Whats next for WHS?

[BD2003]

Let me put it this way...in it's current incarnation, I find it very difficult to recommend to my non-techie friends...you know, regular home users.

Say a friend of mine needs a little more storage because he's filled up his small laptop drive, and he could use a little more space for editing home videos on his desktop.

I could recommend:

A) An external 500gb HDD that comes with automatic backup software for about $100-150. All he has to do is plug in a USB cable. He's got backup, he's got some extra room, and its relatively fast - certainly fast enough to get by editing video, and its small and portable so he can take it with him.

B) A mediasmart server for 4-5x the price. The backup is better, but the automatic external HDD backup is good enough. Naturally, he doesnt have nor even know what gigabit ethernet is, so performance will be limited, and he'd have a tough time editing video right off the server. He'd have to set up client software on his PCs which is going to confuse him somewhat. He'd have to learn to do with network locations instead of just another drive. He also has to consider where he's going to save his files...to the local drive, or to the server? Its got endless expandability, but what can he use it for? He wouldnt know how to rip a DVD to save his life, nor have the time, know-how or inclination to set up an HTPC to access them even if he did. Now he needs to take some files with him? Good luck. He can access it at the relatively sluggish speed of broadband through an absurd web interface instead of taking the fast, tiny little drive with him. Ooh, but its got a web server, so you can share your photos to everyone off the net...as if there wasnt a zillion places to do that online already.

I'd have a very, very tough time trying to make that sale, even if they were both $150.

On the other hand...imagine if I could tell him all he needed to do open the box, plug it in, pop a dvd in the dvd drive on the server (that doesnt yet exist), press a button, and a small display on the server itself would show him the progress of ripping. Then he can access his movies off a neat menu on his Xbox 360, with metadata and all, with virtually no configuration. Same for CDs, maybe even Blu-rays and Xbox 360 games. Then he actually might have a use for all that storage.

If I could tell him that once he installed the client software, he'd have a second drive appear on his desktop and laptop, and whether he was at home or in a coffee shop, he could access his files easily and quickly, and it would all sync completely transparently. And better yet, even though he doesnt know what "offline files" are, WHS worked together with Windows to make a client side cache of common files where he could access many of his files at local speeds even though he's connected to a 50KB/s hotspot. Fast and easy to use, and he has no idea how it works...it just does.

If the server itself had a built in gigabit switch, he could plop it right next to the ubiquitous 100mb router, connect the included cat6 cable, and he'd have very fast access to his data on his desktop, fast enough to edit video, without having to think about how to make it faster or why he'd even need to.

And then if I told him any documents or pictures he put on the server were automatically backed up off-site, without him having to configure anything beyond a windows Live ID (which he probably already has), so his important docs and memories are safe if his house burns down....I might actually be able to convince him to buy it.

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: BD2003
Let me put it this way...in it's current incarnation, I find it very difficult to recommend to my non-techie friends...you know, regular home users. Say a friend of mine needs a little more storage because he's filled up his small laptop drive...

There's your problem, and why I removed everything after this sentence and a half. It's not for a regular home user with one laptop (it may very well be, but I'm throwing you a bone here). It's for a home full of regular home users with multiple PCs (and Macs! Thank you, Time Machine SMB hack). How would you explain to your regular home user how to backup his, his wife's, and his 2 kids' computers to this $100 hard drive? Or share the files he's saved to it? Not so simple now, eh?

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: BD2003
....tons of nice features mentioned...

Your discussion reminds of of the all-or-nothing mentality that many of us feel. I remember trying to GIVE a 9600 bps modem to some friends who had NO modem at all. They wouldn't take it because it wasn't a 14.4 Kbps modem, which they'd heard was much better. But they had no money to BUY a new 14.4 modem, so they went without ANY modem for another year.

PC (and server) backups are broken. Hardly anybody does them. Hardly anybody makes FULL backups so they can actually restore their broken PC. Hardly anybody tests their backups. Hardly anybody knows whether last night's backup was successful.

The major things that take down PCs and lose data are:
1) Spyware and Virus infections
2) Failed updates and program installs
3) Failed hard drives
4) User errors causing data loss

A full, daily, automated image backup of a PC makes all these failures trivial to fix. That alone should jusitfy the acqusition of either a Windows Home Server or something comparable (if there is such a thing).

Yeah, selling backups is hard. Most people have only had PCs for the past ten years and may not have experienced a hard drive failure or spyware infection. But they will.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: loup garou

Originally posted by: BD2003
Let me put it this way...in it's current incarnation, I find it very difficult to recommend to my non-techie friends...you know, regular home users. Say a friend of mine needs a little more storage because he's filled up his small laptop drive...

There's your problem, and why I removed everything after this sentence and a half. It's not for a regular home user with one laptop (it may very well be, but I'm throwing you a bone here). It's for a home full of regular home users with multiple PCs (and Macs! Thank you, Time Machine SMB hack). How would you explain to your regular home user how to backup his, his wife's, and his 2 kids' computers to this $100 hard drive? Or share the files he's saved to it? Not so simple now, eh?

If we're dealing with 4 PCs, the equation begins to change, but I personally dont know a single person or family that owns more than two PCs in real life (other than myself). The home server will begin to make more sense the more PCs you have.

The point I'm trying to make is that its too much of a niche and obtuse product right now. Even though I dont think the mediasmart boxes justify their cost, the WHS software is decent and I've found good use for it with my own build.

But this was a discussion about whats next for WHS. They need to expand its capabilities and make it simpler and easier to use. I'm sure theyre capable of doing so, and I look forward to it.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: BD2003
....tons of nice features mentioned...

Your discussion reminds of of the all-or-nothing mentality that many of us feel. I remember trying to GIVE a 9600 bps modem to some friends who had NO modem at all. They wouldn't take it because it wasn't a 14.4 Kbps modem, which they'd heard was much better. But they had no money to BUY a new 14.4 modem, so they went without ANY modem for another year.

PC (and server) backups are broken. Hardly anybody does them. Hardly anybody makes FULL backups so they can actually restore their broken PC. Hardly anybody tests their backups. Hardly anybody knows whether last night's backup was successful.

The major things that take down PCs and lose data are:
1) Spyware and Virus infections
2) Failed updates and program installs
3) Failed hard drives
4) User errors causing data loss

A full, daily, automated image backup of a PC makes all these failures trivial to fix. That alone should jusitfy the acqusition of either a Windows Home Server or something comparable (if there is such a thing).

Yeah, selling backups is hard. Most people have only had PCs for the past ten years and may not have experienced a hard drive failure or spyware infection. But they will.

I agree with you, and a friend of mine had a recent experience. His laptop HDD crashed. All his music was backed up on his mp3 player. All his mail on gmails servers. All his pictures still on the several GB memory card of his digicam and many also on facebook. All his movies on disc.

He went out and bought a relatively fast new laptop for $550, replacing his old junker. Although he was lucky to some degree that he didnt lose anything valuable, I'd hardly say he'd have been better off spending that money on the server and being stuck with the old celeron laptop from 2003, with which he would then have to figure out how to replace the HDD, which would also naturally mean calling me to do it for him.

Obviously, I've got two conflicting issues with WHS. Right now, I believe that for most 1-2 PC households, it doesnt entirely justify its relatively high price tags. Backups are crucial, and people dont do them like they should, but $550 is no joke. It can either come down in price, or up in functionality, I just dont think its in the right spot. And naturally, that has to do with competition or lack of it, but I think its plainly obvious that the reason Dell hasnt gotten into the market of WHS yet is because there isnt a very big market for the product as it stands. I hope the next version changes that.

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: BD2003
If we're dealing with 4 PCs, the equation begins to change, but I personally dont know a single person or family that owns more than two PCs in real life (other than myself).

You'd be surprised. The "family PC" of old has gone the way of the "family TV." And I disagree. It makes perfect sense at even the 2 PC level. $500 for an HP WHS box + centralized storage and backup management is better than $200 for 2 external HDs for 2 PCs with their own backups software to check on, files that may or may not be on one or both of the drives, etc. How much is your time and frustration worth?

The point I'm trying to make is that its too much of a niche and obtuse product right now.

How is something both niche and obtuse? That is like saying something is both small and big! WHS isn't a niche product, but it is difficult to sell. Backups are not sexy. But they are necessary.

But this was a discussion about whats next for WHS. They need to expand its capabilities and make it simpler and easier to use. If I'm sure theyre capable of doing so, and I look forward to it.

Making things simpler to use is always nice, but I don't find WHS especially difficult to use in its current form. How would you suggest to make it simpler to use? As for me, I think user/computer management needs to be improved. Windows 7 is on the right track with homegroups, something like this or Active Directory light would be a big improvement.

EDIT: And I agree completely on the price point. For your average user, $500 for an HP box is a very bitter pill to swallow.

 

[Madwand1]

From my own perspective, WHS's backup facility is not very useful. I don't need a 100% backup of my various computers. Those I can rebuild in the rare instance that I end up losing everything, and in such cases, I'd probably be getting new hardware that'd be incompatible with the aged backup images. I also don't have business-class recovery time requirements at home.

What I want is solid central storage that's efficient, fast, and reliable, for data that's important to me, not OS images. I also want a server backup long before I want the massive and ever-growing client HD's backed up. The critical failure for my usage and needs would be the server itself, not any client. Of course there is some configuration data on the computers that I'd like to save from time to time -- but all significant data should already be on the file server and accessed from there as much as possible, and need no special backup process from the desktops.

So for me, WHS as it stands fails to be compelling or recommendable. I'd state my requirements as the fastest file server with the most efficient, redundant, expandable and easily backed up storage area, at a good price. WHS does expandability, and better than many other solutions, but doesn't meet the other requirements in my view.

 

[BD2003]

Making things simpler to use is always nice, but I don't find WHS especially difficult to use in its current form. How would you suggest to make it simpler to use? As for me, I think user/computer management needs to be improved. Windows 7 is on the right track with homegroups, something like this or Active Directory light would be a big improvement.

I dont find it entirely difficult to use either, but I'm far from the average home user. Like I said before, automatically mapping to a network drive instead of a dozen different shares would be a start. Transparent syncing over the net, transparent webdav/vpn type access for laptops.

Homegroups help a great deal, but in a way they kind of negate the need for the server to share files in the first place, when PCs can more easily access each other's files without too much configuration. Active directory style profiles would be sweet, although I'd think that might be somewhat difficult to retrofit into existing home networks.

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: Madwand1
From my own perspective, WHS's backup facility is not very useful. I don't need a 100% backup of my various computers.

You can easily exclude folders in WHS backups so that you're only backing up what you want, and you can easily break out only what you want to restore from a backup. It really encompasses the best of both worlds from image-based bare metal backups and file-level backups.

Those I can rebuild in the rare instance that I end up losing everything, and in such cases, I'd probably be getting new hardware that'd be incompatible with the aged backup images

Really? I'd much rather replace a $50 HD than buy a new system, personally. Then again, what I have, works, and I'm not much for upgrading relentlessly anymore.

What I want is solid central storage that's efficient, fast, and reliable, for data that's important to me, not OS images. I also want a server backup long before I want the massive and ever-growing client HD's backed up. The critical failure for my usage and needs would be the server itself, not any client.

I can get on board with that criticism. I wish server backup were a bit better and automated, but folder duplication works well for important data in case of drive failures and dropping the drives in a new system and doing an OS repair is no biggie either. I've had to do both and can attest that both features work as advertised. WHS OS repair is a lot less painful than a full Vista install, then installing all of my applications, settings, etc. And why are your workstation HDs ever-growing if you're storing all of your significant data on the server?

Of course there is some configuration data on the computers that I'd like to save from time to time -- but all significant data should already be on the file server and accessed from there as much as possible, and need no special backup process from the desktops.

What about all of your applications installed on your workstations? I can't see how anyone can dismiss the practice of imaging workstations...reinstalling is a pain in the ass. Even before WHS, I thought everyone was on the same page about imaging fresh installs, etc for easy rollback in case of some sort of problem.

So for me, WHS as it stands fails to be compelling or recommendable. I'd state my requirements as the fastest file server with the most efficient, redundant, expandable and easily backed up storage area, at a good price. WHS does expandability, and better than many other solutions, but doesn't meet the other requirements in my view.

What does meet your requirements for a file server, and what do you use for backups in conjunction with it? Honestly curious.

Originally posted by: BD2003
Transparent syncing over the net, transparent webdav/vpn type access for laptops.

For remote access to files? I guess that would be nice. The current web access and rdp through remote access to my desktop suits me fine currently, but obviously not everyone has the same setup. I can see a need for improvement here.

Homegroups help a great deal, but in a way they kind of negate the need for the server to share files in the first place, when PCs can more easily access each other's files without too much configuration. Active directory style profiles would be sweet, although I'd think that might be somewhat difficult to retrofit into existing home networks.

Yeah, I guess what I'm getting at is more of the "castling" idea presented in early Vista betas. A bit different than homegroups, which are what it became. And already WHS has to be shoehorned into existing networks, it is annoying if you already have a password on your computer to have to match it when setting up a user in WHS console, then finding out your password isn't complex enough for remote access. Commendable that MS chooses to enforce some password complexity, but annoying nonetheless.

 

[loup garou]

Oh and one more thing I'd like to see for WHS:
an iPhone app for managing my WHS. I can rdp to it using any of the iPhone rdp clients, but I'd like something designed with both WHS and iPhone in mind.
Totally pie in the sky, but hey, it's what I want!

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: loup garou
Really? I'd much rather replace a $50 HD than buy a new system, personally. Then again, what I have, works, and I'm not much for upgrading relentlessly anymore.

Yes, you're right, a HD replacement is generally more sensible than a full system replacement. My point is that for me, HD failures have been rare (can't recall one in the last 5 years for non-ancient drives (80 GB or larger), and I've used lots of HD's), so much so that it's not so much a case of relentless updates, but by the time a failure happens, I'll probably take the opportunity for a system upgrade.

why are your workstation HDs ever-growing if you're storing all of your significant data on the server?

Think "it came with the computer and is there, so we can use it for local caches and/or careless garbage piling up, just as the OS does". It doesn't mean that they're critical or that when important it's not also on the file server. There's a lot of useless redundant stuff that I wouldn't want backed up. I understand the WHS is specifically supposed to be smart about that, but garbage is also smart and self-randomizing.

What about all of your applications installed on your workstations? I can't see how anyone can dismiss the practice of imaging workstations...reinstalling is a pain in the ass.

Absolutely, but the installation images are for the most part downloads on the file share in the first place, and as I said, for me the loss of a workstation in the last several years has been a non-event, so the time lost reinstalling applications from scratch because of such a loss has been nil.

Correction. I have had one or two setups which were unstable (experimental IDE-CF hosts), and for those I've used Acronis.

Even before WHS, I thought everyone was on the same page about imaging fresh installs, etc for easy rollback in case of some sort of problem.

That makes sense if your system is unstable, risky, or restorations are frequent for some reason. Mine certainly haven't been, and in the cases where I'd expect it to be, or really care, my solution is Acronis with eSATA or network storage.

What does meet your requirements for a file server, and what do you use for backups in conjunction with it? Honestly curious.

The only thing that meets my needs for server backup is a second large-capacity server. I run it in RAID 5, as I do my primary server, and I keep it off most of the time. I use file-level incremental copies for backups instead of image formats for that.

My file server is due for an overhaul to Vista or 2008 or *nix if I have the time for researching and optimizing. I haven't decided yet. I've tried essentially all the Windows OS's to date, and have a strong preference for Vista or later. I just did a trial installation of 2008 and that worked well and performed better than WHS, but Vista should also be able to do that -- I just need to double-check on the final hardware platform. I tried 2008 to check the performance of its native RAID 5, and well, it still sucks, so that's that.

Certainly not WHS though as I won't use any core before Vista for the next OS because of performance, and running a raid-hostile OS shell with RAID for a primary server might not be the brightest idea.

I'll probably update my backup server, and then swap the backup and primary. I'm waiting on greater availability / price drops on large capacity HDs for this move.

Super-high capacity drives or a bank of older ones mid-capacity ones could also make an occasional off-site backup practical.

 

[coolVariable]

I think WHS has multiple problems:

1. Price (too expensive; at $300+ drives it would be a no brainer)

2. The reason people want WHS functionality merged with Media Center is simple: you buy a $1,000+ (or $1,500+) Media Center PC and then you are expected to spend another $550+ for a box that adds nothing but file sharing and backups? I (and probably everyone else) would rather have one "server" that does it all.

3. Lack of cases/parts being available to system builders. WHS users are primarily first adopters. These first adopters are also more likely to build their own then to buy an overpriced system from Dell (when I checked ... the HP was at least $150+ overpriced).

Edited for formatting

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: Madwand1
Yes, you're right, a HD replacement is generally more sensible than a full system replacement. My point is that for me, HD failures have been rare (can't recall one in the last 5 years for non-ancient drives (80 GB or larger), and I've used lots of HD's), so much so that it's not so much a case of relentless updates, but by the time a failure happens, I'll probably take the opportunity for a system upgrade.

Hard drive failures are always rare and not so much of a concern...until one happens. It doesn't even have to be a hard drive failure that would call for a restore. Spyware, virus, power outage that nuked your registry after an unexpected shutdown, etc.

Think "it came with the computer and is there, so we can use it for local caches and/or careless garbage piling up, just as the OS does". It doesn't mean that they're critical or that when important it's not also on the file server. There's a lot of useless redundant stuff that I wouldn't want backed up. I understand the WHS is specifically supposed to be smart about that, but garbage is also smart and self-randomizing.

Uh...then don't back up the stuff you don't want backed up. Simple enough regardless of whatver backup system you are using.

Absolutely, but the installation images are for the most part downloads on the file share in the first place

Ok, a wash then -- either way your backups are being stored on the server. I can understand if you don't like that WHS backups/images aren't duplicated. I don't particularly, but I just can't afford the disk space for them to be.

That makes sense if your system is unstable, risky, or restorations are frequent for some reason. Mine certainly haven't been, and in the cases where I'd expect it to be, or really care, my solution is Acronis with eSATA or network storage.

My systems aren't unstable or risky, but I do have a lot of applications and settings I have to configure for working from home, so an image is the easiest way to have a backup, just in case something goes wrong. It's simple enough with WHS to setup a base image of a fresh install, lock it to not get deleted, then only do backups of important folders on your workstations. I am a HUGE Acronis fan though, we use many of their products for work, Snap Deploy for deployment, True Image Echo Server for server bare metal imaging, etc.

Certainly not WHS though as I won't use any core before Vista for the next OS because of performance, and running a raid-hostile OS shell with RAID for a primary server might not be the brightest idea.

After taking a look at your responses in the WHS memory thread where JackMDS and RebateMonger discussed tranfer speeds to/from WHS and Server 08, as well as your posts on Toms Hardware -- I'd say your needs are atypical of your average home fileserver user. Hell, your needs would be atypical of many businesses. Really, most people don't have home gigabit networks...the performance differences between whs and server 08 as fileservers in that scenario is virtually nil.

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: coolVariable
I think WHS has multiple problems:

hoo boy, here we go again...

1. Price (too expensive; at $300+ drives it would be a no brainer)

Agreed if you're talking about the HP boxes. The last gen fell in price pretty quickly though. Like I said, my homebuilt WHS box was about $300, is dead silent and only draws about 40W during regular usage. Personally, I think $300 is a bargain for a quiet, reliable, low power box that does 1TB of network attached storage, backups of all machines on my network, streaming and transcoding of videos/music to my 360, remote access, remote streaming of media to my iPhone, and torrenting duties.

2. The reason people want WHS functionality merged with Media Center is simple: you buy a $1,000+ (or $1,500+) Media Center PC and then you are expected to spend another $550+ for a box that adds nothing but file sharing and backups? I (and probably everyone else) would rather have one "server" that does it all.

Disagree completely, go up a few posts to my response to BD2003. Don't feel like typing it out again.

3. Lack of cases/parts being available to system builders. WHS users are primarily first adopters. These first adopters are also more likely to build their own then to buy an overpriced system from Dell (when I checked ... the HP was at least $150+ overpriced).

Edited for formatting

There are some nice mini itx cases available with hotplug bays, etc, but they are expensive nothing that stacks up to the fit and finish of the HPs, or even the upcoming Acer.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: BD2003
If we're dealing with 4 PCs, the equation begins to change, but I personally dont know a single person or family that owns more than two PCs in real life (other than myself). The home server will begin to make more sense the more PCs you have.

I see a LOT of homes with more than two PCs. Most homes I see have at least one PC per person, so a family of four has four or five PCs.

The most common problems I see with those PCs are hard drive failure and malware infection. If they had a WHS server in place, I could pop in a new hard drive (if necessary), give them five minutes of instruction, and leave.

Instead, I typically have to try to locate their OS and program CDs, find their Activation Keys, take their PC to my office, attempt data recovery (if the drive has failed), back up their important data, re-install their OS, locate and re-install their drivers, re-install their applications, do updates, and move their data back.

If it's "only" a malware infection, it "just" takes hours of scans and reboots. Oh, and I can't guarantee that I've caught every single bit of malware.

I'll often suggest they just buy a new PC. If desired, I'll attempt software-based data recovery on their hard drive. I'm sure that some of the think I'm incompetent because I can't "fix" their PC. Nobody likes paying more for a PC repair than what a new PC would cost. But without backups, there're no other options.

You'd think that after having this happen a couple of times, folks would take heed and install some sort of backup system. But they usually don't. They usually humor me and buy an external hard drive. But I'll bet they never actually use the drive.

I've got one (rather wealthy) client who has this happen at least yearly to one of his familiy's six personal PCs. Something breaks, his PC is down for a week, and he hands me a nice check after I've fixed things. I've been trying to get him to buy a WHS box for nearly two years now.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: loup garou
Really, most people don't have home gigabit networks...the performance differences between whs and server 08 as fileservers in that scenario is virtually nil.

While it's always entertaining to make claims about what most people are doing, it's 2009, and gigabit is cheap, to the point that it's ubiquitous. If you're considering file servers, and arguing for a 10/100 network, you're just doing it wrong.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
The most common problems I see with those PCs are hard drive failure and malware infection. If they had a WHS server in place, I could pop in a new hard drive (if necessary), give them five minutes of instruction, and leave.

Question: What do you do when infected files were automatically backed up or when the file server itself is infected?

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: loup garou
Really, most people don't have home gigabit networks...the performance differences between whs and server 08 as fileservers in that scenario is virtually nil.

While it's always entertaining to make claims about what most people are doing, it's 2009, and gigabit is cheap, to the point that it's ubiquitous. If you're considering file servers, and arguing for a 10/100 network, you're just doing it wrong.

lol, there have been a lot of questionable claims in this thread, but this one goes beyond them to the realm of the ludicrous. All you've done is illustrate how out of touch you are with your average home user. Ubiquitous gig-e home networks. That's a great one.

Take a walk through the networking aisle of your local big box store. Look around. For every 1 gigabit switch, there are 10 10/100. What do you think the average home user is buying (if they even buy a switch at all)? The cheapest one.
Since most people don't even buy a switch for their home networks and just rely on the one built into their router, take a look at the routers. How many have builtin gig switches? The same ratio as switches, if not less.
Next, think about how many home users ACTUALLY connect to a WIRED network? Not too many. People are notebook crazy now. Even if they have a brand new laptop with draft N, they're not getting gig speeds.
FINALLY, most people are satisifed with their WRT54Gs, operating over G wireless. Connecting their wireless laptops (that probably don't have gigabit nics anyways) at G speeds.

Anything faster than their cable internet connection seems fine to them.
Could they do better? Of course they could. Do they care? Probably not. Hell, I don't even care...I've considered going gig-e at home, but really 100Mb is fine for my purposes. Doesn't justify the expense.

 

[coolVariable]

Originally posted by: loup garou

Originally posted by: coolVariable
I think WHS has multiple problems:

hoo boy, here we go again...

1. Price (too expensive; at $300+ drives it would be a no brainer)

Agreed if you're talking about the HP boxes. The last gen fell in price pretty quickly though. Like I said, my homebuilt WHS box was about $300, is dead silent and only draws about 40W during regular usage. Personally, I think $300 is a bargain for a quiet, reliable, low power box that does 1TB of network attached storage, backups of all machines on my network, streaming and transcoding of videos/music to my 360, remote access, remote streaming of media to my iPhone, and torrenting duties.

Ok. Please link to a store that sells a HP mediasmart like case so that I can build a WHS for $300. Thank you!

Originally posted by: loup garou

Originally posted by: coolVariable
2. The reason people want WHS functionality merged with Media Center is simple: you buy a $1,000+ (or $1,500+) Media Center PC and then you are expected to spend another $550+ for a box that adds nothing but file sharing and backups? I (and probably everyone else) would rather have one "server" that does it all.

Disagree completely, go up a few posts to my response to BD2003. Don't feel like typing it out again.

Can't find any reasonable arguments => you are wrong?
Since multiple people are requesting this, I think you are all alone in your thinking and I am correct. People don't want 10 servers in their home. They want one box that does it all.
How many @#$% set top boxes do you want to sit underneath your TV?

Originally posted by: loup garou

Originally posted by: coolVariable3. Lack of cases/parts being available to system builders. WHS users are primarily first adopters. These first adopters are also more likely to build their own then to buy an overpriced system from Dell (when I checked ... the HP was at least $150+ overpriced).

There are some nice mini itx cases available with hotplug bays, etc, but they are expensive nothing that stacks up to the fit and finish of the HPs, or even the upcoming Acer.

Ok. So now you are saying that my point #1 is correct?

 

[coolVariable]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Making things simpler to use is always nice, but I don't find WHS especially difficult to use in its current form. How would you suggest to make it simpler to use? As for me, I think user/computer management needs to be improved. Windows 7 is on the right track with homegroups, something like this or Active Directory light would be a big improvement.

I dont find it entirely difficult to use either, but I'm far from the average home user. Like I said before, automatically mapping to a network drive instead of a dozen different shares would be a start. Transparent syncing over the net, transparent webdav/vpn type access for laptops.

Homegroups help a great deal, but in a way they kind of negate the need for the server to share files in the first place, when PCs can more easily access each other's files without too much configuration. Active directory style profiles would be sweet, although I'd think that might be somewhat difficult to retrofit into existing home networks.

I am with you on all of the above.
Would make WHS so much better.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: loup garou
Ubiquitous gig-e home networks. That's a great one.

It actually is, and by that I mean that gigabit is available for free on virtually every new computer, and can be adopted for a lot less money than any file server. If you don't care about file transfer speed, then fine. If you don't have your head stuck in the last decade or century though, you can get a 2-3x transfer speed advantage with little effort and expense.

Last I checked, this was a technology forum, and we were discussing next-gen WHS/file server features. If you don't get gigE in this context, then I feel sorry for you, but that's the extent of my apology.

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: coolVariable
Ok. Please link to a store that sells a HP mediasmart like case so that I can build a WHS for $300. Thank you!

Please read my posts. I never said you could build a WHS box with a case like the Mediasmart for $300. I said quite a bit earlier the reason the Mediasmart is so expensive, besides lack of competition, is the money HP has sunk in designing and building the system around a very nice, very small, very proprietary case. My system is built around and MSI Wind desktop box. It serves my purposes just fine, and would suit many others comfortable with building their own systems as well, for $300.

Can't find any reasonable arguments => you are wrong?
Since multiple people are requesting this, I think you are all alone in your thinking and I am correct. People don't want 10 servers in their home.

You are being disingenuous. Firstly, I'll summarize, the more functions you put into a single piece of hardware, the more fucked you are when it fails. Take 20 seconds to peruse the posts for my response to BD2003 above for more detail. People may want it, but it doesn't mean it's a good idea -- THAT'S why you see MS focusing on either keeping WHS a backup and storage device, or spinning off a more media-focused home server.

They want one box that does it all.
How many @#$% set top boxes do you want to sit underneath your TV?

Not really sure why you'd keep a backup device under your TV. Personally, only my 360 (and Wii) are under my TV.

Ok. So now you are saying that my point #1 is correct?

I guess I didn't make myself clear enough in my first response. There are quite a few cases with hotplug bays and you can purchase hotplug backplanes for standard ATX systems. This stuff is expensive. You seem to think that a case like the Mediasmart's DEFINES a WHS system. You can build a WHS system with any everyday parts, as cheap as you like and still get the vast majority of functionality out of it. Like almost any OS, what system you build around it can run the gamut from bargain-basement to top-end.

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: loup garou
Ubiquitous gig-e home networks. That's a great one.

It actually is, and by that I mean that gigabit is available for free on virtually every new computer, and can be adopted for a lot less money than any file server.

I don't know what to tell you...all I said was that most home users don't have gig-e networks and don't particularly care. You can try to argue whatever it is you're trying to argue (not really sure what that is or your reasoning), but that's the way it is. Gig-e is not ubiquitous in home networks. Period.

Last I checked, this was a technology forum, and we were discussing next-gen WHS/file server features. If you don't get gigE in this context, then I feel sorry for you, but that's the extent of my apology.

I understand it completely. Your original post to which I responded also had nothing to do with the topic of next-gen WHS features, btw. I have added my comments on things I don't like about the current WHS and features I would like to see in other posts as well, so please don't act like I'm intentionally derailing this thread.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: Madwand1
Question: What do you do when infected files were automatically backed up or when the file server itself is infected?

To restore the system, I go back to the last version of the backup before the infection. Then, I restore any user data files to the most recent versions.

It's pretty tough to have a file server infected since you seldom browse the Internet from it and don't open email on it. The only infected file servers I've seen were those that were used as workstations.

The bulk of my desktops don't have the WHS Administrator stored (I don't want Users accessing the WHS Management panel, so they can't directly access the WHS server system areas. It would take a worm-like infection on a client plus a bug in the WHS code to write to the WHS server's system. And then, AV on the WHS server (which I admittedly don't bother with) would hopefully catch any infected files being written.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: BD2003
Homegroups help a great deal, but in a way they kind of negate the need for the server to share files in the first place, when PCs can more easily access each other's files without too much configuration. Active directory style profiles would be sweet, although I'd think that might be somewhat difficult to retrofit into existing home networks.

Sometimes I wish that WHS didn't even DO file serving. Putting your only copy of a file on a WHS server (or any server, for that matter) forces you to consider how you will back up that file. This makes things complicated, rather than simplifying life.

For sure, WHS' folder redundancy is a million times better than what most homeowners have now (which is nothing). But it's hard to know exactly how reliable WHS' drive redundancy is going to be in the field. That's going to take a bunch of actual hard drive failures. Plus, we all recognize that settling for disk redundancy rather than backups leaves a hole where data can be lost.

If I had my druthers, I'd leave original data on the client PCs, share the data using homegroups, and only use WHS for backups. I'd even go as far as disabling the "fileserver" function in WHS unless there are at least two hard drives and folder redundancy is enabled. If Microsoft had intended WHS to be used as a fileserver in non-redundant mode, they should have come up with a good way to back up the server. WHS fails miserably when it comes to backing up itself. But it sure does a great job of backing up OTHER PCs.