Why use server software like WHS instead of Win7 or other OS?

[MStele]

Just wondering: Does anybody know why MS decided to implement WHS using the WHS-console solution? Why not just build WHS based on a standard Windows Server 2003 release (or even better Windier Server 2008) with a couple of pre-installed extra services (e.g. the Terminal Services Gateway, a Backup solution, etc). Then they could add a standard Windows application with a GUI front-end for configuring those services (could be implemented e.g. in a control panel fashion).

To me it seems like that would be a much more customizable solution. Then you wouldn't have to rely on that every add-on functionality must be implemented as a WHS console add-in (to be guaranteed to not interfere with WHS). You could also more freely disable stuff you didn't want to use.

Could the reason that WHS is implemented the way it is be that MS intentionally wanted to 'cripple' the Windows Server OS and create a specialized solution that could not be used e.g. as a "normal" server for a company, thereby preventing companies from buying a cheap WHS license instead of an expensive Windows Server 2008 license?

You have to consider the price point and the users its designed for. WHS is about $500 cheaper than Server 2003/2008. Also, at the time WHS was being fleshed out, there really wasn't anything mainstream that they could compare it to functionwise. Basically, they had to guess about what the average joe at home would need/want and how to present it in an easy to use package that wasn't confusing to non-experts. In hindsight, we see there are some design issues, but WHS is a good first try for the demographic they were aiming for. It has been said that the next flavor of WHS will be based on Server 2008. I'm certain we'll see WHS mature into a much better package overall.

 

[Fjodor2001]

Basically, they had to guess about what the average joe at home would need/want and how to present it in an easy to use package that wasn't confusing to non-experts. In hindsight, we see there are some design issues, but WHS is a good first try for the demographic they were aiming for. It has been said that the next flavor of WHS will be based on Server 2008. I'm certain we'll see WHS mature into a much better package overall.

Yes, hopefully the next WHS release (code name 'WHS Vail') will address some of the issues. However, based on what information has leaked so far, it seems the WHS console solution is still present in some form, although it is now called the Dashboard. Also, the concept of add-ins still exists. See http://www.withinwindows.com/2010/02/02/a-look-at-windows-home-server-vail-build-7360/ for details.

 

[JackMDS]

Her are some basic How-To that can help some people.

http://www.howtogeek.com/tag/the-geek-blog/#windows-home-server

.

 

[charrison]

If you like WHS that is fine with me, as I said before it doesn't matter what you use . Just don't tell me that WHS is special because all its features are unique or can't be done in other ways by anyone willing to learn . WHS is easy , but that is all it has going for it.

I dropped freenas for WHS. WHS just works. I cant say the same for freenas. Easy is a good thing as I spend enough time behind a computer at work as it is. And I have yet to find a find an package that backs up a windows network as well(integration) and efficiently(disk usage) as WHS.