     

    As for buying a new system, I'd personally wait until Vail comes out. Although that probably won't be until next year or something. If you don't want to wait that long, there's a pretty good WHS system out there from HP, called the Mediasmart Server.

    From my earlier post...

     

    Perhaps if it is not WHQL's purpose to identify shoddy hardware, but instead just ensure compatibility, then there is opportunity for them to expand their offerings.

     

    Even without the aforementioned power issues, the MediaSmart Server has a lot of add-on junk. How many Windows Home Servers have you used? I'm not sure how much of that stuff comes with the core OS, and how much HP put there. Hewlett Packard seems to be completely void of any sense of software esthetics and is unwilling to even give it a shot. At least Microsoft is making inroads, even if at a slower clip than I would prefer.

     

    -Josh

  • User profile image
    JoshRoss

    PaoloM said:
    JoshRoss said:
    *snip*

    I don't know, I have a home built WHS that gets down only when I add more (internal) drives. It's always up and it runs a couple of web services for me. Never had a fault, zero unplanned downtime.

     

    So far, it's the most worry-free piece of software I've ever had.

    I'm not sure why I didn't think of doing that earlier.  I have no problems with the DIY approach. What did you use as a base system?

     

    -Josh

  • User profile image
    Bass

    Pretty recently I was looking at using a plug computer to run as a home server. Unfortunately the new GuruPlug that recently came out seems to be having heating issues. Sad

     

    I don't want a massive computer that is barely being used idling 24/7. So I'm really looking for hardware that idles at ~5 watts. I don't care if it is non-x86, as I am a Linux fanatic and probably wouldn't run WHS if I could help it.

     

     

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    JoshRoss said:
    Bas said:
    *snip*

    From my earlier post...

     

    Perhaps if it is not WHQL's purpose to identify shoddy hardware, but instead just ensure compatibility, then there is opportunity for them to expand their offerings.

     

    Even without the aforementioned power issues, the MediaSmart Server has a lot of add-on junk. How many Windows Home Servers have you used? I'm not sure how much of that stuff comes with the core OS, and how much HP put there. Hewlett Packard seems to be completely void of any sense of software esthetics and is unwilling to even give it a shot. At least Microsoft is making inroads, even if at a slower clip than I would prefer.

     

    -Josh

    The certification states only what needs to be there for the core system. HP is free to add whatever it wants as long as it doesn't mess with the core functionality. Now, has HP added anything that messes with the core operation? If so, then you have a strong case.

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    JoshRoss said:
    PaoloM said:
    *snip*

    I'm not sure why I didn't think of doing that earlier.  I have no problems with the DIY approach. What did you use as a base system?

     

    -Josh

    I got a slightly decent motherboard (ASUS MN2NPV-VM), an Athlon X2 3800 and 2Gb RAM. Nothing spectacular, but it runs my shares, TFS, Wordpress, SQL, mySQL, FTP, some webservices and some websites.

     

    WHS doesn't take a lot of CPU, but I use it also as a test Win2k3 machine.

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    JoshRoss said:
    Ray7 said:
    *snip*

    I'm not sure if I can argue two arguments effectively on one thread.  Can we agree that Microsoft does more for the Windows Home Server market than just write the software? If not, I will give-up trying to persuade you otherwise.

     

    I completely agree with you that a sample size of one unit is utterly inadequate for any statistically validated conclusion. So my situation could be a complete fluke, I may never know otherwise.

     

    As for your printer issue, Hewlett Packard did not certify the paper for your printer. However, Microsoft certified the hardware for the software with the WHS badging. If any blame should be aimed towards Microsoft, it would be their certification process, not their software development.

     

    If you agree that Microsoft does more than just write the software, ask yourself should Microsoft be in the badging business to satisfy partners or consumers? If you say both, then who should they side with when a conflict arrises?

     

    -Josh

    The aim of the certification process is intended to identify the hardware as suitable for running the software, not to say anything about the overall quality. Although surely if it were within a year, it'd still be under the original warranty.

     

    It's a shame you had a bad experience, but hardware fails from time to time and I don't think one failed machine reflects badly on the server hardware, let alone WHS itself.

  • User profile image
    Bas

    JoshRoss said:
    PaoloM said:
    *snip*

    I'm not sure why I didn't think of doing that earlier.  I have no problems with the DIY approach. What did you use as a base system?

     

    -Josh

    I picked up a system for about €70 when the first beta came out. It's an ASUS barebones chassis I added a Celeron and a gig of the cheapest memory I could find. When the RTM came out I installed it and nothing else on it. It's pretty ideal, although the console can be slow to connect and when you catch it while balancing data across disks or whatever that's called things slow down to a crawl. Still, it was cheap. I'm thinking of upgrading when Vail comes out... something focusing on low power consumption should be a pretty cheap option by now.

     

    I wouldn't say it's been worry free for me (I fell victim to the dreaded data corruption thing, the remote access website disappears for me regularly and I have to re-run that setup wizard thing, which isn't complicated in itself) but I never think about backups anymore (I guess W3bbo's absence is his roundabout way of admitting he's not familiar with either the WHS or the Timce Capsule way of doing things. Tongue Out) and with offline folders all my stuff is available to me no matter where I am. When it works, it's ideal.

Conversation locked

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