Windows Home Server a Poor Naming Choice?

Alle besvarelser

• 28. november 2008 04:14

   

   
  

  0
  I take it that your co-workers are fixating on the 'home' , and skipping the 'server' part?  ;)
  Good job on selling them on the system, though.
  
  However, I do need to take exception with including "Media Center" in your proposed name:
  That (to me) implies that it would have Media Center functionality (namely, TV recording.)  WHS does not, nor cannot, have that functionality, due to its Server 2003 roots. 

  ---

  -Chris [If this post helps to resolve your issue, click the "Mark as Answer" or "Helpful" button at the top of this message. By marking a post as Answered, or Helpful you help others find the answer faster.]
   
• 28. november 2008 16:39

  Redaktør

   

   
  

  0
  I think it's Windows "Home" Server for two reasons. First, it's intended to sell into that market. People have no need of a full installation of Small Business Server at home, for the most part. Even the people who have SBS installed usually don't need it, they have it because they're IT pros or because they imagine that they need some single component of it, such as Exchange, or roaming profiles. They're usually wrong about the need.
  
  The other reason for the "Home" designation is because almost all the management that most Windows servers need has been abstracted to a very high level, or completely eliminated. This makes it a usable product for someone who's not an IT pro.

  ---

  I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
   
• 13. december 2008 03:14

   

   
  

  0
  "This makes it a usable product for someone who's not an IT pro." 
  
  Ken, I hate to disagree with you, but...  Maybe not an IT pro, but it takes someone a lot more saavy that the typical "home" user to maintain WHS.  Just read through the thousands and thousands of posts on this forum, through the eyes of a non-techie, and you'll see what I mean.
  
  This product has finally reached a point of semi-stability for users with above average computer knowledge.  Just imagine what the poor folks are going through who bought into the MS marketing of this product who don't know a bit from a byte.  I feel sorry for the unsuspecting buyers in stores like Office Max who read the HP 470 brochure and drool.  The features/benefits of what WHS can do is very impressive, if only it were as simple as un-boxing and plugging it in.
  
  Maybe this should be called Windows Media Server instead.  Marketing it to families, in my opinion, is a big mistake. It is no where near ready for the true home market.  When it reaches the true pnp level, then MS can market this to the home buyers with a clean conscience.  Until then, only users with A+ certification should be allowed to buy it.   Just kidding. Sort of. :)
  
  DickDay
  
  

  ---

  Dick Day
   
• 13. december 2008 15:39

  Redaktør

   

   
  

  0
  One thing that you have to realize is that a forum like this is not a representative sample of the user base of Windows Home Server. It's populated with people who fall into one of two groups. First there are the people with some technical knowledge/skills, and a desire to help others figure out their problems. Second, there are the people who are having problems. The vast majority of people who have purchased a Windows Home Server (HP MediaSmart Server, F-S Scaleo, Velocity Micro Netmagix, etc.) are having no problems, and have never bothered to visit the forums. Speaking from personal experience, I know a number of people with HP servers, none of whom have had an issue (to date). They bought it, took it home (or had it dellivered), plugged it in, and it's been working fine for them ever since. None of those people are IT pros; they're families who like technology, but expect it to "just work."
  

  ---

  I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
   
• 13. december 2008 17:09

   

   
  

  0
  "One thing that you have to realize is that a forum like this is not a representative sample of the user base of Windows Home Server." 
  
  I agree. I also believe that many of the problems encountered by the "techie" group will never become an issue with the typical home user simply because they will never use WHS beyond what the brochure says it's supposed to do.
  
  However, look at the posts on this forum that deal with the most basic problems and fuctionalities of whs... crashing, re-booting, connector failures, backup failures, data corruption, port-forwarding issues, all things that every whs user must deal with everyday.  If more knowledgable whs forum users have these problems, what makes you believe the home user is not running into the same issues?
  
  So, again, you are correct, you won't see them on this, or any forum.  Most don't even know what an internet forum is, much less how to navigate one.
  
  To assume that the vast majority of people who have purchased a Windows Home Server are having no problems, and have never bothered to visit the forums, really doesn't hold water.  Again, if the forum users are having problems, why would you assume that all other users are not having the same problems?  As you said, they will most likely never seek help from an internet forum.  I see a lot of frustrated buyers on the horizon.
  
  No one will ever convince me that whs does not belong in the same sorry group as ME and Vista.  They were all released prematurely. What makes whs even worse is that it is being marketed to a group of people who are not capable of dealing with the many problems that continue to plague this product.
  
  
  

  ---

  Dick Day
   
• 13. december 2008 17:28

  Redaktør

   

   
  

  0
  From my experiences with Windows Home Server:
  I have two machines in use as Windows Home Server - one at home as production and beta test system (mainly the beta part gave me some problems in the past, as well as exchange of hardware like motherboard, CPU), one in a small office, also covering WSUS, SharePoint Services, shared ISDN services to dial in to a bank from the workstations.
  The last machine (a self build box) worked always without any problem (besides one minior issue caused by SharePoint services changing some DCOM permissions) with 5 client PCs attached since April (and I hope it stays that way). It sits there, does the server services, and the only interaction is attaching an external disk for backup and the noise the box is generating.
  So I can share both experiences - and of course also from reading these forums I see some mainly points causing people to get in trouble with their WHS:
  

  • network issues (name resolution, often caused by wrong network setup or misconfiguration in the router) - I really would wish, that WHS and connected clients get less dependent from the environment here or grant more influence to adjust such stuff manually if needed
  • faulty hardware (broken disks, faulty memory etc are not well covered, while at least the disk part should be made more fault tolerant and give exact warnings) and issues with non compatible drivers on self built systems
  • using WHS as desktop (opens the box for a lot of problems, which WHS would not have without that scenario), maybe installing faulty 3rd party Add-Ins counts here as well
  • and for sure also the initial bugs, which have been fixed with WHS Power Pack 1.

  So the most of these issues will never come up with a preconfigured or well designed box in a "normal" environment and usage scenario.
  Best greetings from Germany
  Olaf