It's not too often you get a new version of Windows, so when Bill Gates announced Windows Home Server tonight we had to learn what's what. Here's the rundown of the facts on Windows Home Server, as told to us by Microsoft:
- Units are headless and embedded only -- you cannot buy WHS and put it on an old PC.
- There is no common web interface. Interaction is entirely client software based, or done over SMB.
- It cannot directly stream media to Media Center Extenders, but it can stream media directly to Windows Media Connect-enabled devices.
- It does not use RAID, but instead uses a RAID-like drive pooling system with built-in redundancy. Expanding capacity is as simple as adding additional drives internally or externally via USB. We can't say for sure, but we have a feeling if you were to unplug that external drive, your data wouldn't go with it since it's probably spanned across the array.
- The client software, which is installable only on Windows PCs (duh) monitors PC health, manages backups, and supports full disk images and versions. If your computer crashes hard you can pop in an restore CD and it'll pull the disk image over the network.
- Your WHS device gets registered with your Windows Live account and is made easily-findable by authorized parties (i.e. you and anyone you designate) while on the go. You can even connect to it via Live and pipe a Remote Desktop connection to a PC on your home network through this Home-finding Live feature.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Shmoe @ Jan 8th 2007 9:39AM
Other than the storage, I really don't see the point in these. HP's media center PCs have a really useful built in bay for an additional hard drive to plug in via USB. I never shut my XP media center PC down, and can connect with it anytime I want using ORB anyway. MS would be smart to allow WHS to be installed on old machines.
Hafnium @ Jan 8th 2007 9:45AM
Paul Thurott, who is usually very reliable and well-informed, notes that WHS will be available both as pre-made servers and as stand-alone software.
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/whs_preview.asp
CaptCaveman @ Jan 8th 2007 9:53AM
I'm sure I'm just not seeing the big picture here. But I can buy a SATA RAID array for about $1,300 and connect it directly to my PC. Throw in as many drives as it can hold and they will all show up as one drive on the SATA connection that I plug it into.
I can then attach a NAS to the network for off-line storage.
The big plus will be that I *will* be able to stream from my setup from an extender. And I have a feeling that even going the RAID array route I will end up paying less both initially and in the long run.
I'm sure that someone will show me the error in my logic. But until then I'm just not feeling the home server yet.
tom barta @ Jan 8th 2007 11:42PM
The big picture you are missing is that this unit, no doubt, will refuse to "play nice" with other things-- like Macs and LINUX boxes on your home network. It will be heavily "DRM'ed"; will report your every move to Redmond; and will reject iTunes AAC files as well as any open format, like MP3.
At least, that's what I would expect. It is mostly to "poison" competing products; not to provide any benefits to MSFT's customers.
mcepat @ Jan 8th 2007 11:14AM
the big picture is that for the hundreds of thousands of users out there that have all their pictures on 1 single IDE drive and have no idea how to do a backup may have a workable solution, they don't realize that their current solution is a ticking time bomb.
Andir3.0 @ Jan 8th 2007 10:18AM
If you needed an embedded server, why not do what the rest of the world is doing and loading Linux on it. Given the proper setup, it should be able to stream to any device instead of "windows only" devices. Using TFTP, you could also load a binary image of the OS in case of complete failure. With Linux though, your most threatening failure comes from the hardware installed rather than the OS, so this "feature" isn't as marketable as it would be on a Windows platform.
The only caveat is the Live interconnection, but a nice client/server application (or simply using FTP and granting users access to it) could quickly solve that problem.
uetani @ Jan 8th 2007 11:09AM
Andir -- The rest of the world is not moving to Linux yet. Geeks, yes. Knowledgeable users, some. The general public, almost nobody. The whole WHS concept seems to be to make it easy enough for anyone to use, so there's your caveat: Linux is still way to hard for most people to get up and running, maintain, update, and use. I should know -- I just spent 4 hours this afternoon trying to get an Ubuntu Samba share to work across a wired/wireless network of OS X, Windows 2000, XP Home, and XP Pro machines at my house. It took an hour to get them all reading the share. It took another 3 hours to get everything but the Windows 2000 machine to write to the share. I'll deal with it again tomorrow if I get a chance, but it'll be a cold day in hell before I even think of suggesting anyone else in my family try it at their house.
Uetani
Intrepid @ Jan 8th 2007 10:21AM
I hope it's under AU$1000, then I'll be able to convince myself to buy one.
Jestyr @ Jan 8th 2007 10:36AM
Throw in dual nics, DHCP, NAT, DNS, and a firewall and you might have something. If not it's an overblown(probably expensive) NAS device.
I'm also assuming that prices will be ridiculous. I'm basing my assumptions on the "certified" windows media center PCs out there. I'm expecting nothing sub $1000 for a few years.
Sigh.
Paul @ Jan 8th 2007 11:05AM
WHS looks to solve a huge problem for me. If I only had one box I really cared about in my house, then a simple RAID array would work fine. I think WHS is really geared toward those of us that have more than one PC in our home that we want backed up. How many times have you been on PC A and wanted to get something you saved on PC B? Sure, you can always create shares, but what if PC B is asleep? This to me looks like a simple solution for families with more than one PC. I'm looking forward to it.
b00da @ Jan 9th 2007 10:16AM
You should read up on NAS. All of the PCs in the house would share NAS in addition to their internal storage. Then, a scheduled task running rsync or rsnapshot to copy critical files and folders (like "My Documents") to the NAS is trivial to set up. Then PC A never has to worry about PC B. Not to mention "wake on LAN".
andy @ Jan 8th 2007 11:19AM
I really dig what they're going for here:
an easy to use NAS with auto backup scheduling.
What I don't get is why they crippled it so that it won't stream to your 360. Doesn't that kind of defeat the point? When XBMC is up and running on the PS3, this software is going to play nicer with an xbox competitor than it does other MS products. Brilliant!
Andrew Fong @ Jan 8th 2007 11:32AM
If the half the things Paul Thurrot says are true, I'm hooked. I'm getting one for my parent's place just for the automagical backup alone.
James Olomo @ Jan 8th 2007 11:41AM
it's going to work with the 360 because the 360 has media connect
Mile @ Jan 8th 2007 1:32PM
No common web interface? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that interface looks like WSS 3.0.
Rob @ Jan 8th 2007 2:43PM
This already exists, and it's free if you have an old PC http://www.freenas.org/ FreeNAS supports CIFS (samba/SMB), FTP, NFS, RSYNC protocols, local user authentication, Software RAID (0,1,5) with a Full WEB configuration interface.
Russell @ Jan 8th 2007 4:54PM
Remember folks, linux and other complicated "free" solutions are only free if your time is worth nothing.
I'll be getting a WHS for my parents for sure. For now my multi-terabyte raid has plenty of space for full OS drive images and Acronis TrueImage with Universal Restore is just awesome.
John Riverston @ Apr 15th 2007 6:45PM
I recently bought a linux server from a place called EZblue who makes a custom version of Debian that takes care of all the problems of setting up the server. It has a five minute install, which is amazing for linux since it usually takes hours to get a linux server setup properly. Rumor says that they're about to release a new home server version for under $100. I bought the Business server version and host my website off of my home cable line. Their website is at http://ezbluesoftware.com/
smithsa @ Jan 8th 2007 5:10PM
I'm very interested in the remote access capabilities of this box. The information that I've seen says that you can "remotely access WHS with a personalized Windows Live Internet address".
Does anyone know what such an address will look like? The remote access screenshots that I've seen don't show anything in the address bar.
Will the data for remote access go through the Microsoft servers? What if there's a lot a bandwidth considerations, like streaming video. I've also seen that they're not charging for this service, so something doesn't make sense.
RC @ Jan 8th 2007 5:51PM
Quote: Units are headless and embedded only -- you cannot buy WHS and put it on an old PC
That Sucks!
Shawn O @ Jan 8th 2007 6:29PM
Anyone that actually knows what a NAS, FTP DHCP, RSYNC, etc. needs to bow out of the comments. WHS is *NOT* for you, it's for the family that doesn't have an in-house nerd. They have three of four computers, know just enough to get Excel cranking, print photos from their camera and maybe rip a CD yet once they save a file they couldn't tell you where on their machine it's located.
I'll bet a bottle of good Scotch that the servers will *easily* be sub-$1000. Remember, they are headless, no video card, no sound card, they are meant to run with 512MB of RAM and are just a stack of drives.
Also, someone has their facts wrong. Microsoft *IS* planning to offer WHS as software-only.
Ray @ Jan 8th 2007 8:46PM
So a windows-centric NAS. BFHD. Take a regular NAS that in most cases will support any OS on your home network. Restrict the user to Windows only, use a (rediculous) client/server software setup, glue the Flag of Redmond on it, and unleash the Marketing Horde. The common masses will be trampled and subjugated. The informed will live to fight another day. Repeat.
sygyzy @ Jan 8th 2007 9:21PM
I love it. I hope they toss it on one of the HP/Compaq "Media" NAS's.
twa @ Jan 8th 2007 11:03PM
Obviously still a work in progress with some Unicode issues. Note the ? instead of copyright symbol on some of the client screenshots.
xxdesmus @ Jan 9th 2007 9:39AM
indeed, ignorance is bliss my friend.
When you take off your tinfoil hat and actually bother to listen you might learn something.
1. I am sure this home server is going report your every move to Microsoft. Ok, I said that with a straight face.
2. They already said it's going to communicate fine with Macs and with Linux. You obviously can't except the full rich experience that you can expect on a Windows pc, but it will at least work. What do you really expect?
3. MP3 streaming is going to work fine, they already said that. Like I said, take off your little tinfoil hat.
You said: "well that's what I would expect" ...what you meant to say was: "well that is what I ASSume."
Richard C. @ Jan 9th 2007 3:55AM
tom barta: "...At least, that's what I would expect..."
That's the beauty of not having a clue what you're talking about. You can expect anything you want.
NNTPgrip @ Jan 9th 2007 9:18AM
No domain, no deal. Whats the use without making for a single login for each user, and possibly roaming user profiles. MS has missed the point with this. Might as well just so with any NAS that you can find/make.
xxdesmus @ Jan 9th 2007 9:35AM
I will definitely be getting one of these. I do hope Paul is right and the software will be available separately.
Selling the software by itself would be an intelligent move considering the plethora of old PCs that people have laying around that would work perfectly for this. I guess we will see.
To be honest, I am a little let down on the features. I was really hoping for some Exchange support and maybe even roaming profiles. Maybe they will add a bit more "advanced" functionality considering the product is not even out yet. We can hope...
chris @ Jan 9th 2007 10:58AM
ITS A SERVER SHMOE, and its meant to be headless,why it cutsdown on costs... and allows it to be a completely plug and plays system, if you add local accessand allow people to use it you open it up to people screwing it up or getting a virus or something, this way its just there it sits in a corner and you add drives as you seem fit and it just expands and expands.... it apparently also will allow remote access to local pc's from outside the network if enabled thats a nice feature definitly
i've wanted a nice secure easily expandable vault for all my vids ... especially with those new 1tb drives coming, i'd slam a few of those in the vault and walla instant archival storage.
I'd like to see them build the shadow copy in vista to backup direct to the WHS as well that would be awesome, years of backcopies of your drive hell yaz.
jpmcse @ Jan 10th 2007 11:11PM
This product looks great, and will help lots of people out there. If you really want to here about if from the proverbially horses mouth check out this video at Channel9 http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=270965 . It is an interview with the head guy in charge of the windows home server project.
metacom @ Jan 11th 2007 1:49AM
This is exactly what I've been looking for.
Dominique Habimana @ Jan 11th 2007 5:57AM
I think the Windows Live IP address will be a subdomain of homeserver.com which shows up in DNS as:
homeserver.com nameserver = ns1.livedns.msft.net
This is brilliant! Because any actual IP address a WHS box has (static or DHCP), just registering with a homerserver.com "co-ordinator", the public IP address for johndoe.homeserver.com can remain the same while the Windows Live service redirects (ie NAT) to IP assigned by the ISP.
Amazing breakthrough in simplicity.
Simon Waddington @ Jan 12th 2007 2:46AM
Ummm, "breakthrough" simplicity? Sounds just like what dyndns.org does and has done for years (along with many others).
Simon Waddington @ Jan 12th 2007 2:47AM
At first take I was a little surprised they didn't include RAID. But then thinking about it, most "consumer" type users of consumer RAID capable external storage devices I have come across choose to configure them as multiple drives or one big drive (JBOD). Very few have configured RAID 1. The rationale seems to be either
a) if they paid for x hundred GB of storage they want to use it all, not half
b) the disk is used for backup anyway so they already have a copy of their data - the original on their PC.
c) they just don't understand what RAID means
d) they don't believe or care that disk drives fail (probably 'coz one never failed on them yet)
e) they would use RAID but they only have two large drives and need RAID for only some of their data - eg. the OS part, and the rest they dont really care about.
I think b) makes sense for many people but only if they have a reliable backup strategy, in my experience most don't. For me I'd be happy with a good daily,weekly and monthly 'dd' or Acronis disk image of my system disk, and a rsync or file level copy of my photo albums. They rest I'll keep for a rainy day and HD TV I record.
As such WHS would probably work for me if I wasn't too geeky to consider FreeNAS or others a serious alternative for me. And I'll happily install WHS at some of the SMBs I do work for - it will be one less full PC for me to manage and fight with viruses and spyware on. Simple file sharing and remote access is a big deal for many SMBs who don't want to deal with Windows Server SMB - I'm sure WHS will sell just because it has the windows label even if there are more capable 3rd party products out there.
ROb @ Feb 25th 2007 4:43AM
NAS for the MASSES!!!
SwissMac @ Apr 5th 2007 10:02PM
It'll have to be cheaper than a $599 Mac Mini which does the same job, only better plus more in a cute package. With Apple's new Leopard OS coming within 2 months, best to wait before purchasing anything that might be the wrong thing.
Sounds like Windows 95 vision of networking here - no central server software controls, each client machine has it's own software, like peer to peer controls. Hardware's no more than a NAS device. Streams media - but only to certain devices. Won't work with XBox. Won't work on older PCs. Won't work cross platform. It'll be famous not for what it can do, but for what it is prevented from doing. Typical Microsoft.
It isn't headless, it's brainless!