locked
wireless local area network RRS feed

  • Question

  • Since it is a family of software, it should have buletooth For example, a wireless local area network technology household equipment interoperability. Windows home operating through mobilephone and other equipment. . .
    Fma mobilephone do with the Windows connectivity software

    http://fma.sourceforge.net/index2.htm

     

     

    Tuesday, February 13, 2007 5:33 AM

Answers

  • Windows Home Server is designed to be connected via an Ethernet cable to your home network broadband router/firewall.  If your router supports wireless connectivity in your home network, then those PCs that connect wirelessly through router will be able to access the home server wirelessly.

    BTW - Windows Home Server is built on top of Windows Server 2003, and has componentry from Windows XP Media Center edition and a lot of cool new software code for the Windows Home Server Backup features and Windows Home Server Drive Extender storage features.

     

    Tuesday, February 13, 2007 8:21 PM

All replies

  • Am sure that WHS will support WLAN as it is a software suite running on top of Windows XP or Vista which both take wireless.

    Access threw mobile cell phones and other devices is a good idea but why? If your machine is set up correctly, using the built in web browser is suitable for all tasks.
    Tuesday, February 13, 2007 3:18 PM
  • Windows Home Server is designed to be connected via an Ethernet cable to your home network broadband router/firewall.  If your router supports wireless connectivity in your home network, then those PCs that connect wirelessly through router will be able to access the home server wirelessly.

    BTW - Windows Home Server is built on top of Windows Server 2003, and has componentry from Windows XP Media Center edition and a lot of cool new software code for the Windows Home Server Backup features and Windows Home Server Drive Extender storage features.

     

    Tuesday, February 13, 2007 8:21 PM
  • I was kind of wondering - why is WHS designed to exclude wireless networks? I would think that the in-the-closet use case would be badly impacted by this. It is already hard enough to find a closet with a power outlet - extending an ethernet cable out of the closet would make things doubly inconvenient.

     

    Monday, February 19, 2007 10:44 PM
  • What I mean is for Windows can control all hardware such as connectivity (mobile cell phone s) through computer operations such information before writing the computer keyboard to a comfortable mobile cell ph ones sent!
    Sunday, February 25, 2007 4:29 PM
  •  caywen wrote:

    I was kind of wondering - why is WHS designed to exclude wireless networks? I would think that the in-the-closet use case would be badly impacted by this. It is already hard enough to find a closet with a power outlet - extending an ethernet cable out of the closet would make things doubly inconvenient.

     

    It's not designed to exclude wireless networks, it's just designed around wired networks - hopefully with gigabit speeds.  I have a laptop that has 200GB of hard drive space, and it's plugged in and working on WPA2 encypted connection.  It gets an IP address from my local DHCP server and can talk to all the systems.  But I only have a 54Mbps wireless connection.  It's a lot of data to back up and move at that slow of a speed.

    Needless to say, it will work, it will just not be at the same level of experience that they were hoping their audience would have.

    Yuck ... I just thought about having to restore 200GB of data over a 54Mbps connection ... <shudder>

    - Jim

    Sunday, February 25, 2007 4:39 PM
  • Because two of the major functions in WHS is backup and media sharing and that require bandwidth. You want your HS to have stable troublefree bandwitdh, and that does a wireless network not provide.

    Sunday, February 25, 2007 4:40 PM
  • You mean using a cell phone or a PocketPC with a WHS applet to control / monitor everything happening on the server?  There's nothing to say that it won't be created one day in a later release or by a third party company.

    - Jim

    Sunday, February 25, 2007 4:41 PM
  • WHS is not dependent on technologies. It's a piece of software.

    What functionality would it bring the user being able to control WHS from a mobile phone and not only that but do so on a small screen? Everytime you use a service from the server, you'll be using a computer anyway.

    Sunday, February 25, 2007 4:51 PM
  • Ah, ok that makes sense. I was reacting to what I was inferring from the beta documentation. Would WHS actually result in a transfer of 200GB, or just the used space? I'd imagine it'd be just the used space - and would subsequent backups (which, from what what I understand, are essentially diffs) take that much?

    Actually, the numbers for a 54Mbps begin to make more sense if you have a laptops with, say, 40GB of actual data. A 54Mbps connection could theoretically handle it in 2 hours...

     

    Monday, February 26, 2007 8:59 AM
  • Well, I installed Vista Ultimate on my HP laptop last night, got the connector running and it told me that it was going to do 7.5 GB of backup or something around there.  And that's on one of the 100GB drives installed.  So no, it doesn't take all the possible space, just whatever space has data that you want to backup.  When I woke up this morning, it was all backed up to the server (over the 54Mbps connection) and good to go.  I don't think subsequent backups will take too much - it all depends on how much "new" data there is to backup.  Maybe you install 2 or 3 games from DVD - now you have maybe an extra 5-8 GB of data to back up?  But yeah - it works fine on a laptop ... though YMMV.

    - Jim
    Monday, February 26, 2007 5:36 PM
  •  Schroinx wrote:

    WHS is not dependent on technologies. It's a piece of software.

    What functionality would it bring the user being able to control WHS from a mobile phone and not only that but do so on a small screen? Everytime you use a service from the server, you'll be using a computer anyway.

    Small screen is really no issue. I've used LogMeIn on my VGA PocketPC to access my home PC remotely and do some urgent work tasks. LogMeIn allowed me to use a scaled screen resolution of 1024x768. A little painful and slow, I admit, but completely functional and rather easier than driving 200 miles home first  :-)

    Also consider some current and new technologies that are not far away.

     

    Check out this device - http://www.htc.com/product/03-product_x7500.htm - that runs the PocketPC OS.

    Or these http://www.clubimate.com/ultimate/, which all have 1024x768 monitor out capability and bluetooth for keyboard ...

     

    With these and similar devices the ability to access your home server and home PC. Now you can work in an airport, in Starbucks, in the back of a taxi, in a hotel room ... anywhere, accessing the full power of your home network and resources, with a decent screen resolution yet all you need to carry is a pocket-sized device.

    Yes it would be a little awkward, and the experience is going to be far from perfect, but the power and functionality is there today to make your cell phone operate like a fully-fledged PC when used in conjunction with remote access.

     

    Sunday, March 4, 2007 6:55 PM
  •  Jim J. wrote:

    It's not designed to exclude wireless networks, it's just designed around wired networks - hopefully with gigabit speeds.  I have a laptop that has 200GB of hard drive space, and it's plugged in and working on WPA2 encypted connection.  It gets an IP address from my local DHCP server and can talk to all the systems.  But I only have a 54Mbps wireless connection.  It's a lot of data to back up and move at that slow of a speed.

    Needless to say, it will work, it will just not be at the same level of experience that they were hoping their audience would have.

    Yuck ... I just thought about having to restore 200GB of data over a 54Mbps connection ... <shudder>

    - Jim

     

    Still, in some cases like mine, Wired networks are even more fearfull then the 54Mbps. Also keep in mind that the next generation of WiFi easily surpasses this speed. On my home network I reach throughput speeds from a distance of 10 feet between 37 mbps and 42 mbps, with an average of 40 mbps.  These figures are good enough to transfer large ammounts of data. At these speeds you can transfer 200G of data in a reasonable ammount of time, especially if you remember that only the first backup actually needs that ammount of data.

     

    The only thing is that the ammount of clients you can handle simultaniously drops with a factor 2, but this is something I gladly have over having to replace that damn networkcable in my house.

     

    It's  choice I deliberary make because I don't want to have that network cable going from the location where I have my server standing (the computer room) to the place where the router is (next to the television) where it has to cros my entire living room and where I don't have the oppertunity to hide that cable.

    Monday, June 18, 2007 12:27 PM