Nice post over at the Windows Home Server Team Blog today in which Product Planner Todd Headrick asks readers to imagine a world with TWO versions of Windows Home Server – a basic version and an “advanced” version.
So, now we are back in the product planning phase and culling through all of these suggestions. What if we had 2 versions of Windows Home Server – one for the “basic” household and one for the more “advanced” household. What should we think about using as limits for the number of users and computers for a “basic” version and for an “advanced” version?
Todd’s post focuses on additional user limits, but if there were a premium version of Windows Home Server, I’m sure there could be a lot more in it too. Certainly I can see the advanced version offering the improved digital media integration we’re all looking for with Windows Media Center, leaving a much cheaper basic version free to compete with dedicated NAS devices.
Can you see a world with two SKUs of Windows Home Server? If so, how would they differ? And which one would you want running on your home server? A basic version giving you a similar experience and feature set to today’s Windows Home Server, so something a bit more advanced?
Certainly seems like developing an advanced version of Windows Home Server is in the product team’s thoughts right now.
10. January 2009 at 4:33 am
Isn’t the whole point to WHS to keep is simple? When you start talking about AD,DHCP, etc you are now going outside the realm of simple(for home users). Majority of home users have no idea what those are and could care less what they do. If you want those features then get 2003 or 2008 Server. Isn’t the name Windows HOME Server? Maybe I am wrong but I thought the idea here for WHS is so that a home user without a lot of knowledge can plug in a few cables and have this set up. If the average home user was to read this they would have no idea what majority of this means and plastering that all over the marketing crap would turn them away in a minute.
I do however agree that maybe there should be some functionality that supports MCE. I also agree that if you want to have some of these functions like Exchange,webserver,etc then these should be done strictly through add ins. Like others have mentioned before, look at what has been done with Vista. Will all the versions of Vista it’s no wonder the average user gets confused as to what feature each version has and doesn’t have. Doing the same to WHS will have the same consequences. Please just leave it as one version.
12. January 2009 at 3:58 pm
I think WHS is already advanced when it comes to the average home users I know… they barely know that they can access other computers on their network – if they have a network – let alone what a server is. I don’t like the idea of two versions – just keep beefing up the one version and let the “advanced” features be add-ons that are included (ie. licensed with WHS) but aren’t OOTB enabled – allowing the “basic” folks to use the basic function and let the “advanced” folks trudge through the advanced features. And please add better media streaming capabilities OOTB.
14. January 2009 at 4:04 pm
Multiple versions is NOT necessary, just utilize the add on feature and make official add ons for whatever extra service you need, including more user licenses.
Features I’d like to see:
- Strong Media Center integration!!!!!!!!!!
- Some method of online/remote storage automation, encrypted of course.
- Integrated backup of the server to DVD.
15. January 2009 at 4:31 am
I completely disagree with the keep it simple philosophy.
Surveys conducted show that 25% of all early WHS users used WHS for business purposes as well as the norm.
Exchange ‘lite’ should be mandatory. If it can be bundled with SBS for nix, WHS should get a look in.
A basic version (with SOLID media features) and an advanced version with all the basic stuff AND business related features for users with smart phones and Exchange should be offered.
Imagine the deluge of extra sales WHS would get from the SOHO market and people that wanted to host their own mail?
Frankly WHS would be huge.
DVD backup? For multi terabyte servers? Come on.
Online storage is coming via Live Mesh so it should be available sometime soon for WHS 1.0 users so we won’t have to rely on WHS 2.0 for this.
WHS is great, I have appreciated it on a daily basis since I put my rig together; MS just need to make it epic.
Basic business related features (for 10 users) including OWA and OMA should be included.
We don’t want Linux or NAS devices showing WHS the way. We have a fully fledged server here so we should be using it to the max.
Apple’s new time machine gizmo will soon be like WHS…now is the time to strike and put it beyond the rest…Exchange lite is the thing that others can’t easily emulate.
I don’t want active directory and roaming profiles…just Exchange for 10 users with the remote side covered.
It’s simple to setup on SBS so a WHS version should be a wizard away from stardom.
15. January 2009 at 12:59 pm
@ExchangeMe! – Um not everyone has multi terabyte servers. DVD backup for the OS setup, folders, addons and such, not the HDD backup data.
It’s called windows HOME server for a reason, the intent is for HOME use. A small busness edition maybe?
15. January 2009 at 7:39 pm
I agree with Zuntar. As I posted above, it is called Windows HOME Server. Not Windows Business server. If you want to run a server for business then use one of server versions (standard,web,etc). I could be wrong but I thought this was designed for people without a lot of networking knowledge, which explains the 25% that used it for their business. The IT people hired didn’t know anything about domains and properly setting up a network.
Keep it as one version and for the advanced things people want make them add ons.
15. January 2009 at 8:14 pm
Hi Everybody,
The reason small businesses are using WHS is because everybody is NOT an IT expert, not all IT experts are IT experts they just think they are because they know more about IT than anybody else they know.
You should NOT have to be an IT expert to set up a server & WHS proves that. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist either.
I was a CNE (Certified NetWare Engineer) from Jan 1990 until 1996. I had my own Novell servers in my house during that time with Diskless Boot Windows 3.1 WorkStation, ALL software running from the Server.
Well Novell does NOT rule the server market since 1996, thats when I changed jobs because I saw their down fall coming but they did NOT care.
Now to the present. I was looking for a NAS with 1TB or larger in September 2008 when I stumbled across the WHS from Fujitsu-Siemens.
What GREAT piece of work, I bought one immediately with 2TB of storage space and I will add more as needed. I never expected something this good from Microsoft and I am happy that they have it BUT it is a well kept secret that needs to get out.
It will get out with MORE and MORE satisfied customers that show them to their families and friends and when they see what all it can do for us they will know when the time has come for them to get one also.
The WHS should be able to do anything any other server can do but be configurable, It should start in the simple mode as it was designed and allow for the experienced user to configure it for more and it should grow without breaking the bank.
WHS is EXACTLY what the server market needs for whoever needs a server. The WHS configuration simplicity can be used by EVERYONE. With an expert/advanced mode everyone CAN be an expert as far as they want or need to be.
Small businesses DON’T have the money to afford an IT expert for such simple stuff as setting a server in the few different mode that are needed.
I was/am able to bend the WHS to what I need because I know where the configuration points are. But everyone should NOT be required to have to know all of this when it can be presented in a user friendly way, the way the WHS does it.
Microsoft would do well to offer this simple interface for server configuration on the SBS servers as well. They already paid for it’s development and it would help the Small Businesses to get there more expensive system configured for less and get more out of the entire system as it should be.
I would LOVE to help Microsoft get their WHS configuration interface up to an expert/advanced mode so that I would NOT have to go around it to configure the things that they could do by asking the RIGHT questions in the RIGHT order, just like an IT expert would do as he/she is setting a system up in the first place.
All servers should be as easy as the WHS to get up and running, people do it everyday.
Remember with computers it is ALL just ones and zeros, the rest is just human interpretation depending on how you look at it.
Have a nice day!!
Sincerely,
Frank Andrew Easton
18. January 2009 at 11:51 pm
When I mention basic business functions I am talking Exchange for 10 users with OMA and OWA (Mobile phone and web based email access).
I don’t want domains, active directory, nor roaming profiles.
On SBS2003, Exchange is wizard driven and simple. Plug in the basic mail account details and you’re off with the Dynamic DNS and SSL cert that MS offers for WHS.
This can be simplified and wizard driven like normal WHS features.
If WHS gets mired down to the nth degree with simplicity shouldn’t it just be downgraded to a NAS device and appropriately swamped by all the cheap NASs on the market because it’s too expensive?
Why go to the trouble of having something that IS a fully fledged server OS just to stagnate it to the point where a NAS will do the job for significantly less of the hard earned folding stuff?
WHS 2.0 is moving to the Server2008R2 code complete with x64 support…this isn’t just a NAS and should be utilised accordingly.
All I’m asking for is Exchange lite, improved media and I’m happy.
Is that so high falluting and hard to work with?
If you can configure your mail account in Outlook, you can run a wizard that sets up Exchange lite.
Instantly a quarter of all the people owning WHS will see a BIG benefit and you never know, the other 75% might find the features pretty useful as well.
30. January 2009 at 7:47 pm
I totally agree that WHS 2.0 should come with Exchange “lite”. That would be awesome. Now I have WHS in one box and Exchange 2003 in another box, and I have not been able to configure RPC over HTTP again, like I had before WHS was added to the household. OWA is also a mess. I’ve just installed a VPN client like Hamachi, to avoid the hassle. So please include Exchange in WHS 2.0!!
1. February 2009 at 6:13 am
Well, I would certainly be for an improvement in any scenario. Be it Add-ins, or 2 versions. Agreed that the “average” home user has everything they need with WHS. But I’m not the average user! I want more, and I’ll tweak until I get it! haha.
But if MS comes up with a fully supported idea that keeps my movies safe, I’m all for it! Right now, I’ve got 8Tb of movies, and only 6 of which safely backed up to other drives. I’ve got the DVD’s, but god help me if I ever have to reload the whole damn thing. Online storage isn’t an option for someone like me, god if it was I’d be in heaven!
but just to have a more media centric version of WHS. Something that incorperates what a program like “My Movies” does so that I don’t have to keep searching for components would be awesome!
My ideal world would be a full WHS-Media Edition, that maybe had… a “WHS-Connector” that was basically an “extender” service to the other PC’s in the house! Turn ANY PC into a Media Center on your home network. No fussing about with buying dedicated extenders, no worrying about folder navigation on another Media Center. Just one, central program, that is connected to for all your media needs
I’ve played with Windows 7, and they are making great strides on the Media Center application. I can’t wait to see what’s next. but my hope would be to have the ability to map media folders directly in, and have a single server do it all with a few clicks! hell, even have my recorded TV be able to have a remote storage location, and still be visible from the “Recorded TV” button on all 4 of my Media Centers would be gold to me!
The average user isn’t like me, I have 3 desktops, 3 laptops, and 4 media centers, one for each TV in the house… my WHS has been a godsend, but I want more!
LoL
9. February 2009 at 3:12 pm
For my personal needs, the current version of WHS is quite sufficient. Perhaps some users need more Media Center capabilities or some other feature specific to their particular needs, but these needs can probably be better served with add-ins. Perhaps there is a need for an SMB Server that somehow falls in between WHS HOME Server and Server 2008 that would really be beyond what a WHS is intended for, but ideal in situations that Server 2008 might be an over kill. In other words, my opinion is that WHS only needs a few add-ins to make it work for all HOME needs, not a completely new version to confuse the user as to which version they need, and to add difficulty to installation and configuration. Am I plugging for a “modular” system?
12. February 2009 at 5:03 am
Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion about what features they want in WHS, but the focus seems to have been lost in some posts. It’s not about what should be in WHS, but whether to segment the product into two versions with different applications.
Also, bear in mind, features are fine but add up to more cost. It’s a balance to find the correct feature set to appeal to the consumers in a given market, who have their own budgets compared to other segments. This is why we’re having this discussion, to ask ourselves whether there are two different markets for this product.
The answer does seem to be yes, since the comments are polarizing on this issue. Exactly what features should be included in which version will be a discussion for another day.
12. February 2009 at 1:05 pm
@Focus on the issue -
I don`t buy your logic. Saying “The answer does seem to be yes, since the comments are polarizing on this issue” misses the point a little. Customers always behave like this when polled on such a question.
When customers are polled on such things they will always respond in a similar way to how they have on this thread. So what value does that add? It certainly doens`t tell you if its a sensible thing to do or not.
Put the features into WHS that the majority of people want (enhanced media capabilities) make the range of SKU`s as simple and easy to understand as possible. Don`t delegate responsibility for product strategy to dumb users. Do the analysis properly. Is it really that difficult?
25. February 2009 at 2:59 pm
I am a simple person that just likes to have basic stuff. Over time the basic stuff grows ( PC,Mac,XP,ipod,iphone,mp3,digital camera,Xbox etc,) I purchased them to use not to collect dust. The sever(WHS) is a start but even I find I want more because I have stuff in other locations I would like to access (my church PC’s, vacation home pc’s,xbox’s etc) I do not want to lug this equipment everwhere I go. I do want access to them. I am not an IT person but just want advance/simple solutions to a growing technical world. I have read some of the things that the WHS can do but I have three locations with Stuff ( separate internet connections) But can not afford an IT expert to network this stuff. Yes I would like simple but would like to go into advance. Without the expense and having to go back to school. I like to focus on what I do not becoming a network guru. I do not mind spending money but I do not want to waste it on the next years model (buying every year to keep up) An upgrade now and again is fine. Can you keep it simple and advance?
I can offer more info on my stuff that I want to network if needed.
Simple but want to stay in-tune.
Thanks
28. February 2009 at 4:50 pm
#1. Make it work, make it integrate with MediaCenter in a natural way.
#2. Let us put/connect our TV Tuners directly to WHS so we can stream/record this all over. (allow remote controls to “remote control” the tuners if they are connected to a local HTPC)
#3. Let us receive Voice mails in WHS and manage through a UI in MediaCenter and also add hardware/software support in WHS to catch callerID via SIP or Analog.
#4. Leave the Add-Ons as is, and stimulate HOME user focus amnf dev community. I don’t care about the RPM of the WHS CPU FAN.
That’s it.. Home Focus. Make it simple, give it a purpose beyond backup as it is consuming energy.
28. February 2009 at 5:28 pm
Oh – @Microsoft, DRM is good, however; Please don’t hold the creativity and features back and stop limit yourself to deliver the services customer wants from your products, show the DRM motivated industry what is requested and necessary instead. Drive and drive fast, do not follow old horses! Everything changes at some point, and if there is a demand from the majority in our democratic world (users) that we like to use digital media in a certain way, I don’t think that software industry should be the guardian preventing evolution towards simplicity and ease of life. Laws, nation, police and companies have to find new laws, ways and business models adapting to what the computer generation want. to maintain respect for the law, laws needs to be manageable. Meaning, if law are not manageable by the legal authorities they are not effective and the respect for law and order diminish. Think twice before agreeing to support copyright laws that are impossible to secure. Let the business get incentives to change business model rather than spending money on a close to impossible task to preserve a dying distribution model (it’s no difference spending tax money on the automotive industry directly or indirectly to the police and legal system in order to preserve industries that is no longer desired in their current form). Artist deserve their money, let them focus on their artistry and force the distributors to rethink their business model in stead. prevent stagnation and avoid Artists to suffer due to lack of creativity on their so called money making/generating partners. I like to pay, but let me pay for the service I like to use and offer a model based on that.
- In short. Let us Use MediaCenter as it should work and we like!
Sorry for the politica content, I just like to have MediaCenter and WHS working together
3. March 2009 at 5:44 am
I agree with Rob: I can completely understand that a small business owner might want to use WHS, and hey, more power to them! But that should not be a reason to begin bloating up the thing with a bunch of stuff that only a small segment of the user base will implement. Just keep the thing focused; it’s been dubbed Windows Home Server for a reason. MS always seems to get themselves into trouble trying to be all things to all people. I love the fact that when I fired up a new Vista machine last night, it magically discovered my WHS box, and then asked me if I wanted it to join up.
With home-use products, I believe the mantra should be, “Would my mother use it?” My mum’s no dummy (didn’t mean to insinuate anything, Mom), but she also has no tolerance for sitting in front of a computer for days on end, trying to get a new piece of technology to do what its supposed to. It’s the Apple Appeal–keep it simple and it will remain useful. Well, that and the fact that they seem to like wrapping everything in shiny metal alloys.
10. March 2009 at 3:22 pm
I’m new to this forum having but decided to try out the WHS experience, initially as a NAS for my SBS network.
Now I’m what you’d could probably call a typically SBS user, I used to employ a dozen or more people, some software contractors and used the Exchange features and OMA/OWA to get access globally. I have now had the SBS for nearly 4 years and since moving some of my business to India it has become perhaps an advanced home server. However the SBS is a pain. I’ve almost become by default an MCSE, only because of the bizarre issues that a living server foists upon you and the fact that I cannot afford to pay a guy to come and rectify, what are primiarily MS software problems.
In this area the WHS is a breath of fresh air but I have still had to reload it from scratch once and the incessant client updates verges on the ridiculous.
In response to the two versions which is the lead comment. Why not work on keeping the simple user interface and extend this to a commercial plug-in for business to offer advanced facilites, such as working in a domain. This could be done by “wizards” to simplify installation and perhaps an update pack such as with the SBS premium package, downloadable of course may be the way to go.
Myself, although it is not in the licence, I have now got the WHS working in the SBS domain (after many hours looking a how and what you poke in the register). It is brilliant at backing up the business yet giving my kids access to files they need, it gives me peace of mind knowing that they cannot delete my 2000 CD’s I have spent hours loading onto my music server (XP-pro), yet they can play the music from anywhere and that they cannot access my business files that are on the SBS. Therefore, in summary, way to go – just simple with advanced add-ins that may cost a fee that are based on requirements, afterall isn’t this the original MS business model?
@Chris -
14. March 2009 at 3:42 pm
I have been using WHS lately >I have some spare poweredge 2650 wich work awsome for itbeing able to link and backup all your home mail would be awsome<
I currently use xbox 360 for playing my streaming movies and music and pics straight from the WHS but this exposes what I think chould be a major enhancement for WHS
Xbox 360 roaming profiles. You should be able to setup a space that will let you store your live profiles and game saves so that when you goto other xbox’s in the house I dont need to rip out my HD and carry it around I chould log into any xbox choose my profile and be set..
24. March 2009 at 4:43 pm
OMG thats such a good idea!
plonka2000
24. March 2009 at 11:16 pm
Exchange lite for a Home Server? Perhaps but come on people, running a mail server is not what most home users want. If they could implement a light easy to use add-in, allow user@youraccound.homeserver.com to work out of the box, this might work, but what most home users want is the back-up abilities, File / Media sharing of WHS.
I say leave webmail, email servers to add-on / 3rd party people for now and work on allowing Media Center systems to use WHS as a centralized Recordings and Media repository for serving how ever many Media Center workstations connect to it.
Everyone will have their personal flavor of ideal, I would love to see WHS allow a bunch of tuner cards which Media Centers can access for live TV so that the Media Centers would not need any tuners, but that’s just me, at the very least a place where media centers can store their recordings and info centrally would be a huge jump forward, want to add the icing on the cake? Add in commercial detection and enconding to other formats for smaller file sizes to the WHS rig and real media streaming capabilities to WHS website and you have a winner for many home users…
1. April 2009 at 11:23 am
As others have stated the SoHo market is a largely untapped market for Microsoft.
I disagree with those calling for Exchange, if you don’t need SBS or EBS server because your too small then you are far better of using one of the many hosted exchange options available. Micro businesses can’t afford the extra costs of maintaining Exchange when it starts to go wrong.
I would love to see fully supported add-in for controlling Windows Servers built in capabilities DHCP, DNS, RAS etc. as these would increase flexability for the SoHo market PXE boot for the PC recovery disk and optionally fresh deployment is somethig I’m working on at the moment. DFS support for multi site sync would be a great SoHo add-in too.
But really these are quite big things to acheive and I wouldn’t like the simple system to get too cluttered.
2. April 2009 at 2:29 pm
Maybe the discussion regarding “exchange lite” needs a different title. I think of it more like “Outlook Server”, because Outlook was not designed to work with its mail store on a network file system. I have access to several PC’s in the house, and there will be more in the future. I also want to have all my e-mail in one place, and only one copy of all that e-mail (except for back-ups). I think the outlook add-in is a step in the right direction, but I think something more comprehensive that desktop Outlook can integrate with would be better. I don’t see having an SMTP server and all the admin headaches that come with that. I see Outlook Server accessing mail accounts on ISP mail servers, and downloading them, and doing things that Outlook workstation does, running rules and alerts for example.
Extensions to the model that do bring us into Exchange territory would be things like shared calendars and support for mobile devices and web access. I’d love to get rid of the calendar on the fridge and have a touchscreen instead that can access e-mail and shared calendars. I’d love to check that calendar when I’m away when I’m setting up appointments. The biggest challenge is making it easy enough that everyone in my family will connect up with the idea, and this is where I think the solution isn’t just “exchange lite”, but extending the “home server” concept. Maybe a name like “Outlook Home Server” would capture it.
On related topic that goes back to another comment regarding voice mail on WHS, I’ve been looking for a home telephone solution. With all this networking in the house, I think there’s an opportunity for a home voip system, and having this connect with, or even be part of OHS would be a logical extension. It would have to work like a key system for my family to adopt it, and fetch voicemail from the telco if you get voice mail while your line is in use. I’ve been looking at VOIP PBX systems, but they’re just way to flexible and complicated for home use, so I can’t see a home version of Asterisk being practical, but I think it would be nice to have a platform for integrating family communications.
2. April 2009 at 4:45 pm
I would say that basic could support 5 users and advanced 15 users. I mean I myself have several machines lying around even though I am one user.
But really what I want is a Windows Home Server Media Extender OS. One that is lightweight and focused on and optimized for doing only one thing: playing back my content stored on my WHS. That means I don’t want any crap about format compatibility like FLAC or .mov etc. Everything that exists on my WHS better play.
I would put it on or bundle with a $300 Atom based nettop machine.
2. April 2009 at 5:05 pm
@dman1092 – totally agree. While it is by far the closest to a Microsoft OS/product I can safely leave in the care of my parents, it still isn’t quite there.
I consider myself fairly knowledgeable about computers/networks etc., but sometimes this product confuses me.
It really needs to be made bulletproof. Everything up to and including restoring the server must be made easy enough and harmless enough that anyone regardless of technical knowledge can perform.
That means the backup database must be duplicated in the OS. I use BDBB to do that, but it should be built in.
Recovery must be made simple. You should be able to backup the server OS using PC backup. You should then be able to restore the server at any time by initiating it in the console. The machine could reboot and automatically boot into a mini OS that allows you to restore the server itself from any backups held in the pooled storage of the system. You should similarly have the first backup or image of the machine in factory fresh state (or clean install state) so that you can use it to restore to factory fresh state.
Yes the device should be simple enough that it knows to either accept an IP from the router or assign itself one automatically. It should come with a regularly updated set of scripts for popular routers that automatically changes the required port forwarding settings for the user. Sure it’s a lot of work, but that’s what needs to be done in order for it be as friendly as it needs to be to take off.
I mean it needs to be as simple as “Your router (picture of router) cannot “find me”(click to read actual technical explanation). Can I attempt to automatically change your router settings so that it can? (again click on the underlined word “change” to read the full technical explanation of what it is going to do).”
That is the level it needs to communicate with users. Simple explanations for most people and underlined words to let technical types read the full issue. That way we can feel in control while most people can also feel in control of their server.
6. April 2009 at 4:32 pm
@Trent -
Most of what you ask for can be done free with Sharepoint services, remember that there are many options already for advanced users who rdp or direct login to the server in instead of using the WHS Console. Sharepoint has almost all the features and more, shared calendars, events and with plugins and addins for that, well the sky is the limit. Also for all those who desperately want a mail server on their WHS, try SmarterMail – http://www.smartertools.com
It runs just fine on WHS, offers web access and it a nice little package.
7. April 2009 at 6:19 pm
I do not know if Microsoft is listening but I hope they do
I read the many interesting and valuable comments.
And the point I would like to make is that WHS is all about the connected home. If it isn’t it should be. The connected home means the connected family (including the extended family)
The family has 2 main issues when it comes to be connected (access to)
1 entertaiment, 2 communications
That said it becomes easy to envision the WHS
1 it needs access to external media, (internet, off-air TV and radio)
(perhaps a usb stick receiver)
2 it should provide storage and streaming media for the home
3 it should provide email for the whole family
4 it should provide connectivity for all media devices at home
5 it should provide a website for the family to present itself to the outside
Now it is up to Microsoft to provide in such a way that a least one person in the family can set up (user friendly)
and that it seamlessly integrates with the PCs and other devices in the home (not the case now)
7. April 2009 at 6:32 pm
PART 2
Today with all respect it is too “techni” conncetor software and all.
Microsoft has a tremendous opportunity to shape the connceted home but it lacks to true consumer angle coming from the world of business computing.
So WHS 2.0 and its underlying hardware is in effect and easy thing to envision. Ihope they go for it now that they have proven that there is a segment in the market.
Note: Family and very small business is the same segment so do not bother to make a distinction between them.
8. April 2009 at 6:39 pm
@Tom
It would be lovely if Microsoft was able to provide everything you’ve asked for but on the one hand you want it to be simple and on the other you want email, and a webserver ontop of media streaming and simple backup.
My first point would be that configuring a domain name registered with any one of thousands of companies on the web pointing correct cnames and the MX records at the server or preferably mx backup server incase the family broadband goes down… you get my drift.
Second if you want a webserver and probably ftp for the extended family to upload stuff to you need a hardware firewall infront of it or it’s going to get hacked to death along with all your precious photo’s…
Your all in one box will always be over complex. I would love to see the next WHS able to backup my parents computers over the internet, confirm all their windows updates have been installed and if possible rebuild the PC from PXE boot with little configuration (WDS already provides this but can’t be run without AD and the Repair CD is already a fully customised WinPE 2 cd)
After that lets add an add-in that allows SoHo’s access to DHCP and DNS settings (these would be needed for PXE boot which is why the current CD restore system exists to keep it simple)
Printer’s, scanners and other devices on a second add-in (already happening in windows 7)
For eMail and web I’d say hotmail/office live mail but no doubt microsoft would get sued for anti-trust again on that score, gmail google apps is great too but really to make email simple it has to be hosted and with the providers creating add-ins. There are already loads of great hosts doing things with simple websites and with a little more knowledge and a cheep template CMS is getting good.
24. April 2009 at 6:12 pm
The feature I want to see implemented the most in WHS and for wich I would pay extra is a software raid similar to UnRaid from http://www.lime-technology.com/ . That would be simply awesome to have software parity integrating flexible disk management. I wouldn't mind the performance loss compared with RAID5 since the thing is serving datas through LAN.
5. May 2009 at 2:07 am
I agree with everybody and with nobody. It is a Home server that is hamstrung at the moment. We need add-in's that are simply to install and just work. One person said that the add-in's were being written for HP boxes, people this is windows, it should have all the drivers for all of the hardware (be nice wouldn't it). Now MS needs to have a simple installer that can take the add-in's and make them work. This way everybody gets what they want and we keep the KISS principle. Look at Firefox, the add-in's for WHS should be as simple as add-in's for Firefox. The people in this forum have a lot of knowledge, know how and great ideas. We should be able to take WHS and make it what we want it to be, a server for everyone and every home or small business. If you don't want a feature, don't install the add-in. On the opposite side of this add-in's should also be simple to uninstall when you no longer want them.
Well enough of my rant
6. September 2009 at 9:21 am
Why not have ONE version with all the advanced features?
Can’t Microsoft learn anything from Apple? One flavour for all is a much better measure. Think about it. More features on “Windows Home Server”, it gets buzz as a positive thing, people are excited about it, more positivity.
More SKUs = more confusion. Does anyone out there REALLY know the differnce between the different Vista flavours? Answer: YES, some IT specialists. Most people are confused tho.
KISS = Keep it simple, stupid. One awesome sku please.
26. November 2009 at 10:37 am
I have used whs 5 months and i must say dat i really mis the RAID options & they must bring out a Windows Home Server Pro Edition. I'm nou running a QNAP 419P because whs didnt had raid.