VIDEO: Windows Home Server ''Vail'' Beta

[babybeluga]

... this subject has been milked dry ...

... it was a udder-ly ridiculous in the first place ...

... I'm going to moo-ve along now ...

On a more related note, this article should have been titled, "Microsoft has un'vail'ed its new version of Windows Home Server"

 

[thegreathuntingdolphin]

I disagree. WHS is very easy to use and is also cheaper ($100). Setting up what and when to backup is a lot easier than normal desktop OS, as are the media streaming functions. Anyways, I would get Windows 7 and use the home group function before I used Vista. I would also point out WHS is less than 4 GB...

Why on earth would I buy Vista that is usually more expensive, more complicated, and more of a resource hog over WHS?

 

[sublifer]

snoooooooooze. I couldn't watch more than a minute of that boring video. How about actually doing a little work on an article and write a summary instead of just plopping a friggin video in.

 

[nonameworks]

I'm sad, I would have a server, unfortunately the processor doesn't support x64 otherwise it would work

 

[BlueCat57]

I can't imagine anyone with a home server with less than a terabyte of storage, and probably much more. The 160GB is like the 1GB of RAM. That's the minimum needed to run the OS. Who builds a 64-bit system with 1GB of RAM?

I still can't figure out what the difference between a server and a network is.

I have four systems and use Windows 7 for my home network. Granted I don't rip DVDs to my hard drive to share over the network. And I get choppy playback when I try to stream media over the network. But I can't see how a home server will improve the playback.

Is the way I use (or more accurately NOT use) my home network so different from the vast majority of home users? Is Windows Home Server targeted at a very limited segment of users? Or am I the one missing the boat?

I know quite a few techie types and my home network is more advanced than nearly all of theirs. I don't know anyone that even talks about networking their computers at home. So I wonder who actually buys and uses WHS.

I back up from one computer to another. Have RAID 0 on my "server." I'm still trying to work out the kinks in the back up from my laptop to my "server" but that is more a question of how much time it takes to do the back up than whether it works or not.

I synch files from system to system so even if one is shut down I have a current version available. And Home Group is working great for everything else. Printing isn't always perfect (the system the printer is attached to goes to sleep) but I know that I can just buy a printer with wired or wireless networking to solve that problem.

So the questions remains: Why use WHS? And, how many people actually use it?