locked
WHS? - Boring RRS feed

  • General discussion

  • I guess I thought WHS was going to bring Server 2003 to the home.

    Backups, remote access, storage?
    I already had that going with XP, IIS etc..

    I had hope I was going to be able to set up central spot for all users to log in so I could administer profiles and rights from the WHS box. Am I missing something?

    Would love to hear feedback.

    Thanks

    Kevin
    Friday, February 20, 2009 1:27 PM

All replies

  • beech2000 said:

    I guess I thought WHS was going to bring Server 2003 to the home.

    Backups, remote access, storage?
    I already had that going with XP, IIS etc..

    I had hope I was going to be able to set up central spot for all users to log in so I could administer profiles and rights from the WHS box. Am I missing something?

    Would love to hear feedback.

    Thanks

    Kevin


    Why would you think that? It's not Server 2003, it's WHS...

    You don't *need* WHS for backups, remote access nor storage but you don't do it like WHS does otherwise.

    Why would you think that? WHS has never done anything like that, what you might have missed is some research.

    I don't know what kind of feedback you want but you obviously had unrealistic expectations about what WHS is. Most WHS users love it, it's really not "boring," it's useful.

    Maybe these will help:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Home_Server
    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/windowshomeserver/default.mspx

    Good luck...



    "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -- Thomas Paine
    Friday, February 20, 2009 2:48 PM
  • S_M_E said:

    beech2000 said:

    I guess I thought WHS was going to bring Server 2003 to the home.

    Backups, remote access, storage?
    I already had that going with XP, IIS etc..

    I had hope I was going to be able to set up central spot for all users to log in so I could administer profiles and rights from the WHS box. Am I missing something?

    Would love to hear feedback.

    Thanks

    Kevin


    Why would you think that? It's not Server 2003, it's WHS...

    You don't *need* WHS for backups, remote access nor storage but you don't do it like WHS does otherwise.

    Why would you think that? WHS has never done anything like that, what you might have missed is some research.

    I don't know what kind of feedback you want but you obviously had unrealistic expectations about what WHS is. Most WHS users love it, it's really not "boring," it's useful.

    Maybe these will help:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Home_Server
    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/windowshomeserver/default.mspx

    Good luck...



    "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -- Thomas Paine


    Thanks for the reply Thomas. You were conservative with your reply. Not sure I would have been as nice. LOL.

    It was my understanding that WHS was/is a modified version of 2003 server and surely it must be as it says so during the raid formats and install. No big deal I built the server for domain control and will reload fedora later.

    Thanks again for the reply. KB

    Friday, February 20, 2009 6:31 PM
  • beech2000 said:

    Thanks for the reply Thomas. You were conservative with your reply. Not sure I would have been as nice. LOL.

    It was my understanding that WHS was/is a modified version of 2003 server and surely it must be as it says so during the raid formats and install. No big deal I built the server for domain control and will reload fedora later.

    Thanks again for the reply. KB


    I'm not Thomas Paine, I quoted him in my sig.

    Again, research would have let you know that it's built on the win2k3 core but it's not the same. Also, there is no "RAID" support on WHS, WHS uses Drive Extender, it's not the same. If you want AD you might look at Server 2003, linux isn't something I'd ever recommend.

    YMMV...



    "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -- Thomas Paine
    Friday, February 20, 2009 9:39 PM