locked
Not Enough Features to be a Winner RRS feed

  • General discussion

  • Using RC1 I found easy to install and easy to setup.  Works well as a sophisticated backup solution.

     

    Would I buy it?  Probably not - it just doesn't do enough to justify a dedicated computer and MS software.

     

    To my mind the concept is flawed by its limitation as a backup server.

     

    I believe it needs, as a minimum, a built in mail server and ability to support network wide virus/malware protection.  Maybe these can be supplied by 3rd party, but if so the cost and complexity is going to blow out.

     

    Agree? - Disagree?

    Monday, June 25, 2007 11:22 AM

All replies

  • Sorry to say, I disagree.

    WHS, as I see it, well protection server for backup, easy to remote and control your server, pc's from everywhere, and sharing as well.

    WHS team put a very nice easy for normal home user personal to setup the server in  short time matters.

    With the push to the add-on, it will be a winner server.

    You can do all that on normal server with many addon from third party software, but not in this easy look or setup as WHS after.

    My best.
    Monday, June 25, 2007 1:58 PM
  • I don't agree at all.

     

    At a minimum, looking at the HP Mediaserver as an example, using the guesstimated $400 for the base unit plus drives, you're already below the STREET price of the primary NAS competition: ReadyNAS, Buffalo, etc.  So, for less money, you've got a more flexible method of of protection, and automated system backup (existing NAS systems require the OS backup options).

     

    Plus, WHS allows for extensibility via it's Add-In system, for added services, which traditional NAS solutions only barely touch on.

     

    I definately don't agree on the Mail Server option, as that's something you're average home won't require, or be able to manage.  Network AV support would be nice, and I'm sure we'll see offerings for it within 8months of release.

     

    As to your dedicated computer statement:

     

    WHS IS NOT INTENDED AS A SOFTWARE OFFERING!

     

    WHS IS INTENDED AS A NETWORK APPLIANCE!

     

    This appliance will include a prebuilt hardware platform and pre-installed software system.  While current intentions are for MS to offer the software OEM through the System Builder channel, this is really for Integrators to offer custom built hardware solutions to their customers.  This product was never intended, nor is it currently intended, to be provided as a software only option to the end user.  While us enthusiasts can (and probably will) buy this OEM software option for installation on our own hardware, we're actually actually taking advantage of a process that wasn't created or intended for us.

    Monday, June 25, 2007 2:01 PM
  • Rach3....

     

    You are alone on this one. Considering the target audience, the WHS is VERY well (if not perfect) suited for the non-techie person like my mom. WHS does what is advertised to do VERY well! Plus, you are aware that as the core of WHS is server 2003, you install almost anything you want.

     

    A mail server won't make sense for most people since everyone I know uses Hotmail, Gmail or Yahoo! Network-wide virus/malware protection is available via 3rd party, but you are looking at some expensive software to do that (e.g. Symantec & McAfee).  I think that you may need a different product such as a full SBS 2003 or the Astaro gateway (linux). The setup for those gets a bit complicated (the SBS or Astaro becomes the network "firewall" for filtering) and I know that the non-techie crowd won't try at it. Also if a friend brings over a virus on a flash drive, the network filtering won't see the information if it stays on the LAN side or if the virus uses SSL/VPN to connect to a remote computer. So WHS is arguably a better solution by keeping the individual PCs protected with their own software rather than leaving the server to take-care of that.

    Tuesday, June 26, 2007 2:23 AM
  • I am, and have been from beta, with the initial post.  WHS is not suitable for the "average" and I repeat "average" home user.   The posts represent above "average" knowledge - and a majority of posts deal with suggested add-ins and modifications that would put it in the realm of an actual operating Win Svr 2003.  There are no posts from "mom", "pop", brother-in-law and so forth To maintain WHS in the household will require the knowledgeable "Geek".

     

    Many of the uses WHS has been put to, as evident by the posts, is outside the realm of the home user.  Backup is currently the major household feature of value - and a backup program such as Acronis, which provides for easier and faster restoration from a recovery partition via an "F" key, supercedes that value.  For example, She Who Must Be obeyed (commonly called wife) knows she can restore her computer when, at boot, she sees "Hit F11 for System Restore - and desspite my efforts has no interest in learning about inserting a restore CD booting from it and determining which backup applies to her computer and so forth.  BTW - she also is determined that NO computer, WHS or otherwise, will be left on throughout the night or when "no-one is at home"!!

     

    Do not get me wrong - I am having a ball with WHS - in this household I am the only one doing so!!

     

    The eventual cost to implement WHS, will be most likely, the determining factor.

    Tuesday, June 26, 2007 9:08 PM
  • Hmmmmm.... I agree - I've been asking myself the same question. I reckon it's a feature deprived product too. Don't get me wrong but it's cost is likely to outweigh the features and benefits. Basically you get file sharing and backup of workstations. Add to this the fact that the people installing and using it aren't going to be 'Mom' etc. but people with a bit of knowledge and they will want something more. Add to that that there are other products out there that already offer loads more and are free. I've been using such a product for four years and it never let me down. The hardware was becoming a little old and I was considering upgrading it. This occurred at the same time that WHS was up for beta so I thought I'd give it a go. I am running WHS on different hardware as the old one wasn't man enough.

     

    I really don't understand the omission of a POP3 mail Server at the minimum. Such a feature would enable the server to accept the domains mail while the users are off-line and deliver it when they log-on. This is better use of Internet bandwidth and a faster service to the user. A webmail based product on the server would be even better. What about print services?

     

    I'll go with trialling WHS for now and see what happens but, as Rach3 quite rightly points out, the added functionality will need to come from third party add-ons (WHS provides for this) and hence will increase cost and complexity.

     

    We'll see..........................

    Tuesday, June 26, 2007 10:01 PM
  • Isn't that part of the market, though?

    First, to recover data from a fried hard drive costs much more that the projected cost of a HMS, that alone is a selling point. 

    But the WHS team focused on a few core services to the house, back up and sharing, that are implemented VERY well.  This being a version 1 product, there are features missing, and that provides an opportunity for the 'enthusiasts' market as well.  The current set of add-ons provide some of the richer features, and are implemented around common web-tasks (utorrent, flickr, web-streaming).  As the product launches (the SDK was only released recently) I'd expect to see some pop3 email addins, or some of the other 'want to' items on the list. 

    Back in the old days of DOS, it was very feature limited, then as the product evolved some 'must haves' were added to the feature set.  Same with the windows line.  And that the WHS sees a market for the enthusiasists, and system builders, means there is an opportunity for the more technical people to actually develop and sell value added services, or provide open-source add ons that benefit the whole community.


    Tuesday, June 26, 2007 10:47 PM
  • Here is the  thing SBS 2003 is EXPENSIVE in comparison. I mean based on the figures I have seen WHS will cost around $150 U.S., where SBS 2003 will cost at least $400- $500 U.S. this is a big jump. Now if lets say WHS came in flavors similar to the different versions of Vista (I know I am opening myself up to a fair amount of criticism with that idea), then I think that we would have a little bit of something for everyone. I mean if I could get AD and a few other features added on to what WHS is now, I would pay a little more than the afforementioned $150 (how much more would depend on the features available on it and if it were still cheap enough to keep it under the cost of SBS).

    I for one think that WHS is just a bit lacking at this point but that might change as I get to tinker with it more and as add-ins start to come out. But for now just a bit shy of something that I would buy.

    Wednesday, June 27, 2007 1:23 AM
  •  AJROCO wrote:

    Backup is currently the major household feature of value - and a backup program such as Acronis, which provides for easier and faster restoration from a recovery partition via an "F" key, supercedes that value.  For example, She Who Must Be obeyed (commonly called wife) knows she can restore her computer when, at boot, she sees "Hit F11 for System Restore - and desspite my efforts has no interest in learning about inserting a restore CD booting from it and determining which backup applies to her computer and so forth.  BTW - she also is determined that NO computer, WHS or otherwise, will be left on throughout the night or when "no-one is at home"!!

     

    You may have some points, but Acronis doesn't fit really here. Sure it is a powerfull product - just yesterday I cloned a system partition of a disk with damaged sectors using True Image Workstation, on which home server backup failed all the time.

    There are also issues, which your above example will not cover:

    • Disk is physically unaccessible. This happens more often than the average user may expect. In such case also the recovery partition is gone.
    • PC is stolen or otherwise damaged or gone to repair and the data immediatly needed. With some luck the home server box is not, so your data is still there.
    • Home server gives added security for the data due to disk duplication functionality, which does not require an expensive RAID, but takes any disks you feed your server with.

    I must say the feature set would even cover the needs of small companies, which are currently using a XP Pro system as "server" in a workgroup and an  USB stick as backup system.

    Sure I'd wish some more functionality, but as stated in these forums - this version is a step - the very first step in a hopefully interesting developement. And some functionality you can add yourself, like WSUS 3.0, even if I am unsure the average home user could or would do.

    Power consumption and noise are some points, which make me also not very happy, but those are hardware dependend.

    Best greetings from Germany

    Olaf

    Wednesday, June 27, 2007 2:27 PM
    Moderator
  •  AJROCO wrote:

    Many of the uses WHS has been put to, as evident by the posts, is outside the realm of the home user.  Backup is currently the major household feature of value - and a backup program such as Acronis, which provides for easier and faster restoration from a recovery partition via an "F" key, supercedes that value.

    Just to apply apples to apples:  Acronis home costs 49.99 per license, lets says two pc's to back up that is ~100 for the house.  Then you still need to host a machine with enough hard disk space to store the images (not SIS, so you'll need more space, unless you store a common baseline image, then additional backups after that... )  And if the server is separate than the other two machines, so you'll have to have a license for the OS on that machine (and maybe another acronis license to back up that machine.  Now just for the cost of the licenses for Acronis you're up to ~$150 which might be the price point for the WHS system builder license.  Discounting the cost of the hardware for the server, its a matched set.  One other client in the home, now WHS is cheaper (given my admittedly hypothetical pricing. 

     

    Now Add-on file sharing, and a single web-site for remote use, and your feature set for WHS is beyond that of simply Acronis.  (though depending on what you'd use for a server platform that might be null, Ubuntu Server is free, etc..)

     AJROCO wrote:
     For example, She Who Must Be obeyed (commonly called wife) knows she can restore her computer when, at boot, she sees "Hit F11 for System Restore - and desspite my efforts has no interest in learning about inserting a restore CD booting from it and determining which backup applies to her computer and so forth.  BTW - she also is determined that NO computer, WHS or otherwise, will be left on throughout the night or when "no-one is at home"!!

    Training Issues... always training issues. Wink  (joking) the reason WHS fits for me, is I don't have to teach my wife how to backup, installed the connector, she already leaves her laptop on all the time, never even standby... I can't train her differently.

     

    Wednesday, June 27, 2007 3:40 PM
  • Rach3,

    disagree!
    Thursday, June 28, 2007 1:53 AM
  •  Acadia Secure Networks wrote:
    Rach3,

    disagree!

     

    Yep. The kind of user he describes is not the kind of user WHS is aimed at. The user that want's to manage their own mail server is not going to be interested in WHS, for the most part. However, there is nothing stopping someone from putting the mail server of your choice on WHS.

     

    If WHS is a success and MS can convince ISPs to not be huge wankers about ports and servers then maybe we'll see some sort of "host all your domain goo and family stuff in one box" offering. But I doubt it. For ISPs the last thing they want is a bunch of newbs running servers. It's a huge drain on their network when those boxes get owned, and that's why they don't generally allow it.

     

    There's only so much that can be simplified in a server product before it is either a big honkin security risk or so locked down as to be useless. I think that WHS as it stands now is a pretty good balance.

     

    Now if only my workstaion would boot off the restore CD. It seems the damn restore CD only supports crusty hardware.

    Thursday, June 28, 2007 4:59 AM
  • No he's not.  See my post.
    Thursday, June 28, 2007 9:08 PM
  •  

    I am quite impressed with WHS.  For a first generation product it seems pretty solid and does what it was designed to do very well.  I agree that in it's current state it won't satisfy those of us who want enterprise network features in our basements.  I'm running an Dell PowerEdge 1300 with Windows 2000 Adv Server (and considering a switch to Linux).  The WHS box is an old Tualatin P3 packed full of hard drives and memory.

     

    With that said, I can't wait for this to hit the market.  I see tremendous promise for this in the family/friend IT support department.  It may not have all of the features I want for my house, but it would work great at my mom's house.  She is from the time before computers (I'll give you a moment to recover from that gasp).  I live 350 miles away.  I could build a WHS box from spare parts lying around my house and hook it to her router on my next visit.  It would open up all sorts of possibilities.  I could upload pictures of the grandkids right to her server.  I could take control of her computer and repair the damage done by clicking on one of those "Your computer is infected...."  pop-ups and banner adds that I keep telling her to ignore.  In the absolute worst case, I could talk her through inserting the restore CD and fixing a hard broke computer.  If it saves one unplanned weekend trip to Mom's house then it has almost paid for itself just in what I would spend on gas(700miles / 17MPG x $3 = $124).

     

    I have a wishlist of features too, but Microsoft won't pack too many features into WHS and risk cutting into SBS sales.  They also can't afford any security holes, so it has to stay simple.  There is no doubt that third parties, open source or otherwise, will fill in many of the gaps within a short period of time.  I'll probably buy a copy for my house too, if only to try new add-ons and test things (and break things).  The big promise, in my opinion, lies in supporting far flung friends and family.

    Friday, June 29, 2007 2:05 AM
  • Sorry I've been away and couldn't participate in the thread I started until today.

     

    Ultimately, WHS will be a success or a failure based on whether "Joe Average" with a home network will buy either the program or a dedicated WHS machine.  Firstly, I predict that if it is released only preinstalled in a machine it will fail dismally.  Whilst I respect the views of others that a mail server is beyond the scope of WHS, I beg to disagree.  As a father of 3 computer literate children, I worry about inappropriate email and although each of their computers is fitted with  "nanny" type protective programs, I remain concerned.  If this protection could be centralised with a basic mail server, I for one would find this just as compelling as backup and would certainly look more favourably at buying it.

     

    No one commented on centralised virus protection for the home network and if this could be integrated (even with MS's own anti-virus), then I believe it would be a true winner.

     

    I repeat my asertion that WHS will fail as it stands without at least these 2 extra features and it's release as a standalone software solution. 

     

    I remain impressed with it as a backup solution.

     

    Time will tell - in the meantime I respect the opinions of those who disagree.

    Thursday, July 5, 2007 7:26 AM
  • If you look through other threads, there are people who have free or outside programs working.

    I, for one, don't want Microsoft including virus/email/backup systems in the basic WHS. I just want the straightforward box, with the facilities (hooks) available for third party products.

     

    Colin

    Thursday, July 5, 2007 4:48 PM
  • I agree that there are not enough features to motivate the average person to purhase a backup machine.  Backup alternatives have existed for quite some time and very few people invest in backup technology.  Mostly technical people or others that have been burned through loss of important data. 

    But, "Joe Average"?  Not a chance... Now, with new alternatives like little NAS drives that consume very little electricity (~20 watts) and have Backup and media streaming functionality, why would anyone want another big box in their house consuming 400+ watts of electricity just for backups.

     

    Although the technology is impressive, the premise of this product is seriously flawed.  I installed it and it worked flawlessly.  But, after the backups were completed, I thought, is that it?  All this hardware for a backup?

     

    I don't think MS could acquire a large install base for this product if they gave it away for free.  If this functonality was incorporated in a new Vista-based High performance Media PC OS, it might stand a chance.

    Thursday, July 5, 2007 5:10 PM
  •  RacerRX wrote:

    I agree that there are not enough features to motivate the average person to purhase a backup machine.  Backup alternatives have existed for quite some time and very few people invest in backup technology.  Mostly technical people or others that have been burned through loss of important data. 

    But, "Joe Average"?  Not a chance... Now, with new alternatives like little NAS drives that consume very little electricity (~20 watts) and have Backup and media streaming functionality, why would anyone want another big box in their house consuming 400+ watts of electricity just for backups.

     

    Although the technology is impressive, the premise of this product is seriously flawed.  I installed it and it worked flawlessly.  But, after the backups were completed, I thought, is that it?  All this hardware for a backup?

     

    I don't think MS could acquire a large install base for this product if they gave it away for free.  If this functonality was incorporated in a new Vista-based High performance Media PC OS, it might stand a chance.

     

    Where do you get 400+ watts for the WHS appliance?  Considering the box isn't even released yet, how can you say what the power req's are?  Even if it's installed on a standard PC, 400watts of continuous power usage is ridiculously high.  With minimal power saving settings turned on (EIST for processor, drive spin down if not in use) You shouldn't expect more than 70watts of power use (and that's a VERY high estimate).

    Thursday, July 5, 2007 6:01 PM
  •  Rach3 wrote:

    Sorry I've been away and couldn't participate in the thread I started until today.

     

    Ultimately, WHS will be a success or a failure based on whether "Joe Average" with a home network will buy either the program or a dedicated WHS machine.  Firstly, I predict that if it is released only preinstalled in a machine it will fail dismally.  Whilst I respect the views of others that a mail server is beyond the scope of WHS, I beg to disagree.  As a father of 3 computer literate children, I worry about inappropriate email and although each of their computers is fitted with  "nanny" type protective programs, I remain concerned.  If this protection could be centralised with a basic mail server, I for one would find this just as compelling as backup and would certainly look more favourably at buying it.

     

    No one commented on centralised virus protection for the home network and if this could be integrated (even with MS's own anti-virus), then I believe it would be a true winner.

     

    I repeat my asertion that WHS will fail as it stands without at least these 2 extra features and it's release as a standalone software solution. 

     

    I remain impressed with it as a backup solution.

     

    Time will tell - in the meantime I respect the opinions of those who disagree.

     

    How does running the mail server on WHS allow you increased control over your children's email?  At best, it allows you to turnon and configure email spam/content filters on the WHS email server.  But you have access to the exact same controls in a hosted email environment.

    Thursday, July 5, 2007 6:04 PM
  • The first release of WHS will sell, I have no doubt otherwise. It does require a little more knowledge than joe shmoe but then again joe shmoe doesn't have 2+ computers in the house. Does WHS lack features? Some that would be nice, but none that are critical for the first release. WHS right now is placed nicely in to the target niche.

    Lets think of a few instances from this thread.
    -Restore using F11. Sure it works, unless your hard drive catastrophically dies in which case your wife will be irritated.
    -Leaving whs on overnight? no need, just change the backup times.
    -There are other backup products/WHS is too complicated. Sure there are other products, but if you can't figure out WHS, I doubt you'll have any luck with any of the backup products.
    -It doesn't have a mail server, no problem. Mail servers are generally too complicated for joe shmoe to set up and it depends on your isp, etc.. If you know what your doing, just install one http://www.mailenable.com/ you can write a plugin for WHS for it and your golden.
    -Everything in WHS can be found elsewhere. Yes it can, and found cheaper in Linux, but it usually isn't put together in such a nice package and it is always harder to setup and maintain.

    I've shown this product to a number of people I know, many for whom I provide technical support. For those who have multiple computers they think the software is really slick and fills a very important role with added extras.

    Thursday, July 5, 2007 6:04 PM
  • The problems with WHS aren't a lack of SMTP (you can install SMTP, if you want) or AD, it's the things like 20G C drives and forced password policies. It's a lack of drivers and connector problems. It's failed backups and, worse, restores. It has some interesting features like DE but that's just not enough.

    The more I use WHS, the more turned off I am, as an enthusiast, because it wont let me do things I want. If I wanted a freakin' MAC, that can barely be tweaked, I could buy one. I know some bugs are going to be fixed by RTM, but I can't say I'm overly impressed with this build, so far. I'm guessing that we'll be testing another build before RTM. If not, I pity the consumers.

    *shrug*

    Friday, July 6, 2007 12:33 AM
  • I disagree - the server is dead easy to set up and that is how it should be. My wife (who is technology challenged) could install this and it would work.  Microsoft have made it hard to break and, again, that is as it should be.

     

    It is more than a backup system. It is a media server, central storage system, and perhaps in the future Microsoft have their eye on it delivering TV on demand or similar - it could download content overnight and serve it up when requested.

     

    The Home Server is for people to use at home not at work and it needs to be user friendly and break proof.

     

    Shame the computer backup does not work with VISTA 64 bit, but perhaps that will get fixed for the RTM version.

    Saturday, July 7, 2007 6:50 PM
  •  Ian Pace wrote:

    I disagree - the server is dead easy to set up and that is how it should be. My wife (who is technology challenged) could install this and it would work. Microsoft have made it hard to break and, again, that is as it should be.

    It is more than a backup system. It is a media server, central storage system, and perhaps in the future Microsoft have their eye on it delivering TV on demand or similar - it could download content overnight and serve it up when requested.

    The Home Server is for people to use at home not at work and it needs to be user friendly and break proof.

    Shame the computer backup does not work with VISTA 64 bit, but perhaps that will get fixed for the RTM version.



    Great, if MS wants to target (Peter) your wife's lack of skill at the expense of losing geeks and enthusiasts (Sam), that's their choice. I'm not impressed with the lack of options and control.

    I know what is does, I'm trying to get it to do more.

    I know where it goes too, I'm building a home system that does more.

    They already said that x64 connector would come after RTM, search is your friend.

    Saturday, July 7, 2007 7:56 PM
  • My personal opinion is that this will fill a need.  Not necessarily a need that I have, as (like SME), I'm looking for much more than this will offer.  But for my parents, my brother, my in-laws, my friends, etc, this fits their needs great.  Getting them to do backups each night has been impossible, but once the WHS is up, it's automatic as long as the computer is on.  Add in the remote access for support, and it's great for me.  There's the added bonus of allowing them remote access to their files.  Face it - many of us taking part in the beta are beyond the WHS target audience.  If we weren't, we wouldn't be interested in a beta product.  But just because we're personally looking for something more doesn't mean that this isn't a viable product.  My father-in-law told me today that he'd have to be dead before I can take the WHS out of his house.  He's been able to do almost all of the management himself, and he's thrilled with the idea.  He probably is the target audience, but doesn't have the desire to do the beta work himself
    The only additional piece that I would really see as useful would be centralized management of printers for the house.  I did achieve that to a degree by adding two printers on a standard tcpip port.  But that doesn't do anything for the printers that are physically connected to the other workstations, and it's not part of the WHS server design.
    I'm curious to see what plug-ins are available, and yes, an centrally controlled Antivirus solution is high on my list.  The other requirement is a plug-in to do offsite backups - similar to Connected, Carbonite, etc.  After all - all of the backups in the world won't help if someone breaks in and steals all of my PC's including WHS.
    Monday, July 9, 2007 3:46 AM
  •  rw3337 wrote:
    My personal opinion is that this will fill a need. Not necessarily a need that I have, as (like SME), I'm looking for much more than this will offer. But for my parents, my brother, my in-laws, my friends, etc, this fits their needs great. Getting them to do backups each night has been impossible, but once the WHS is up, it's automatic as long as the computer is on. Add in the remote access for support, and it's great for me. There's the added bonus of allowing them remote access to their files. Face it - many of us taking part in the beta are beyond the WHS target audience. If we weren't, we wouldn't be interested in a beta product. But just because we're personally looking for something more doesn't mean that this isn't a viable product. My father-in-law told me today that he'd have to be dead before I can take the WHS out of his house. He's been able to do almost all of the management himself, and he's thrilled with the idea. He probably is the target audience, but doesn't have the desire to do the beta work himself
    The only additional piece that I would really see as useful would be centralized management of printers for the house. I did achieve that to a degree by adding two printers on a standard tcpip port. But that doesn't do anything for the printers that are physically connected to the other workstations, and it's not part of the WHS server design.
    I'm curious to see what plug-ins are available, and yes, an centrally controlled Antivirus solution is high on my list. The other requirement is a plug-in to do offsite backups - similar to Connected, Carbonite, etc. After all - all of the backups in the world won't help if someone breaks in and steals all of my PC's including WHS.


    Well said. The only thing is, WHS is *supposed* to be targeted at the enthusiast/geek market (Sam) too but I don't see much there for us.

    EDIT: for centralized AV, look at Symantec corp. I use it on my home and clients networks.

    Monday, July 9, 2007 4:38 AM
  • it's the things like 20G C drives and forced password policies. It's a lack of drivers and connector problems. It's failed backups and, worse, restores.

    20G C drive hasn't been a problem for what I want it to do, and most people buying it won't know what a 20G partition means. They'll be buying a ready-made box for which drivers aren't a problem, and once they know the password requirements will be quite sorted. Some will use the Internet facing features and some will just be pleased they have a backup process (ie insurance, for which we (most) all pay handsomely in any other regard). I take it as read that the bugs will be addressed before RTM, though whether we see another build here remains to be seen.

     

    As rw3337 said, I can install this for my mother and have some insurance, know that I can RD in and sort problems, and that she won't be messing with it.

     

    If you are knowledgeable (as you are) you can reconfigure the drive, select hardware for which there are drivers (it is W2k3 after all, and many XP drivers seem to work), hack the password policy and install other things it's not as yet designed for. It is only v1, after all.

     

    But when they're marketing it, you can bet which line of customers they'll be targettting....!

    Monday, July 9, 2007 11:44 PM
  • Whilst I respect the views of others that a mail server is beyond the scope of WHS, I beg to disagree. 

    I don't think it's necessarily beyond the scope of WHS, rather more beyond the scope of a large percentage of its target audience. Those who are sufficiently aware can install something suitable (eg VPOP3) and use it as they wish. I would agree with other posters though - no one else I know uses a locally mail server, they either have a web e-mail client (as members of your family could already have in addition to any other mail solution) or hosted domains.

    Monday, July 9, 2007 11:49 PM
  •  Crash2975 wrote:

    it's the things like 20G C drives and forced password policies. It's a lack of drivers and connector problems. It's failed backups and, worse, restores.

    20G C drive hasn't been a problem for what I want it to do, and most people buying it won't know what a 20G partition means. They'll be buying a ready-made box for which drivers aren't a problem, and once they know the password requirements will be quite sorted. Some will use the Internet facing features and some will just be pleased they have a backup process (ie insurance, for which we (most) all pay handsomely in any other regard). I take it as read that the bugs will be addressed before RTM, though whether we see another build here remains to be seen.

    As rw3337 said, I can install this for my mother and have some insurance, know that I can RD in and sort problems, and that she won't be messing with it.

    If you are knowledgeable (as you are) you can reconfigure the drive, select hardware for which there are drivers (it is W2k3 after all, and many XP drivers seem to work), hack the password policy and install other things it's not as yet designed for. It is only v1, after all.

    But when they're marketing it, you can bet which line of customers they'll be targettting....!


    The thing is MS claims to be targeting the enthusiast/geek (Sam) market too but we don't get much flexibility. While I did figure out how to resize the drive how I want it, it's not supported and that's why they need to give us an options. Same with the password policy, which the devs have already said will be changing, just we don't know to what. If WHS was just targeted the less technical (Peter) then it's great but I don't see enough here, for me, to make it worth buying. As I said in another thread if I wanted a locked down, no options, inflexible OS, I could buy a Mac. Wink


    Tuesday, July 10, 2007 12:13 AM