coolVariable
Diamond Member
- May 18, 2001
- 3,724
- 0
- 76
@loup garou
I am not exactly sure what you are trying to argue. You seem to disagree on principle with a lot of stuff people are saying in this thread and take the WHS criticism rather personally.
If WHS was such a great product, why is it not more successful?
I have only seen complaints in this thread that are (i.) sensible, (ii.) constructive [from people that like WHS] and (iii.) echo what a lot of WHS blogs, forums and websites are demanding.
Fact: buying a finished WHS costs $500+ (most seem to be in the $750 range). That is too expensive.
Fact: building a WHS with a case that is somewhat similar to HP's/Acer's/etc WHS cases costs easily $500+. Nobody is even asking for front accessible HDDs. Please name ONE SFF case (of similar size to the HP case) that can fit 4 3.5" drives for $100 or less. Please name ONE!
Conclusion: Yes you can build a monstrous WHS that is a desktop running WHS software. BUT if you buy a WHS or if you want to build one like the ones you can buy, it costs $500+! AND if you want to make the argument that it is theoretically cheaper to build ones own, then I think the argument others have posted in this thread (that you can do it even cheaper using LINUX or UNIX!!!!) is an even better argument. I would deem BOTH of those off topic.
=> WHS are too expensive!
NOT ONE GOOD ARGUMENT FROM YOU!
No "home user" wants to have 5 servers at home to service his various needs. ONE server that does multiple things! MCE already does everything WHS does with the exception of the nifty backup utility.
See point #1 and you seem to agree with me on this one, although you do your best to disagree?
I am not exactly sure what you are trying to argue. You seem to disagree on principle with a lot of stuff people are saying in this thread and take the WHS criticism rather personally.
If WHS was such a great product, why is it not more successful?
I have only seen complaints in this thread that are (i.) sensible, (ii.) constructive [from people that like WHS] and (iii.) echo what a lot of WHS blogs, forums and websites are demanding.
Originally posted by: coolVariable
I think WHS has multiple problems:
1. Price (too expensive; at $300+ drives it would be a no brainer)
Fact: buying a finished WHS costs $500+ (most seem to be in the $750 range). That is too expensive.
Fact: building a WHS with a case that is somewhat similar to HP's/Acer's/etc WHS cases costs easily $500+. Nobody is even asking for front accessible HDDs. Please name ONE SFF case (of similar size to the HP case) that can fit 4 3.5" drives for $100 or less. Please name ONE!
Conclusion: Yes you can build a monstrous WHS that is a desktop running WHS software. BUT if you buy a WHS or if you want to build one like the ones you can buy, it costs $500+! AND if you want to make the argument that it is theoretically cheaper to build ones own, then I think the argument others have posted in this thread (that you can do it even cheaper using LINUX or UNIX!!!!) is an even better argument. I would deem BOTH of those off topic.
=> WHS are too expensive!
Originally posted by: coolVariable
2. The reason people want WHS functionality merged with Media Center is simple: you buy a $1,000+ to $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.
NOT ONE GOOD ARGUMENT FROM YOU!
No "home user" wants to have 5 servers at home to service his various needs. ONE server that does multiple things! MCE already does everything WHS does with the exception of the nifty backup utility.
Originally posted by: coolVariable
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).
See point #1 and you seem to agree with me on this one, although you do your best to disagree?