locked
Is it cheaper to build WHS youself? RRS feed

  • Question

  • Wanted to know if people think it will be cheaper to build a WHS yourself or buy WHS from HP or another hardware partner?  I am noticing you can purchase new machine for under $220 and considering that the WHS requirements are so minimal would they not be able to provide the server cheaper. 


    Saturday, June 16, 2007 12:01 PM

All replies

  • I haven't seen pricing announced for any of the products that are being readied for market, but I would expect that they will be in the $400-$500 range. While it's true that you can sometimes find a PC for under $300, those computers frequently don't meet one or more of the WHS hardware requirements.

    The main difference (to me) will be that by building it, you're not getting any of the additional software that the vendor bundles with their version of WHS. That may be a good thing, if you don't want the bundle and don't mind the potential frustration of getting all your hardware working together, or it may not, if you either do want it or don't want the hassles of BYO PCs.
    Saturday, June 16, 2007 1:46 PM
    Moderator
  • In my case, none of the "commercial" products meets my storage/expandability requirements, so I'm forced to custom build.  I needed something able to incorporate 12+ drives, ideally 20+ drives, for long term storage and expansion.
    Saturday, June 16, 2007 7:20 PM
  •  Prelector wrote:
    In my case, none of the "commercial" products meets my storage/expandability requirements, so I'm forced to custom build.  I needed something able to incorporate 12+ drives, ideally 20+ drives, for long term storage and expansion.

    If you need this much storage, then I can't see WHS being the proper platform for you. If I had a need for a 20+ drive solution, I'd be looking into a dedicated server solution running all kinds of RAID, and a backup solution that would cost the national budget of a small country.

    Seriously, hard drives are cheap nowadays. 2TB's worth can be had for nearly $800AUD, and that's only four drives. $1000AUD can get you 2TB, plus an additional 500GB for a RAID 5 solution. Who the hell needs 20 drives in the one box for the home?
    Sunday, June 17, 2007 1:44 AM
  •  Jaymz wrote:
     Prelector wrote:
    In my case, none of the "commercial" products meets my storage/expandability requirements, so I'm forced to custom build.  I needed something able to incorporate 12+ drives, ideally 20+ drives, for long term storage and expansion.

    If you need this much storage, then I can't see WHS being the proper platform for you. If I had a need for a 20+ drive solution, I'd be looking into a dedicated server solution running all kinds of RAID, and a backup solution that would cost the national budget of a small country.

    Seriously, hard drives are cheap nowadays. 2TB's worth can be had for nearly $800AUD, and that's only four drives. $1000AUD can get you 2TB, plus an additional 500GB for a RAID 5 solution. Who the hell needs 20 drives in the one box for the home?

     

    I didn't say I needed 20 drives in a system, I said I needed 12+ drives, and would prefer 20 drives.

     

    Currently I've got 10 drives, and 6Tb+ in storage space, with under 700Gb free...  When you're archiving DVDs (~5Gb each) and HD-DVDs (~30Gb each), storage space goes VERY quickly.  The reason for the high drive count, is so that I'm not forced into buying all new drives to increase storage space.  I'd much rather be able to add as I need, and switch to drive "upgrades" when the old ones die.

     

    And your point about a dedicated server solution is EXACTLY why WHS is the perfect solution for me...  Why spend $30k+ for unneeded protected storage, when I can spend under $2k and have exactly the level of protection I need...

    Sunday, June 17, 2007 2:22 AM
  •  Prelector wrote:
    In my case, none of the "commercial" products meets my storage/expandability requirements, so I'm forced to custom build.  I needed something able to incorporate 12+ drives, ideally 20+ drives, for long term storage and expansion.

     

    The more drives you have the more inefficiant DE becomes compared to RAID5. At some point you are spending so much for duplication that it makes more sence to get a hardware RAID5 solution.

     

    If you are looking for 12+ drives you will likely need an external (SCSI or SAS) drive cage because even most storage servers don't have that much internal storage.

    Monday, June 18, 2007 2:33 AM
  •  Bezalel Geretz wrote:

     Prelector wrote:
    In my case, none of the "commercial" products meets my storage/expandability requirements, so I'm forced to custom build.  I needed something able to incorporate 12+ drives, ideally 20+ drives, for long term storage and expansion.

     

    The more drives you have the more inefficiant DE becomes compared to RAID5. At some point you are spending so much for duplication that it makes more sence to get a hardware RAID5 solution.

     

    If you are looking for 12+ drives you will likely need an external (SCSI or SAS) drive cage because even most storage servers don't have that much internal storage.

     

    How so?

     

    Its my understanding that DE will duplicate a file between 2 drives, and only 2 drives. Temporarily it may be on 3 drives, but I would expect the initial copy (the one the client put in the D: drive itself) to be deleted as soon as its safely on 2 other drives in the drive pool. 

     

    Other then causing DE to take a fraction of a millisecond longer to decide which 2 of the 12 drives to place a copy of the file on, I don't see that have 12+ or 20+ drives is going to impact performance in any perceivable way.

     

    For example: I would expect in a system with 12+ drives, when you copy a file to a share (the D: drive itself), DE will decide which of the 12+ drives to save the file to, it copies the file, then it decides which of the 12+ to make a duplicate to, it copies the file, it then deletes the original from the D: drive itself replacing it with a tombstone...

     

    Jay

    Monday, June 18, 2007 4:39 PM
  •  Jay B. Harlow wrote:
     Bezalel Geretz wrote:

     Prelector wrote:
    In my case, none of the "commercial" products meets my storage/expandability requirements, so I'm forced to custom build.  I needed something able to incorporate 12+ drives, ideally 20+ drives, for long term storage and expansion.

     

    The more drives you have the more inefficiant DE becomes compared to RAID5. At some point you are spending so much for duplication that it makes more sence to get a hardware RAID5 solution.

     

    If you are looking for 12+ drives you will likely need an external (SCSI or SAS) drive cage because even most storage servers don't have that much internal storage.

     

    How so?

     

    Its my understanding that DE will duplicate a file between 2 drives, and only 2 drives. Temporarily it may be on 3 drives, but I would expect the initial copy (the one the client put in the D: drive itself) to be deleted as soon as its safely on 2 other drives in the drive pool. 

     

    Other then causing DE to take a fraction of a millisecond longer to decide which 2 of the 12 drives to place a copy of the file on, I don't see that have 12+ or 20+ drives is going to impact performance in any perceivable way.

     

    For example: I would expect in a system with 12+ drives, when you copy a file to a share (the D: drive itself), DE will decide which of the 12+ drives to save the file to, it copies the file, then it decides which of the 12+ to make a duplicate to, it copies the file, it then deletes the original from the D: drive itself replacing it with a tombstone...

     

    Jay

     

    I was talking about cost, not performance. An 11 drive RAID5 array will hold as much as a 21 drive DE set with duplication turned on. The more drives you need to protect the more cost effectice it becomes to use a hardware RAID5.

    Monday, June 18, 2007 5:07 PM
  • SAK,

     As I'm sure you'll see from the postings, there will always be a stock of people who will try to build a server from inferior components; then whine (out loud) that the WHS product is crappy when they can't understand why it doesn't meet their expectations.  This happens a lot (maybe too much); but it does help the developers to understand more about how the product will react (that's one of the reasons they put some products out for Beta testing). 

     WHS is designed to be a "started and forgotten" piece of PC hardware.  You should really ward-off any desires to use it as your daily desktop PC.  Remember, it's based on Windows Server2003 technology, so certain software like AntiVirus and Spyware needs to (or should) be written specifically for a server.  Perhaps there will be lesser-expensive versions of this kind of software for HomeServer users (please, please, please!), but only time will tell.

     Also, the WHS console that appears on the installed clients, has virtually everything that you need to administrate the WHS.  Having (personally) "screwed things up" by playing around in the Administrative Tools (in Control Panel), I can attest to the wisdom of only getting into the server (locally) when it's absolutely necessary.

     OK, so let's talk about hardware; I chose to run my WHS using MS's "Minimum Hardware Requirements guide".  Using this as a baseline, I have been very pleased with WHS thus far.  Sure there were some interesting glitches in the previous WHS iterations, but that's part of the fun of Beta testing.

     I'm running my WHS on a $300 eMachines standard desktop PC (model T2642, if you want specifics).  I have done some upgrading to it: I kept the stock 2.4 GHz Celeron (P4).  I replaced the internal CD-writer with a inexpensive ($65) DVD-RW drive.  I have upgraded to 2 gigs of Ram ($165).  I have replaced the existing HDD with two (2) 300 gig drives ($250 total).  I even added the second HDD after I had started the server, to test the ability of the server's finding new hardware wizard, and especially, to see how WHS would handle the discovery of new HDD storage space (it went fairly smoothly).

     Initially, I tried to run a "better than on-board" video card.  Unfortunately, there isn't a AGP slot on this motherboard.  So I tried a PCI video card that I had lying around.  The server booted noticeably slower.  I assumed, that since the PCI video card had a very low volume of RAM (or unknown issues), that the slow-down was being caused by the video card.  As soon as I went back to the on-board video (which is an Intel 845GV chipset) there was a noticeably (faster) difference in boot speed.  Plus, I really don't care how good the graphics look locally on the server.

     I had posted (previously) that the transfer rate from the WHS was not what I expected.  After a detailed analysis (I took apart my 16-port switch) I found that even though is a 10, 100, 1000 switch, it had RealTek NIC chips in it, which are known to be very slow.  Also, the on-board NIC on my server is only 10-100 capable.  Thanks to all repliers who steered me to understanding this; I will miss you guys when they shut this room down!  At some point, I will replace my on-board NIC and upgrade my switch to true 1 gig capable units.  But for right-now, I'm able to stream Media Center recorded videos abck and forth and I'm reasonably happy with the results.

     See, I went for a cheaper piece of hardware, and my frugalness bit me in the butt!

     I know it's too late for the short- version of this moral, but I stronly suggest that you heed the MS Minimum Hardware Guide.  At the same time, don't go over-board the hardware either.  As another poster has explained, WHS (as it exist right now) is essentially a file-server.  And having tested several HTML based hardware fore-runners, I can say that this product does its intended job at being a true domain server & file server combination that most (albeit computer savvy) residential user's could manage.  While I vote that MS keeps the WHS product available for purchase as a separate item, I can see from the previous experience from the Media Center beta testing (and the postings in this room) that it's probable that MS with only release WHS bundled with known-compatible hardware (which is smart from their prospective).

     

    -Phil

    Monday, June 18, 2007 7:35 PM
  •  Bezalel Geretz wrote:

     Prelector wrote:
    In my case, none of the "commercial" products meets my storage/expandability requirements, so I'm forced to custom build.  I needed something able to incorporate 12+ drives, ideally 20+ drives, for long term storage and expansion.

     

    The more drives you have the more inefficiant DE becomes compared to RAID5. At some point you are spending so much for duplication that it makes more sence to get a hardware RAID5 solution.

     

    If you are looking for 12+ drives you will likely need an external (SCSI or SAS) drive cage because even most storage servers don't have that much internal storage.

     

    I think you're missing the point of my system...

     

    First, as I stated in the first reply on this thread, I've built a system capable of holding 20+ drives in a single chassis, and cooling the entire system effectively while maintaining a quite environment; an external environment for the drives isn't needed.

     

    Second, I don't require the same level of protection for all my files (as most people don't).  A very small percentage of my files require 100% protection (family pictures, family videos, electronic storage of legal documents).  For these files, the WHS solution actually provides a BETTER protection environment:  With Raid, you lose a drive, and you lose protection for ALL files stored on the array.  One more failure and everything is gone.  With WHS, you lose a drive, and you possibly lose protection for just the files on that one drive.  BUT, WHS will detect the failure, and re-protect the files in question onto another available drive.  For the majority of my files though (DVD storage), this level of protection isn't required, and I'd like to just maximize storage space.  WHS gives me a single share that I can write to, and reference from all my players.  If I need to increase the storage space, I can do that dynamically.  With RAID, what you build is what you get, there's no ability to increase the array without rebuilding it all from scratch.

    Monday, June 18, 2007 10:29 PM
  • Mixed up in here may be an answer to the OP but one can't be sure since we veered off into something completely different. I think one of the posts hits on an important difference between buying a cheap system and then upgrading to add WHS vs. build from scratch, that being that you know what you are getting.

     

    Most of these ultra low-cost systems look something like this:

     

    Entry-level single-core CPU (power efficient?)

    256mb RAM

    On-board graphics

    40 GB drive

    10/100 on-board NIC (chipset?)

    DVD

    <250w inefficient power supply

    Case that will make you curse out loud when you try to add a hard drive

    OS you don't need

     

    Power efficiency is often overlooked but most people will spend more on electricity over the life of the system than the original cost of the system. Spending $30-60 additional on a more power friendly CPU and PSU will easily pay for themselves.

     

    Upgrading this to WHS usable specs would require at a minimum a drive and probably some RAM. I'll assume you would go further for the sweet spot and get 2x320gb drive for about $75 ea. and 1GB RAM for about $50 for an initial cost of $450-550. You'll have to add a WHS license but since we don't know what that will be we'll ignore it for now.

     

    Some limitations that may or may not be included in this system that may require immediate or future upgrade:

     

    On-board NIC not compatible with WHS

    Disk controller capacity for > 2 hard drives

    Insufficent power supply capacity for > 2 hard drives

    Inadequate case capacity for > 2 hard drives

    Limited available slots for expansion

    Limited USB ports for external expansion

     

     

    An equivelent BYO system might cost $500-550 or so and look like this:

     

    Motherboard with known chipset, slot configuration, drive controllers, USB and Firewire connectors, and NIC - $120

    Tooless mini-tower with space for 6+ drives - $60

    High efficiency 400w+ Power supply - $50

    Entry-level single-core power efficient CPU - $50

    1024mb RAM - $50

    2x320GB  Drive - $150

    DVD - $50 (Could borrow for install)

     

    So the cost is fairly similar, but the big difference IMHO is that you have intimate knowledge of what your present capabilities, capacity and upgradability will be whereas much of this is either unknown or limited at best with one of these ultra-low cost systems.

    Thursday, June 21, 2007 11:44 PM
  • For what it's worth I'm from Canada but with the dollar being what it is and both countries having access to Tiger Direct this is my $0.02 worth:

     

    $550 ($525ish us)

    1.86 Core 2 Duo Processor (E6300)

    1gig Ram DDR2

    250gig SATA-2 HD (default...5-expansions)

    320gig SATA-2 HD (added...included in $550)

    300 watt PS

    MCE '05 - oem

    built-in VC (Intel X3000), lan, etc...

    DVD +/-RW, 9 in 1 card reader

    keyboard, mouse, etc.., no monitor

     

    Now while you can cut that price in half the way I see it is that is one heluva deal that is perfect for this.

     

    Friday, June 22, 2007 12:55 AM
  • Looking at Kwobbe's configuration.....

    Is there any real advantage to a Core2 Duo in this kind of an environment? Will the underlying Server 2003 take advantage of it?

    Also: I would be inclined to go with a pair of 500 GB drives instead of the 2x250 + 2x320 -- it leaves room for expansion and (at approx $100 US) may be a bit cheaper... Would also go for a 500w power supply. Would also add a UPS to the list.

    What software should be added to this. (Yeah, I know this is a hardware area but it would be nice to keep it all together. A linked response would be fine.)
    Tuesday, June 26, 2007 1:47 AM
  •  JohnBick wrote:
    Looking at Kwobbe's configuration.....

    Is there any real advantage to a Core2 Duo in this kind of an environment? Will the underlying Server 2003 take advantage of it?

    Also: I would be inclined to go with a pair of 500 GB drives instead of the 2x250 + 2x320 -- it leaves room for expansion and (at approx $100 US) may be a bit cheaper... Would also go for a 500w power supply. Would also add a UPS to the list.

    What software should be added to this. (Yeah, I know this is a hardware area but it would be nice to keep it all together. A linked response would be fine.)

     

    Yes, a C2D would work fairly well for WHS, especially if DE can set affinity for the 2nd core, and stay there.  The 6xxx series is a waste though.  There's no need for the VT feature, or the conroe core.  Personally, I'd look at the e2160 as a CPU.  The 1mb cache is plenty (no need for any more than that in a File Server) and you still get the 2 cores, plus VERY low power use/heat generation.  This allows you to keep that box quiet Smile  And personally, I like the 750gb drives as the sweet spot between cost/gig and large volume.

     

    For myself, I'm using:

     

    $113 Intel G965WH motherboard (6 sata ports onboard, onboard video for setup/console, and PWM fan control)

    $91   Intel e2160 cpu (Using an old P4 right now, but will be upgrading shortly)

    $50   1.5gig DDR2 ram (had it lying around)

    $210 WD 750gb Drives (WD makes a great quiet drive, and they'll cross ship for RMA)

    $60   Promise Sata300 TX4 PCI controller (4 extra SATA ports using existing PCI slot)

     

    Assuming 2x the drives to start, that's $750 for the hardware (not counting case and psu) and that's for QUALITY hardware, I didn't try to skimp anywhere.

    Tuesday, June 26, 2007 2:24 AM
  •  Prelector wrote:
    Bezalel Geretz wrote:

    Prelector wrote:
    In my case, none of the "commercial" products meets my storage/expandability requirements, so I'm forced to custom build. I needed something able to incorporate 12+ drives, ideally 20+ drives, for long term storage and expansion.

    The more drives you have the more inefficiant DE becomes compared to RAID5. At some point you are spending so much for duplication that it makes more sence to get a hardware RAID5 solution.

    If you are looking for 12+ drives you will likely need an external (SCSI or SAS) drive cage because even most storage servers don't have that much internal storage.

    I think you're missing the point of my system...

    First, as I stated in the first reply on this thread, I've built a system capable of holding 20+ drives in a single chassis, and cooling the entire system effectively while maintaining a quite environment; an external environment for the drives isn't needed.

    Second, I don't require the same level of protection for all my files (as most people don't). A very small percentage of my files require 100% protection (family pictures, family videos, electronic storage of legal documents). For these files, the WHS solution actually provides a BETTER protection environment: With Raid, you lose a drive, and you lose protection for ALL files stored on the array. One more failure and everything is gone. With WHS, you lose a drive, and you possibly lose protection for just the files on that one drive. BUT, WHS will detect the failure, and re-protect the files in question onto another available drive. For the majority of my files though (DVD storage), this level of protection isn't required, and I'd like to just maximize storage space. WHS gives me a single share that I can write to, and reference from all my players. If I need to increase the storage space, I can do that dynamically. With RAID, what you build is what you get, there's no ability to increase the array without rebuilding it all from scratch.



    That totally not correct tho, as many good to top level RAID controller (as mine Areca 12 ports and 16 ports controllers) can do:

    RAID level/stripe size migration, RAID capacity expansion without rebuilding the array at all, in fact it can be done "online".

    I just wanted to clear that point.

    My best.

    Tuesday, June 26, 2007 1:21 PM
  •  abobader wrote:
     Prelector wrote:
    Bezalel Geretz wrote:

    Prelector wrote:
    In my case, none of the "commercial" products meets my storage/expandability requirements, so I'm forced to custom build. I needed something able to incorporate 12+ drives, ideally 20+ drives, for long term storage and expansion.

    The more drives you have the more inefficiant DE becomes compared to RAID5. At some point you are spending so much for duplication that it makes more sence to get a hardware RAID5 solution.

    If you are looking for 12+ drives you will likely need an external (SCSI or SAS) drive cage because even most storage servers don't have that much internal storage.

    I think you're missing the point of my system...

    First, as I stated in the first reply on this thread, I've built a system capable of holding 20+ drives in a single chassis, and cooling the entire system effectively while maintaining a quite environment; an external environment for the drives isn't needed.

    Second, I don't require the same level of protection for all my files (as most people don't). A very small percentage of my files require 100% protection (family pictures, family videos, electronic storage of legal documents). For these files, the WHS solution actually provides a BETTER protection environment: With Raid, you lose a drive, and you lose protection for ALL files stored on the array. One more failure and everything is gone. With WHS, you lose a drive, and you possibly lose protection for just the files on that one drive. BUT, WHS will detect the failure, and re-protect the files in question onto another available drive. For the majority of my files though (DVD storage), this level of protection isn't required, and I'd like to just maximize storage space. WHS gives me a single share that I can write to, and reference from all my players. If I need to increase the storage space, I can do that dynamically. With RAID, what you build is what you get, there's no ability to increase the array without rebuilding it all from scratch.



    That totally not correct tho, as many good to top level RAID controller (as mine Areca 12 ports and 16 ports controllers) can do:

    RAID level/stripe size migration, RAID capacity expansion without rebuilding the array at all, in fact it can be done "online".

    I just wanted to clear that point.

    My best.

     

    First off, that ability to expand an existing RAID configuration is a proprietary implementation.  This means that you're usually stuck with that manufacturers controller (and in some cases, that MODEL controller) and even then, you have to read the fine print very carefully.  Second, in every case I know of, expansion is limited to same size drives (you can plug in a larger, but it's partitioned down to match the rest).  This limits the RAID set to (N-1)x(smallest drive in the array) in size.  And no controller that I know of allows the dynamic expansion of drive sizes.  This means that to upgrade from the 500gb drives you use today to 1tb drives in the future STILL requires recreating the array from scratch.  Finally, unless you look at limited drive count per RAID set (5 or lower), you don't actually have much, if any, performance increase over WHS.

     

    But you're correct, it might be possible to increase your existing raid array.  But, this is a discussion about cost benefits, and can you REALLY compare a $700 street price controller?!  That one controller was the cost of my ENTIRE SERVER (not counting drives), including a case that holds 22 drives.  I still stand by my statement:  In 99% of the Home environments (the market this product is targeted at), WHS is a far more cost efficient solution for data backup and protection.

    Tuesday, June 26, 2007 2:13 PM
  •  Prelector wrote:
    abobader wrote:
    Prelector wrote:
    Bezalel Geretz wrote:

    Prelector wrote:
    In my case, none of the "commercial" products meets my storage/expandability requirements, so I'm forced to custom build. I needed something able to incorporate 12+ drives, ideally 20+ drives, for long term storage and expansion.

    The more drives you have the more inefficiant DE becomes compared to RAID5. At some point you are spending so much for duplication that it makes more sence to get a hardware RAID5 solution.

    If you are looking for 12+ drives you will likely need an external (SCSI or SAS) drive cage because even most storage servers don't have that much internal storage.

    I think you're missing the point of my system...

    First, as I stated in the first reply on this thread, I've built a system capable of holding 20+ drives in a single chassis, and cooling the entire system effectively while maintaining a quite environment; an external environment for the drives isn't needed.

    Second, I don't require the same level of protection for all my files (as most people don't). A very small percentage of my files require 100% protection (family pictures, family videos, electronic storage of legal documents). For these files, the WHS solution actually provides a BETTER protection environment: With Raid, you lose a drive, and you lose protection for ALL files stored on the array. One more failure and everything is gone. With WHS, you lose a drive, and you possibly lose protection for just the files on that one drive. BUT, WHS will detect the failure, and re-protect the files in question onto another available drive. For the majority of my files though (DVD storage), this level of protection isn't required, and I'd like to just maximize storage space. WHS gives me a single share that I can write to, and reference from all my players. If I need to increase the storage space, I can do that dynamically. With RAID, what you build is what you get, there's no ability to increase the array without rebuilding it all from scratch.



    That totally not correct tho, as many good to top level RAID controller (as mine Areca 12 ports and 16 ports controllers) can do:

    RAID level/stripe size migration, RAID capacity expansion without rebuilding the array at all, in fact it can be done "online".

    I just wanted to clear that point.

    My best.

    First off, that ability to expand an existing RAID configuration is a proprietary implementation. This means that you're usually stuck with that manufacturers controller (and in some cases, that MODEL controller) and even then, you have to read the fine print very carefully. Second, in every case I know of, expansion is limited to same size drives (you can plug in a larger, but it's partitioned down to match the rest). This limits the RAID set to (N-1)x(smallest drive in the array) in size. And no controller that I know of allows the dynamic expansion of drive sizes. This means that to upgrade from the 500gb drives you use today to 1tb drives in the future STILL requires recreating the array from scratch. Finally, unless you look at limited drive count per RAID set (5 or lower), you don't actually have much, if any, performance increase over WHS.

    But you're correct, it might be possible to increase your existing raid array. But, this is a discussion about cost benefits, and can you REALLY compare a $700 street price controller?! That one controller was the cost of my ENTIRE SERVER (not counting drives), including a case that holds 22 drives. I still stand by my statement: In 99% of the Home environments (the market this product is targeted at), WHS is a far more cost efficient solution for data backup and protection.



    Ah, damn me then, I forgot regarding the cost issue for what is this topic is all about.

    Prelector, You are totally correct about your point of view for cost matters.

    My best


    Tuesday, June 26, 2007 3:02 PM
  •  SAK wrote:
    Wanted to know if people think it will be cheaper to build a WHS yourself or buy WHS from HP or another hardware partner?  I am noticing you can purchase new machine for under $220 and considering that the WHS requirements are so minimal would they not be able to provide the server cheaper. 


     

    Well... That's a hard one to answer, not knowing how, for example, HP's going to outfit/price their WHS offering.

     

    One would assume that WHS boxes from HP (or from whichever HW vendor one buys a pre-configured WHS box) will have a good OBE... (Unlike some Vista boxes delivered by OEM's, like HP.) You buy the box, you power it up, you answer a couple of questions and you're good to go.

     

    Buying an eMachines box, for example, and installing WHS on it may require that you go off and find drivers that were not found during the WHS install. I went through that when I installed WHS on a Dell Optiplex GX620. Luckily, for me, the XP drivers worked. And... I had to do some extra work. Not knowing the delta in price between "home grown" and "HP Grown" WHS boxes is the fly in the ointment right now. Especially for folks that don't care to do a whole lot of "box building." Even though I work in the IT business, when it comes to my home PC's.... I like "simple." I'm not on the clock when I'm dealing with my home PC's and I absolutely hate having to troubleshoot issues on my home PC's. Don't mind it whatsoever when I'm on the clock... LOL.

     

    At any rate... ultimately, one must consider that the OS will be included in the cost of the OEM box. Sure, I can go out tomorrow and buy an eMachines T5088 from Office Depot with 512MB RAM and a 160GB HD for $250. I -may- want to upgrade the RAM but I'll -definitely- want to upgrade the primary HD. After those upgrades I'll have to buy WHS. I'm thinking the delta in cost is going to be fairly small, e.g., +/- $50. Hmm.. maybe +/- $100. In any case, until the pricing for OEM WHS boxes is published, I don't know that anyone can answer that question. One can only hope, as a consumer, that MS will subsidize, to some extent, the early WHS boxes and keep the cost low. Fingers crossed on that one!

     

    Lang

    Wednesday, June 27, 2007 7:54 AM
  • I can't find any sign of the G965WH motherboard you mention on the Intel site. Do you possibly mean the DG965WH (link)?
    Wednesday, June 27, 2007 4:40 PM
  •  Lewis Stewart wrote:
    I can't find any sign of the G965WH motherboard you mention on the Intel site. Do you possibly mean the DG965WH (link)?

     

    Yep, that's the one, sorry for the misprint on my part.

    Wednesday, June 27, 2007 6:44 PM