revo1

Windows Home Server vs Windows Home Server 2011 – Is It Worth Upgrading?

Ah, it should have been different to this. When I think back to the first conversations I had with Microsoft about Windows Home Server 2011, or “Vail” as it was known back then, they were exciting times – discussions brimming with optimism, following the successful launch of the first generation of the platform. The v1 data corruption bug was in the past, and the talk was of new features that would allow Windows Home Server to build momentum from its early adopter phase into a more robust, more mainstream product. The move  to the underlying Windows Server 2008 R2 platform would mean no more development on the legacy Windows Server 2003 OS, enabling better driver support and importantly, enhancing the opportunities for cross-collaboration with other development teams in Microsoft.

Fast forward  2+ years, and it’s fair to say the product that will ship at some point this year is a pale shadow of what Vail could, and should have been. Microsoft’s reorganisation to bring together the home and small business server teams, whilst undoubtedly sensible from a commercial perspective, led to an organisation that from the outside appears to be less nimble, less single-minded and less free to innovate. Vitally, it’s a team that has had to develop not one, but four products simultaneously, in the shape of Windows Small Business Server 2011, Windows Small Business Server Essentials 2011, Windows Storage Server 2008 R2 Essentials and finally Windows Home Server 2011. With a huge amount to deliver, it’s understandable that feature sets across the four SKUs would converge. And with three lucrative, well established business customers to serve, and one low margin, high risk consumer market to crack, it doesn’t take a genius to work out where the effort would be spent.

All this before we’ve even started a discussion about the removal of Drive Extender. The decision to remove Windows Home Server’s storage pooling technology undoubtedly delayed the release of the “Colorado” suite of products (Windows Small Business Server Essentials 2011 “Aurora”, Windows Storage Server 2008 R2 Essentials “Breckenridge” and finally Windows Home Server 2011 “Vail”) but that aside, with a four year gap between the release of Windows Home Server v1 and its successor, clearly Microsoft have had a mountain to climb getting Vail out of the door.

So, here we are at the start of the Windows Home Server 2011 era. Many of you have tried out the beta and release candidates, many have avoided the test release due to the Drive Extender debacle. But the question in most WHS v1 users minds today is whether they should consider upgrading to Windows Home Server 2011. As a WHS v1 user myself, it’s a question I’ve been pondering personally for the last three months, and being totally honest with you, I still haven’t made a decision. As I stated at the time, the loss of Drive Extender ripped the heart out of Windows Home Server, but the new edition retains a lot of new features (despite what you may think, Microsoft developers haven’t been sitting on their hands for the last four years). So, it’s time for an equation – do the new features in Windows Home Server 2011 outweigh the loss of Drive Extender? If the answer is yes, then I’m going to jump in. If not, then I’ll stick with v1 until it reaches end of life (scheduled for 2013) and review my options then.

(Obviously, WGS being WGS, we’ll be covering WHS 2011 either way, and there’ll be a couple of WHS 2011 test servers knocking around for reviews – but I’m talking about upgrading my “production” v1 home server.)

So, whilst I know many are still very upset at the loss of DE (and understandably so), let’s suspend that for a few minutes as we take an objective comparison between Windows Home Server v1 and WHS 2011, feature by feature to build the equation. Doing so will hopefully inform my personal upgrade decision, and may inform yours too.

One note before we get started – I’ve deliberately delayed publishing this comparison to allow the dust to settle around the DE decision and review the Windows Home Server 2011 Release Candidate, which should be feature complete. We’re also now aware of a number of third-party developments which flesh out the Windows Home Server 2011 story a little, and of course, additional third-party solutions may come to the fore at any time, so consider this a preliminary view with all of the information we have available at this time.

Cost

Let’s start with an easy one. Whilst Windows Home Server 2011′s pricing has yet to be announced, Microsoft aren’t going to give it away for free (unless you’re on an MSDN/TechNet subscription). Let’s assume for now that Microsoft go for a similar price to WHS v1 – around the $100 mark. That’s $100 you don’t have to spend if you stick with WHS v1, right?

WHS v1WHS 2011Winner
Free - well, you've already bought it, so there's no extra charge for sticking with it.No pricing yet announced, but let's assume a similar price to v1 - $100.WHS v1

Hardware Requirements

Before digging into the software, let’s take a look at the hardware requirements. Depending on your current setup, upgrading to Windows Home Server may require you to purchase new hardware. Why? Two reasons stand out. The first is that like all recent Windows Server operating systems, Windows Home Server 2011 requires a 64-bit compatible processor. Now most modern processors fit the bill, but if you’re running an older home server, or if, like many, you re-purposed an ageing PC for home server use, it may be time to crack open the wallet.

Secondly, the march of time has led to Windows Home Server 2011 requiring more powerful hardware than its predecessor. If your v1 home server brushes Microsoft’s minimum specifications, again, upgrading is going to require some investment. So, for this comparison, I’m working on the basis that lower power, no investment required is better than having to spend money.

WHS v1WHS 2011Winner
1 GHz Intel Pentium 3 Processor or equivalent
512Mb RAM
70GB Hard Drive
1.4 GHz 64-bit Processor
2GB RAM
At least one 160GB Hard Drive
WHS v1

As a result, we can clearly see that Windows Home Server v1 runs on older, lower specification hardware, and if you’re an existing v1 WHS user, you don’t need to spend any money if you don’t upgrade. So, v1 wins the Hardware Requirements comparison.

Migration

Let’s think about migration next. There is no easy method for upgrading from Windows Home Server v1 to Windows Home Server 2011 on the same hardware. Like all x86 to x64 operating system upgrades, it has to be a clean install. For the more technical amongst you (and let’s remember, WGS has a pretty technical readership), a clean install isn’t so much of an issue, but the migration path is exacerbated by the fact that you like have a huge amount of data sitting on your home server. Unless you’re happy to wipe off all of that data, you’re going to need to move all of that data on to an external hard drive or network PC, format your drives, install Windows Home Server 2011, then copy all of your data back again. It’s not a technically troublesome task, but it is inconvenient, and will take some time and consideration to ensure you don’t lose any data.

I fed back the need/opportunity for Microsoft to create some kind of migration tools to make the upgrade from v1 to 2011 more palatable over two years ago. I’m sure I’m not the only one to have proffered that feedback. Those tools do not exist, and I doubt whether they will do. So, again for comparison, we’ll work on the basis that no effort is better than a lot of effort, and that means staying with v1 wins the migration battle.

WHS v1WHS 2011Winner
No migration required.Data removal, clean install and data replacement required.WHS v1

Underlying Platform

We often think of Windows Home Server as an operating system – that’s not strictly true. It’s actually a set of features and services that sit atop of an underlying platform. In the case of Windows Home Server v1, it’s hosted on the wildly popular, if venerable Windows Server 2003, an operating system that is still supported by Microsoft when it comes to serious bug fixes and security issues, but is no longer actively developed. Increasingly, it will no longer be developed for - when it comes to operating systems, newer is often (but not always) better, and in the case of Windows Home Server 2011, sitting on the all-new Windows Server 2008 R2 Service Pack 1 means you have the latest and greatest underlying technology powering the platform. As an added bonus,a healthy chunk of that software being developed for Windows Server 2008 R2 is going to work with Windows Home Server 2011 (depending on the role requirements). Vitally, driver support for new hardware is much, much better in the new platform, and that includes support for high-capacity, Advanced Format hard drives. Chalk one up for Windows Home Server 2011.

WHS v1WHS 2011Winner
Windows Server 2003 - still supported for security updates, but now showing its age with limited support for new hardware.Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1 - Microsoft's latest and greatest server OS, with enhanced driver support via Windows Update.WHS 2011

OEM Support

A difficult one to call. In its time, Windows Home Server v1 had reasonable OEM support from hardware manufacturers, with mainstream vendors such as HP, Lenovo, LaCie, ASUS and Acer selling home servers in major markets around the world. There was also a pleasing variety of models from low cost, single drive units through to 4 and 8 bay servers available. Today’s picture is a little different, and the number of vendorsrevo11 150x150 Windows Home Server vs Windows Home Server 2011   Is It Worth Upgrading? is definitely in decline. Dig around, though, and you can still find v1 hardware on sale. On the flip side, those same manufacturers have hardly been clamouring to support Microsoft’s new platform. To date, Redmond have only mentioned Acer and UK system builder Tranquil PC pledging any kind of support to Windows Home Server 2011, although conversations I had with LaCie at CES this year suggest they may also jump in with hardware later in the year. WHS 2011′s close kinship with Windows Small Business Server Essentials 2011 may present some hope for the platform, as we’re sure to see some of the major OEMs step up to participate in the small business market, but whether they’ll offer Windows Home Server 2011 as an installed option remains to be seen. If not, then a self-install may be an option for those desperate for OEM hardware. Microsoft remain tight lipped on OEM support for Windows SBS Essentials 2011 at this time. On balance, I’m calling this one a tie right now, but next year, WHS 2011 is likely to be the only game in town.

WHS v1WHS 2011Winner
Declining number of vendors offering hardware.Only Acer and Tranquil PC so far have pledged support for WHS 2011. Close kinship with Windows SBS Essentials may encourage more vendors to participate.Tie - not a great story for either platform. A self-build may be a better option.

Enjoyed this post? Share it.

If you enjoyed reading this post, then why not share it with your friends and followers?

About Terry Walsh

Terry Walsh is the founding editor and owner of We Got Served. Since February 2007, the site has provided detailed coverage and analysis of the emerging home server category, and has subsequently grown into a trusted outlet for digital home news and reviews.

Sign Up for WGS Daily News

If you don't want to miss out on the latest news from We Got Served, why not subscribe to our daily digest? You'll get the day's headlines and a short summary of each news item delivered straight to your inbox each morning.

, , ,

  • talex

    ooops, my score -35

  • http://twitter.com/robertdammers @robertdammers

    A question for those using DE replacements: If I use the DE old folder structure, can I still use the streaming capabilties against the VIDEO shared folder created by the DE replacement? If that all worked, I might be tempted.

  • Mick Mickle

    This was an excellent analysis and decision-making tool. I scored +35 for upgrading. But regardless of the comparative advantages, I'm at a point where I have to reset all the backups for five computers because I can't trust the integrity of the backup database in WHS v1 as a result of unreadable sectors from earlier backups, so I may as well jump to WHS 2011 now. If there are going to be reliability improvements to the backup function, they will probably only be made to WHS 2011.

    What is needed to correct the backup weakness is a built-in backup verification option in WHS (like in Norton Ghost and other backup programs) to compare the integrity of the backup to the client. This option could run automatically after a backup operation or be executed as a stand-alone function. I don't see using such a feature all the time because of the additional backup time required, but one would be able to confirm that a faithful backup existed on the server. I'm looking forward to WHS 2011 providing some additional reliability in this area.

    • Mick Mickle

      Apparently, WHS v1 can mask insidious problems with file corruption in backups that don't show up until restoration is actually attempted (even though a backup may mount and open successfully and the Database Repair tool finds no problems). Since backups don't duplicate sectors previously backed up, I think these problems can be caused by subsequent backups' reliance on unique sectors which are saved in an initial backup. If those initial sectors become corrupted over time by Drive Extender migration when removing a drive or some other reason, it seems that subsequent backups can continue to think a previously backed-up sector is good even when it isn't.

      While I don't know whether DE caused the loss of sectors in the earlier backups, changing drives in my WHS (using proper and successful removal procedures) is the only anomaly that I can point to. Perhaps the initial backups were corrupt to start with, but they opened okay when they were made. So, moving on to 2011.

      • Mick Mickle

        Of course, I meant "clusters" rather than "sectors".

    • http://www.wegotserved.com Terry Walsh

      Thanks for the feedback, Mick – glad the feature was useful.

      Terry

  • Steve

    I'll keep my WHS V1 running under my ESXi Server:) Easy backups, easy snapshots and great speed. True hardware raid 5 under the covers too.
    yay

  • Tim

    Wow. I am following simple rule… if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I'm sticking with WHS V1.

  • Michael

    I did a similar analysis. And decided to upgrade to WHS2011 – only to have to move back to WHSv1!!

    The reason….. WHS2011 can only back up to 1 single 2 TB disk. And (in my case) with 4.2 TB found this too big a restriction.

    Reference: http://gcoupe.wordpress.com/2011/03/05/i-dont-bel
    The WHS team at least do recognise the limitation. Over at the Microsoft Connect bug-reporting site, a member of the team has written:
    At this time we can only back up to 1 single 2 TB disk. We realize the limitation and are working with the Core Windows team to fix this. Hopefully it’s something we can provide in future releases. For now you have to pick your critical data.

  • Michael

    I did a similar analysis. And decided to upgrade to WHS2011 – only to have to move back to WHSv1!!

    The reason….. WHS2011 can only back up to 1 single 2 TB disk. And (in my case) with 4.2 TB found this too big a restriction.

    Reference: http://gcoupe.wordpress.com/2011/03/05/i-dont-bel
    The WHS team at least do recognise the limitation. Over at the Microsoft Connect bug-reporting site, a member of the team has written:
    At this time we can only back up to 1 single 2 TB disk. We realize the limitation and are working with the Core Windows team to fix this. Hopefully it’s something we can provide in future releases. For now you have to pick your critical data.

  • G.Wright

    This sucks, I want to upgrade, all my hardware will support it, but there is no upgrade path for me, because I have no place to put 16TB of data. MS fail.

  • volswagn

    Great article, but I went with FreeNAS about five months ago. I had purchased a couple advanced format drives at a good price that I was planning to use when v2 came out. But when the DE got dropped, I had to make a decision. DE was the main reason I had chosen WHS in the first place. Eventually, I decided I wanted to use the AF drives, and I didn't want to rely on a plugin or something else for DE for v2. So if I was not going to be able to do drive extension anyway, I started looking at my other options. I looked at Server 2008 R2, Small Business, and quickly realized they were overkill (not to mention the need for 10GB of RAM for was I was essentially using as a file server), but I didn't want to just use Win7 either, which some people moved to. I wanted a real "server," but one that was more optimized for documents and media.

    It was a little trouble making sure I had all compatible equipment, and I'm still having an issue with the USB port and the UPS due to an incompatibility between FreeBSD7 and certain Gigabyte motherboards. But once I set it up, it has just been humming in my wiring closet for months now. I have an encrypted disk for all my sensitive documents, I have about 10TB in the box, and I can replicate shares locally using rsync in much the same way WHS allowed "folder duplication." So if I lose one drive, I all my data has been rsync'd to another folder on another drive, and also up to Amazon's S3 service once a week. I get a daily report emailed to me on the status of the network, drives, etc. I haven't looked back.

  • volswagn

    Great article, but I went with FreeNAS about five months ago. I had purchased a couple advanced format drives at a good price that I was planning to use when v2 came out. But when the DE got dropped, I had to make a decision. Eventually, I decided I wanted to use the drives, and I didn't want to rely on a plugin or something else for v2.

    It was a little trouble making sure I had all compatible equipment, and I'm still having an issue with the USB port and the UPS due to an incompatibility between FreeBSD7 and certain Gigabyte motherboards. But once I set it up, it has just been humming in my wiring closet. I have an encrypted disk for all my sensitive documents, I have about 10TB in the box, and I can replicate shares locally using rsync in much the same way WHS allowed "folder duplication." So if I lose one drive, I all my data has been rsync'd to another folder on another drive, and also up to Amazon's S3 service once a week.

  • TimWaite

    Very pleased with the way DE rescued me when a disk crashed, so I was reluctant to even consider using WHS 2011. Tried to set up WHS v1 on a new server with 2gb drives but it refused to accept them. After several attempts it would install program on a 500GB drive but still would not read the 2gb drive sooooooo……. I tried it on WHS 2011 and it worked first time. Have been using RC version for two months and although it slows down the client start up a bit it is all OK. Will probably download the RTM this week and reluctantly say goodbye to DE.

  • TimWaite

    Of course I meant I had problems with v1 reading 2TB drives not 2GB!!!

  • Kenst

    Unfortunately I purchased an OEM box – the HP 485 EX which doesn't have a monitor cable nor external drives, which probably means I couldn't upgrade even if I wanted to. Looks like I'll be buying a new machine in the future.

  • P. Ip

    Thanks for the review. I am not aware of the HomeGroup requirement and it may be a big issue for me. I actually run two homeservers (both are HP MediaSmart), one for regular work and the other for media sharing. All the client computers are Windows 7 and they all share the same HomeGroup but they can be a client computer for one or the other homeserver. I do this not because I have more than 10 computers; it is due to the single drive pool for each homeserver and I want two drive pools. Also this will help speed up daily backups. I wonder if the same HomeGroup can be used for multiple WHS 2011 servers.

  • Guest

    LoL upgrading V1 why there is no good reason at all just for the newer server software or to make M$ richer, all i see is a stripped windows server 2008 nothing more nothing less.
    I see people talking again about the remote connection what the hell all windows home premium versions are stripped of the remote connection part what you mean its usefull.
    Only those with pro/ultimate versions can use this so -5000 points for that.
    The removal of DE for me its almost the only thing which made homeserver v1 great, now that no longer in whs2011 = – 1000000 for whs 2011
    The plugins there are non for whs 2011 and to my questions to M$ about fixing some major issues for them being fixed in whs 2011 i got the answer not yet in upcoming releases.
    So for this another – 5000 points
    Guess there are no really good points left all other is pure for streaming freaks and new stuff junks this 2011 has no gains other then a new way to get a big buck in M$ o so big pockets.

  • Mike M.

    Too late, already installed it and not looking back. Homegroup makes networking easier and if I didn't find the PC backup feature useful, which I do, I would not need to install the connector software at all.

    I upgraded the CPU and memory on my HP Mediasmart EX 495 before the RC. It performs flawlessly. To perform installation, I added a USB optical drive a debug card. As easy to install as Windows 7. All told about $400 of upgrading which could have paid for a NAS solution, but this was way more fun. Only drawback with the Mediasmart 495 is that the drive lights do not work and the health light continously blinks. Nothing a piece of black electrical tape couldn't solve. I haven't figured out the remote streaming, but will eventually. I had this working with WHS 1 and never used it.

    I understand most people's hesitancy, I was more worried about the migration. I found an article on Microsoft's forums that makes that a snap. That turned out to be the easy part. Goodsync can also be a good alternative as a back-up scheme if you want to back up over the network as well. Take the plunge, it really isn't that bad.

  • The Geb

    WHS 2011 was supposed to be released in April 2011………when is MikySoft really gonna release it?

  • homeservice

    My hardware is up to 64 bit use but as WHS v1 does everything I want I see no point in upgrading. It would cost me the price of v2 and severely restrict my disk upgrade path, I have 4 x 1Gb drives and was intending to but 2Gb drives one at a time because of financial constraints.
    I don't want to be a home sysadmin, I want it to just work as it does now with the free space being the only thing I have to worry about. So It's a no-brainer. Should I upgrade to cause myself more maintenance, problems and expense while lose the ease of use? No thanks, I'll keep it until it breaks or something better comes along.

  • Mark

    After switching to WHS after I lost everything in a complete RAID 5 crash on a previous Linux server that was getting short on space DE was the one feature that sold me on WHS.
    DE isn't perfect – far from it – but I added 3 hard drives and replaced two over the lifetime of the machine and that made it worth it.
    Without DE I may just go back to Linux if I have to put together another server. Time will tell.
    For now I don't see myself "upgrading" to 2011.

  • Jim

    Part1:

    I read every post in here and lots of good points were made and a big shoutout to the tests the moderators did. I have used V1 since the original beta. I run a small computer support firm and several of my customers have WHS-V1 units also that I maintain for them. I have absoutely loved WHS-V1 and I absoutely hate V2 (2011). I have 8 computers that I back up and I store over 6TB of raided data on my V1. The streaming doesn't matter at all. I have a W7 HTPC connected to my A/V rack and it does all I need and more. I hate to beat it to death, but the end of DE was the end of WHS as a practical matter. Now only geeks like me will deal with it. Any wonder why HP and others backed out? Sure, if there are 3rd party solutions to Raid the data, I may take a second look. But why would I want to put up with all the limitations and data backup hassles when V1 does all most folks need? see part2…

  • Bob

    Without DE I might as well install Linux and use rsync on a cronjob. I will not be upgrading.

  • Jim

    Part2:

    At first, I liked the idea one guy offered of using his old V1 as a backup to his V2. But that 2TB limit kills it all. And why would I want to have to manage 2 servers? I don't care about most of the new features except the driver support. Nope, I'm telling all my clients to sit tight. There are a few concerns. As hardware ages, it will eventually fail and that V1 license is tied to that MB! So I will be keeping a close watch on the old V1 availability and may buy a copy to put on the shelf just in case… I have been using PCs since the beginning in the 70's and have a ton of experience with every MS OS. It's a big shame that something so promising has gone down in flames like this. That's not whining, just a statement of fact. See part3…

  • jim

    Part3:

    I work with tons of small business and home customers and none of them are going to buy into V2 now. They don't want to be me. They just want to plug it in and use it knowing their PCs are backed up and the data is nicely, centrally stored. That is no longer possible. Maybe a 3rd party solution will fix this. But, and it's a huge but, none of my customers or any friends or relatives would ever try and make that all work. The miracle of V1 of WHS was it was basically a plug and play product that my sister could use. No longer… Sad. (PS, this word limit is a real pain…)

  • GPMark

    My conversion to Amahi went fine. No more Windows Home Server for me. I can't attest how easy WHS 2011 vs WHS v1 installation is, but the Amahi was amazingly simple and FREE! Tons of remote access applications and all are working fine.

    Backups, including backing up Linux systems, have been flawless. Data migration was the same pain as going to WHS 2011, but I've already done one major upgrade and migration should never be a problem for me. Managing Amahi remotely is fairly simple, but it appears a little more complex than WHS 2011. No need for plugins – everything is already there.

    Best move I've ever made – thanks Microsoft for killing DE!

  • bill

    i have several xp machines, one i built with xp media center recently, i don’t really use the media center much, still using GOM to pay video, and media monkey for msuic. i used to use itunes… my 500gb nas is full, so i am debating to build another htpc for the bedroom and add a few 2tb drives for media storage, or build a whs. i like the drive extender, but am not sure which is really better for media server applications. i really just need file storage, but something with good music and video programs would be great. itunes is sort of a pain with the NAS and i use media monkey much more now that i have learned to convert my itunes to real mp3s. so for me, i wonder should i bother with a home server? will i be any better off? does whs handle itunes better? i see mentions of media servers in whs articles, but no real details. i might have to purchase some book to really consider it, but in the meantime… does anyone have an opinion about how whs works for mp3s or itunes? i am starting my build from scratch, so not repurposing old parts. i can go v1 or vail. which really does mp3s better? and why?

  • TjerkB

    I don’t see the problem with DE removed. You have 2 and 3 Tb drives that cost almost nothing. A good raid controller that supports raid 5 and you have a faster more stable solution. Hit me if i am wrong.

  • Paul

    I upgraded… and then downgraded again. Two main reasons:
    I host a number of web sites and I couldn't live without WHISST (any hope of a port of that fantastic add-in)
    I couldn't set the domain name – the xxxx.homeserver.com that worked with V1 fails when I try to use it with 2011
    In time I'm sure these reasons will go away, but for now I'm back on V1, and do you know what? I was actually pleased to see it's old face again and I can't really come up with a list of things that I briefly had with 2011 that I yearn for again.

  • Loy
  • Loy

    Thank you for a very insightful review. I will not be upgrading for one very simple reason – simplicity. I don’t have a WHS because I need a toy to play with but to simplify storage, data access and backups. It was a major mistake removing DE. Clearly WHS 2011 will not make my life simpler. Instead, it will create more work and worry over backups and backing up backups and drives that are over full. Too much! No sale!

    I wonder if Microsoft bought stock in Axentra Corporation’s HipServ and they are trying to increase Axentra's market share with WHS 2011’s release. LOL

  • Mama

    For me, no DE = no WHS2011.

    For Migration, if WHS2011 had DE in it, I would upgrade by buying fresh hardware, a low power platform like AMD E350 or similar. Then I’d install WHS2011 with only the system drive. Then I would attach a single new HD I purchase and start copying files from the old WHS server to the new server, up to almost the size of the new HD. Then I’d remove one HD from my old WHS server (it has 8 HDs) and add it to the drive pool in WHS2011. Then copy files the size of that HD over, then remove next HD etc. I’d just have to repeat this until all data drives of the old WHS has been move to the new WHS2011.

    But… no DE in WHS2011 means this scenario isn’t even possible! And no, I don’t want data on 8 separate drives. I had that before I discovered the wonderful DE in WHS, so if WHS2011 doesn’t have it, I don’t want it.

  • HappyMe

    I cannot understand why everybody is complaining about the loss of the DE. I am glad te be rid of it. The demigrator (the word already says it, "cut the homeserver performance in half") was very annoying. It was so busy doing things, the homeserver did not respond very well (in the midle of a movie it decieded to check its stupid datafiles).
    Also the disks are readable by an other pc, so if the physical homeserver brakes down, you can easily access your files.
    Powermanagement works now for me and spins down disks when I don't use them.
    If you're data is so important, one backup is no backup. Just hook a (or more) usb disk to your homeserver and use the windows server backup. Keep it at a safe place and preferably out of your house.
    I don't hear much about the amazing backup functinality of workstations. It backs up your precious data and you can retrieve it easily. For me a very, and underestimated strong point of this product.
    There are creative ways to add disks to a drive, e.g. in a folder.
    Oh well, I probably forgot some things and you may have other visions/use of the homeserver. I love it for home use and what I do with it. It was worth my 109 Euro's.

  • michael

    I wanted media center added in, and instead they cut the best feature. I will not be buying a product that clearly was not listening to the people. No sale.

  • Steve

    For a multi cpu set up, its worth noting that Vail is based on the Foundation SKU of Server 2008, so only supports 1 socket. True it seems a little quicker than a single socket WHSV1 box, but it seems criminal to have two processors and then not use one of them.

  • smerdonw

    I have a Dell Inspiron 530s with a Intel Celeron 450 2.2GHz 512KB Cache. Will I be able to run WHS 2011?

  • RickT

    Thanks for the well-done review. I think MS hosed WHS2011 and failed to maintain what I thought was the home server concept. WHS2011 seems to have morphed from a terrific backup and recovery device for the PC's on my simple home network to a complex, more labor intensive system for businesses. Backing up the server? You gotta be kidding. That's not sounding like a "home server." I don't want to back up the backup! I'll be going back to Acronis software and more hard drives when WHS1 reaches EOL, unless something else comes along.

  • Scott

    I'll be upgrading soon. I'm migrating all my data onto individual disks now. I took the test and scored a +45 in favor of the upgrade. I'm not happy about the loss of DE (I never had issues with it) and migrating over 10TB of recorded TV and movies will take a while, but I'm looking forward to a faster, newer system when it's done.

  • SDP

    Don't forget that running from 2k8 means you can now have OS disks go above the 2TB mark.
    If you are a power user and have a 'few' other computers in the house, you will very quickly run into the limited backup space with WHS. Because backups are on your OS drives and they can't go above 2TB.

    With WHS2 you can use an UEFI motherboard and boot from a +2TB drive. That's one of the most compelling things about WHS2.

    But I still don't think I will migrate very soon. The migration is just too painfull but when I finally have to start using WHS2, I'll be very glad with all the extra options avaible to me thanks to 2k8 under the hood.

  • Lou

    Great review!
    I was wondering… I read somewhere that the feature of waking up the server from the client pc is no longer available. Is that a fact?

  • Andrew

    I’ve been waiting for a newer version of WHS, mostly because I have really nice/new hardware in my server. Before I hit the buy button at newegg I decided to look up a how-to on upgrading from 2003 to 2011. It turns out I can’t upgrade! I have 6TB of data on my present WHS setup (meaning it would cost me too much $$ to temporarily migrate that data elsewhere so that I can upgrade the operating system). AWESOME. I mean, who has 6tb of storage sitting around for temp backup? On the plus side I’ll save some cash from not buying a new OS..

  • Albert

    @ Andrew, You don't need 6TB for free space, just free space equal to your largest drive. If you have your largest drive a 2TB hard Drive then all you need is a 2tb free space. Set up WHS2011 with 2TB+ of free space then take you largest drive from WHSv1 and hook that up and transfer the data over. Once you transferred the data add the newly empty drive to WHS2011 then repeat the steps by finding your next largest drive and transferring that. and so on.

    I have done this before and will again this next weekend. (Newegg Special $49.99 with free shipping) already ordered WHS2011 and look forward to using it.

    (And some people do have extra space around, like me i have 16.8tb of space with 7.8tb free :) got to love frys and their sales on drives)

  • Keith L

    I upgraded to WHS2011 yesterday and I think it is fantatstic. Sure I had to start from scratch with each client pc to the new server however
    with the substantial discounts in the U.K. on both the HP microserver and the WHS2011 server this was an opportunity not be missed. Saved about £150. I like the look and feel of WHS2011 ..it looks professional. The HP kit has a very small footprint so I have space for other kit!

  • ubronan

    hahaha i had enough of the crappy ms homeserver products,
    bought a huge nas which has now taken over all functions of whs.
    no more crap or problems all works including backups of my pc's :D
    everything in a nice tiny box and 12 TB space the best choice i ever made.
    THANK YOU MICROSOFT for make this choice easier

    • myangeldust

      Do you mean the software or all those products already sold with WHS installed?

  • Gene

    I agree with some of what you stated. Buying software and moving data is a given on most any upgrade – moot points. Drive extender? C'mon…there are other, more reliable and faster solutions. Buy a RAID card and use an external USB drive for one. I run WHS 2011 on a Dell PowerEdge 830 with the legacy CERC/SATA RAID card with two 1tb drives and USB backup. With Dell's support utilities it's a beautiful thing! I, too, was a v1 fan…I can understand your bias.

    • myangeldust

      Weird, I was just asking if a rackmount server (similar to yours) was a good buy and what version of WHS I should pair it up with.

  • myangeldust

    My EX470 is completely dead (HP's Server Recover disc killed the data). So I was thinking about getting a CybertronPC Quantum TSVQJA1521 rackmount server (http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=199636&csid=_21). It has two 1Tb HDDs in a RAID 1 setup. Since I never really hotswapped any drives in my EX nor needed more than 1Tb for multimedia and backup I figured that'st the amount of space I need.

    I have two questions: 1) Does this sound like a good machine to use has a WHS box? and 2) Should I get WHS version 1 or the new 2011 version? Thanks!

  • Avenger

    I have to say that Terry has done a remarkable job in the presentation of this article by remaining objective and offering detailed insight to something that I think Microsoft would prefere the consumer just blindly move toward. I highly recomend anyone contemplating the move from V1 to 2011 read this article entirely before deciding. It's not to say that one is better than the other right off the shelf or anything; it's to say that it's important to be sure that the implementation iether way has to make sense to your abilities as a user and how the features (or lack of) impact you. For me, I still need a reliable DE and realy am not looking to move my server to a 64bit platform for finacial reasons – This is afterall something for my own personal entertainment dispersal

  • Kent

    The one thing WHS 2011 does really well is a bare metal restore.  WHS V1 always failed on the SATA driver.  I could get around it by using and PCI network card – but it was a pain.

    I like the 64 bit and fast data transfer speeds.  My Blu-ray sees the server and plays videos without any setup – pretty cool.

    I really hate the size limitations – I back up four home computers and have to be carefull or I fill it up and get the warning messages.  2 TB come on man . . .  I miss duplication – so I back up to a 2008 R2 server every weekend. I thought about RAID but it has its downsides too.

    It does have a much more ‘robust’ security defaults.  They crossed the line and it is a pain in the ask.  A few tweaks in the local policies and it plays nice with all the home network machines and does not recreate passwords anymore.  So I don’t have other family members yelling up the stairs for a password.

    WHS 2011 is much more stable the WHS v1.  It just runs and I do like that it tells me when other computers are not be updated.

    It is like getting a new car with the wrong color.  You like it, and it works, but you are disappointed every time you drive it because you know what it could be.

    • http://www.wegotserved.com Terry Walsh

      That’s such a great analogy. Bang on.

  • Shlimon_y

    Can WHS 2011 be installed on 32-bit hardware.

  • Rainer Reitz

    I like my WHS1, as it runs very stable and reliable. The only reason to “upgrade” to the new RAID system would be a significant better power management. BR

  • Rainer Reitz

    I like my WHS1, as it runs very stable and reliable. The only reason to “upgrade” to the new RAID system would be a significant better power management. BR