I'd like to see a mini-AD version... RRS feed

  • General discussion

  • I'd like to see a version of WHS that supports the lion's share of the true server class functions, authentication, group policy, DHCP and all the rest.

    Why would this be any different than the true server stuff and why would Ms want to license it for less than the cost of their standard offerings?  The old "not for profit" angle.  They key is the features could either be there ready to use when you are, or perhaps as a low cost add-on pack.

    I sorely want a server at home but I've got just enough machines that I barely fit in the workgroup (and current WHS) limitation of 10 machines, so that means I have to pay through the nose for the standard pack, and a client pack as well, suddenly taking the cost of ownership to a level that is certainly out of bounds for those with a less than unlimited budget.

    Where would Ms benefit?  MANY more real-world trained network friendly people who would be just one step away from certification, and instead of the typical study, test, study, test scenario of the typical certificate chasers, you'd have people that had to get stuff actually working, they'd understand at a deeper level than the "fully qualified" certificate chaser, and they could manage their home networks for enhanced security, more focussed operation, and be able to hit the ground running in a domain environment with the only bonafide difference being the number of systems on the LAN.

    Pipe dream?  Sure it is.  Man without dreams is nothing.

    Friday, January 15, 2010 7:50 PM

All replies

  • You might want to consider submitting your product suggestion on Connect, which is where Microsoft asks that all product suggestions be made.

    That said, remember that Windows Home Server is not designed for the IT pro, it's designed for someone who likes technology when it "just works". These people don't want to buy software, install it, configure it, and maintain it, they want to buy an appliance at Best Buy, take it home, plug it in, and ignore it. Windows Home Server isn't really there yet, though it's close (as log as your server is stable, it's fine, but any problems tend to result in a need for more technical expertise than the typical Excel jockey has), but I wouldn't expect to see it become significantly more complex than it is today.

    As for number of connections, you can always install a second server in your home. An individual server permits a maximum of 10 client computers, and 10 Windows Home server users, but there's no limit to the number of servers on your network. (And there's no limit on the number of computers in a workgroup, either...) you will only be able to set up the remote Access web site on one of your servers, however.

    As for certification, well, Windows Home Server is designed to be so simple that no certification is needed. That shouldn't change.

    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Friday, January 15, 2010 8:10 PM
  • I logged out and back in, still no "Mark as Answer", so feel free to mark it yourself.

    I understand the premise of the WHS platform, but I thought a more advanced version would allow users to grow, to stretch their legs as it were, and as far as certification, I didn't mean so much for WHS itself, but the AD products themselves.  An AD lite WHS user could easily (or more easily) test for and pass the various "real" server certs by way of actually having hands on, and doing the small amount of association/translation required to reconcile the actual methodologies and their (presumed) small differences.

    Yes, I know a Technet subscription could answer every requirement and provide all of the software one could ever hope to have, but I was just thinking about how much had to be stripped from Server 2003 to create WHS, so I (probably mistakenly) assumed it would be no monumental task to put a lot of it back, especially since 2003 will be reaching EOL sooner rather than later.

    Thanks for the input though, I appreciate your time.

    Saturday, January 16, 2010 2:20 PM