Search
Wednesday, January 07, 2009 ..:: Home ::.. Register  Login
Blog roll

Topic search

UsersOnline
Membership Membership:
Latest New User Latest: ginnyihmv
New Today New Today: 1
New Yesterday New Yesterday: 0
User Count Overall: 121

People Online People Online:
Visitors Visitors: 0
Members Members: 0
Total Total: 0

Online Now Online Now:

Blogs
Oct 28

Written by: Justin James
10/28/2008 2:45 PM

When I first heard about Windows Home Server, I was fairly excited about the product. The more I learned about it, I was confused about it. What I really wanted to know was if I could use it as a true server which was simply overlooked by all of the review I read, or if its backup, storage, and multimedia stories were really all there was to it.

I spent some time with the eval version of it. I'll say that I think that it is a good product. What people talk about doing with it, in terms of storage and multimedia stuff, it's there and it looks pretty cool. But for me, I really wanted an email server and a Web/FTP server at home. I have this already running FreeBSD, but since I prefer developing in .Net lately, having a Windows server here would get me a lot of motivation in terms of writing more personal applications.

Sadly, Windows Home Server is not well suited for my needs. For one thing, its user management is designed for consumers to "get", which means that I don't want to be using it for FTP purposes, and it won't be a good basis for an email server. Even worse, like Windows Small Business Server, WHS uses its own wizards to manage things, and using the standard tools (which I still included) will break things. Frankly, I think that this is a bad decision. Either make the standard tools do what you need them to do, or remove them. But to leave them there and simply warn me is asking for trouble. This is one of my biggest grievances with SBS, and by itself, it rules out WHS as being suitable for my purposes. I simply don't want to risk "breaking" something while working the way I am used to working. Because of the tools modifications, I did not feel safe trying to install DHCP server, DNS server, or any of the other services that my FreeBSD server provides. If I don't feel comfortable with it, I am not going to use it. Finally, I hate that it is based on Server 2003, and not 2008. 2003 is good, but 2008 is GREAT.

WHS may be a good product, but if you are looking for a lightweight personal server (not just a file/media server, but a personal Internet server), WHS is probably not right for you.

J.Ja

Tags:

5 comments so far...

Re: Using Windows Home Server as a server at home

Would enjoy reading more about your 2008 experiences.
A good read J.Ja!

By dietrich on   10/29/2008 6:42 AM

A Product Needing a Purpose

While I am beginning to see the need for a server in every home as the Laptops and Desktops begin to proliferate through out the house hold, I don't see the rhyme or reason yet for Windows Home Server.

There are times where I think that it would be nice to have a place to store more of my files over the network as I grow weary of having to move space around on my 40 GB drive on my laptop.

All Windows Home Server is is a desktop with a few tools that make it better for backup. A shared folder on a PC could almost easily do the same task, perhaps without all of the wizards.

FreeBSD and Linux are both more robust in this territory.

By nuCrash on   10/29/2008 8:47 AM

Your wish is my command

http://www.formortals.com/Home/tabid/36/EntryID/126/Default.aspx

J.Ja

By jmjames on   10/29/2008 10:14 AM

Re: Using Windows Home Server as a server at home

I tend to disagree that having a computer with shared folders can be equated to the Windows Home Server experience. What WHS provides is automatic backups/restores of any computer in the house. A feature that I have used several times. In addition is also provides you remote access to your files. The main "feature" that I like is that it makes backup/recovery easy and automatic.

By Chris on   11/12/2008 11:26 AM

Re: Using Windows Home Server as a server at home

Chris -

I don't think anyone ignored it's backup capabilities, or said that it was *only* a file server. But all of its capabilities (even the additional ones you highlighted) all revolve around files. What I was hoping that it could do was to be a system that was also capable of provisioning network services, such as DNS, DHCP, HTTP, FTP, email, etc. Something like the Windows Small Business Server (without the full SQL Server, or course, and something like the Windows POP3 Service instead of Exchange), without a full Active Directory system, capable of handling 1 domain. It may be asking for a bit much, but I think that to put such a product together is mostly a matter of taking things out rather than adding things in. I do not disagree that it is a decent product in its current form (although I wish it was based on Server 2008, not Server 2003!), but for the second tier power users like me (I think first tier power users are who it is currently aimed at) who need something that goes beyond file services, it's lacking.

J.Ja

By jmjames on   11/12/2008 11:33 AM

Your name:
Title:
Comment:
Add Comment    Cancel  

Links

Blog_Archive

New_Blog
You must be logged in and have permission to create or edit a blog.

Search_Blog
Print  

Copyright 2008 by George Ou or Justin James   Terms Of Use  Privacy Statement
DotNetNuke® is copyright 2002-2009 by DotNetNuke Corporation