A New Kind of Home Computer: Windows Home Server Preview
by Ryan Smith on September 4, 2007 1:00 PM EST- Posted in
- Systems
Initial Thoughts
In assessing the value of Windows Home Server, for even a "simple" product like it with only a handful of core functions, there are a number of variables that really need to be taken into consideration. We can't give a blanket recommendation on WHS as a result, as the decision to use WHS rests on the variables to take into account for each user/household that a server would be installed in.
The chief variable is cost, and even this is in several forms. WHS is a new product, not any kind of upgrade, so using it is a matter of either buying an OEM box, or building one yourself, which can dramatically affect the actual cost. For enthusiasts with suitable hardware practically collecting dust, WHS is the cost of the OS plus minor costs for additional parts such as a gigabit switch. For more normal home users or enthusiasts without the spare parts, WHS means making an investment in new hardware. WHS has very low system requirements, so high-end OEM configurations will be well below the cost of a high-end computer, but it will still be in the neighborhood of a low-to-mid range computer.
Then there is the issue of the price of the WHS software, which we don't have. We're confident it will be between $100 and $200, but that's a very large range. We do know what the pricing will be outside of North America, and after converting currencies we are seeing $175-$200 in most regions. Microsoft's software is seldom more expensive in North America than in other locations, so this is a solid cap, but as they do charge less in North America on some pieces of software, it's not a solid floor.
The final element in the cost equation is the number of computers in a home. If you count WHS solely as a backup suite, in a house with the maximum of 10 computers the per-computer cost for having a top-tier backup suite is at most $20. This is more than competitive with other backup suites sold at retail. And then there is everything else WHS can do too; what's the value of an easy to configure file server? A web server? Various Linux distributions come close in some features but don't offer an equal feature set overall, so we can say WHS is overpriced compared to a free operating system, but...
And then we need to ask if WHS is even ready for use yet. HP says no, and they're holding back the launch of their WHS products from a September ship date, towards November and later. In doing so they're citing their desire to wait on third-party add-ins, on which development started much later, to catch up to WHS. Furthermore the WHS team is already at work on some unspecified updates that HP wants to wait for.
As a matter of opinion - and we're not disputing HP on their own choices - we think it is ready, especially for the enthusiast crowd that is the main audience here at AnandTech. We haven't encountered any noticeable bugs in using a WHS server even with the release candidate (although undoubtedly there are some lurking beneath) and the interface is more than easy enough for any enthusiast user to deal with. WHS is ready for the enthusiasts that want it.
We're a bit more tepid on recommendations for typical users however, some of which is due to our own inability to measure what counts as "average" computer knowledge these days. WHS is not caveman-simple, then again neither is Vista if you go far enough off of the beaten path. A bare minimum amount of computer knowledge isn't enough to properly operate a WHS server if we're talking about how it comes in the default Microsoft configuration; OEMs will be adding their own spice to the out-of-the-box experience.
But on the other hand Microsoft has done a great job simplifying the controls for what is really Windows Server 2003, and someone doesn't need to be an enthusiast to use it. With a level of knowledge above the bare minimum it's very possible and easy to make a WHS server work. And frankly, actually using (as opposed to configuring) a WHS server is extremely easy once it's set up; this is something even users with minimal amounts of computer knowledge could handle if a big box electronics store set up the server in the first place.
The next issue then is the feature set, and if it justifies the effort and the price. WHS is a file server/NAS, it's a backup suite, it's a webserver, and more. We really, really like the folder duplication feature (even if it is really just a poor RAID 1 knock off) because of the excellent ability to select what does and doesn't get extra protection. Most of these features work quite well, and we have no problem justifying WHS when two or more features are going to be used, since other devices WHS is in direct and indirect competition with are limited to only one function. A critical mass of computers is still required, but a couple of computers that receive heavy use would but enough to reach that critical mass.
Finally, there are the issues that have cropped up in our time with WHS that are outright design/feature problems. We speak of course about the nagging integration between WHS and Media Center functionality. If you have a full suite of Microsoft products (Xbox 360, MCE, and normal Windows computers) and want to use WHS as a media repository, it's simply an ugly mess. It can be made to work for the most part, but it's not a smooth experience out-of-the-box, and should be a lot better. There's going to be a lot of people - ourselves included - taking a hard look at WHS 2.0 to see if Microsoft has done a better job at integrating MCE and WHS into one box. This isn't a problem that kills WHS, but it does present a problem.
Particularly as enthusiasts we like WHS and consider it a product that justifies the costs of adding an entirely new device to a home environment. It has its flaws, but what it does well it does well enough to overcome those flaws; Microsoft 1.0 products have a bad reputation (and not for the wrong reasons, either) but this is one product where Microsoft has come out and managed to get things right enough on the first try. Starting with WHS it can seem to be a schizophrenic product, but in the end it comes together once you know what you want to use it for.
Our only caveat here is that it will take some time for most people to figure out just what those uses are. Microsoft will be releasing a 120 day trial of WHS soon, and we'd highly recommend trying it out and discovering the variables for yourself before purchasing the software or hardware for a server; not everyone will find it useful enough to purchase. It's also worth noting that while Microsoft doesn't officially support this, as a server product WHS works particularly well in a virtual machine since there's no need for high graphical performance. A virtual machine can be a good way to go through a WHS trial without taking any other risks.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
128 Comments
View All Comments
n0nsense - Thursday, September 6, 2007 - link
I really impressed by you responses.You might be right about set up mess and definitely right about need to read few pages in order to try something not microsoft.
It is a free world when you choose your platform, but far away of being free when you choose proprietary one.
while you talking, most of you did not try any *nix in last years.
If my parents, cousins and the rest of close persons were able to use it without calling me twice a week each, for some kind of support as they did in XP time and not to reinstall XP once a year for each box, then it's really indicates user friendliness and stability of non MS OSes.
And by the way, you can by preinstalled and configured Linux box from Dell, HP or Lenovo (not to mention other smaller OEM's) and not to waste your time on installation.
As for the growing take next example:
Online defragmentation
Although the extent based nature of XFS and the delayed allocation strategy it used significantly improves the file system's resistance to fragmentation problems, XFS provides a filesystem defragmentation utility (xfs_fsr, short for XFS filesystem reorganizer) that can defragment a mounted and active XFS filesystem. Note that xfs_fsr is usually part of xfsdump package, not xfsprogs.
Online resizing
XFS provides the xfs_growfs utility to perform online resizing of XFS file systems. XFS filesystems can be grown provided there is remaining unallocated space on the device holding the filesystem. This feature is typically used in conjunction with volume management, as otherwise the partition holding the filesystem will need enlarging separately.
read this to understand more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_systems">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_systems
there is no such thing as perfect software (OS is one of this). but there is definitely better and worse .
"Computers are like air conditioners. They stop working when you open Windows." (c)
imaheadcase - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link
You are so wrong, it is geared towards everyone. The software it uses has been proven to be VERY reliable. As stated in the very article you are posting about. NTFS is also very reliable.Of coruse grandma won't care for it, but I already know many people who are getting it based on how easy it is to use. Even businesses are getting it i know of because of ease of backup it provides plus not having to hire outside help to set it up.
The fact that you completely don't understand the HOME part of the server is mind boggling.
n0nsense - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link
I understand one thing.Can not find justification to pay for license when it can be done completely without cost.
NTFS compared to journalized file systems is bad in term of data reliability, performance etc.
Can not find reason to pay for new computer while very old one can do the job perfectly.
(P 4, 1.5GHz, 1GB RDRAM, ~1.3TB storage perfectly doing the job of File, Backup, Mail, DNS, FTP, Net Boot server all in one with uptime of 6 month (every 6 month i clean the dust inside my computers) where the HD and SATA PCI cards are only things that i needed to buy. Just for the price of license, you can add at least 500 GB of additional storage.
All you need is RTFM how to set up linux box. Easy way, binary distribution will take 2-5 hours to set up all this. Advanced way, source distribution (such as Gentoo) can take few days to compile (all done automatically and your attention needed not more then in ordinary installation) . took me 3 days to complete it on p2 400MHz laptop with 186 MB ram. which is now able to a nice balcony terminal with internet access and ability to view movies (that was impossible under very cut and optimized XP, maximum 6-10 fps for movies, and very close to impossible in binary linux. )etc.
I don't tell to replace your desktop (since i have dual boot on main computer to be able play some very new games that not yet supported in linux), but if you want stable server, working without your attention, and you don't need to wonder what to do with slow downs, dirty regestry etc after year (not to mention viruses etc). Not to mention the easiness of move the system to new hardware (when you want it), transfer the disks and power up.
I can continue and explain another 100 reasons why this WHS is useless, but the buttom line will be the Subject. This is another MS way to squeeze few mor bucks from you, and may be to grant need for MCSE and MCSA guys that will extra cost for your small business friends.
As for the HOME part -- i spent 2 years of my life working at tech support of ADSL provider. I know exactly what is average HOME users with a lot of computers. They will call some technician to do the setup and to fix their problems. exactly what they doing when they need to reinstall OS or clean up the mess. For advanced users (like you if you spending your time on this site) will be much more cost, time, and performance effective not to use it.
imaheadcase - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.neogodless - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link
What makes me sad is that I did actually read it all the way through.Also... I don't understand why people argue so violently against some things.
I was able to try out the RC, others can download a 120 trial when it is available... you can find out for yourself. And you can also download Linux and try it. See which one is easier to set up.
Personally, I consider myself pretty advanced, and I tried Ubuntu 7.04 and still felt pretty lost when I wanted to do things. Yes, I'm sure I could learn it but time is valuable... I can spend half an hour setting up WHS... like I did, and just forget about it... nothing to learn, no need to tear my hair out!
leexgx - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link
i agree that was an big rant i my self fix pcs all day and it takes me more then an hr ot day to do things on linux that should only take 6 clicks or some command line tool to do it as welllinux software makers do not think to much about useablty for any one who is not an linux guru
try and play an Mp3 or an stream, tell me how long that takes you to play it (i hate to try and play an xvid file)
i tryed to use it lots of times my self just get stuck at simple things that should be simple that it i should not have to type {chmod 2883 -d -w -u \file\sfd} (made up as i cant find any help for setting the securty of files for that command any more)
n0nsense - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link
I understand one thing.Can not find justification to pay for license when it can be done completely without cost.
NTFS compared to journalized file systems is bad in term of data reliability, performance etc.
Can not find reason to pay for new computer while very old one can do the job perfectly.
(P 4, 1.5GHz, 1GB RDRAM, ~1.3TB storage perfectly doing the job of File, Backup, Mail, DNS, FTP, Net Boot server all in one with uptime of 6 month (every 6 month i clean the dust inside my computers) where the HD and SATA PCI cards are only things that i needed to buy. Just for the price of license, you can add at least 500 GB of additional storage.
All you need is RTFM how to set up linux box. Easy way, binary distribution will take 2-5 hours to set up all this. Advanced way, source distribution (such as Gentoo) can take few days to compile (all done automatically and your attention needed not more then in ordinary installation) . took me 3 days to complete it on p2 400MHz laptop with 186 MB ram. which is now able to a nice balcony terminal with internet access and ability to view movies (that was impossible under very cut and optimized XP, maximum 6-10 fps for movies, and very close to impossible in binary linux. )etc.
I don't tell to replace your desktop (since i have dual boot on main computer to be able play some very new games that not yet supported in linux), but if you want stable server, working without your attention, and you don't need to wonder what to do with slow downs, dirty regestry etc after year (not to mention viruses etc). Not to mention the easiness of move the system to new hardware (when you want it), transfer the disks and power up.
I can continue and explain another 100 reasons why this WHS is useless, but the buttom line will be the Subject. This is another MS way to squeeze few mor bucks from you, and may be to grant need for MCSE and MCSA guys that will extra cost for your small business friends.
As for the HOME part -- i spent 2 years of my life working at tech support of ADSL provider. I know exactly what is average HOME users with a lot of computers. They will call some technician to do the setup and to fix their problems. exactly what they doing when they need to reinstall OS or clean up the mess. For advanced users (like you if you spending your time on this site) will be much more cost, time, and performance effective not to use it.
Gholam - Sunday, September 9, 2007 - link
How long does it take to set up a "without cost" system? Now multiply that by $50/hour which I bill. And you still won't have single instance storage.tynopik - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link
> Can not find justification to pay for license when it can be done completely without cost.oh really?
please tell me where i can find a backup system as flexible and powerful as this at no cost
- autocombine all physical disks into 1 volume
- disks can be any size
- disks can be added or removed at will
- yet still have physical redundancy of files on different drives
- automatically save single instance of identical files/blocks to reduce space wastage
- automatically preserve previous versions
- do live imaging of windows systems that can then be restored from bare metal with just a boot cd and a network connection
sure parts of it can be duplicated for free, but do tell how you would setup something that does ALL that
wrong - Wednesday, September 5, 2007 - link
WHS lacks the drivers to run tuner cards and other media center paraphernalia, so it can't act as a media center. However, its hardware requirements are quite standard - disk andnetwork card - so it should be feasible to run it under virtualization on your MCE box.
Ideally, you'd want to give it its own disks, rather than having the virtual machine's disks map to files on the host machine, but that wouldn't be mandatory.