Windows Home Server

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

N_Jay

Guest
Anyone running WHS?

Good? Bad? Ugly?

Tips? Suggestions? Warnings?
 

iMONITOR

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
7,050
Location
MACOMB, MI.
I've been following it, and have seriously considered it. I think you can do just about everything WHS does, and more, just using Windows XP Pro. File sharing, printer sharing, client back-ups, multi-media server, etc. The plus side of using XP Pro is that you can still run any software written for the client side, many of which will not run on a "server". WHS does make it very easy however. I think a Linux based server would be just as good, and totally free.

Here is a good info source for WHS:

MS Windows Home Server


Newegg.com - Microsoft Windows Home Server 32 Bit 1 Pack (Power pack 1) - Server Software
 
N

N_Jay

Guest
The cost is immaterial, as I can get a licensed copy of just about anything I want.

With OneCare backup going away (or gone) I am looking for a well supported solution to take care of a bunch of PCs and to replace my old XP based server that supported the RAID drive everything backed up to.

I have gone down the Linux path a few times but it always seems you have to try 100 things before you find the one that does what you want and is still supported.
 

n5ims

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
3,689
WHS is basically Windows 2003 Server "lite". It has the same advantages and disadvantages as server 2003. There are a few features that are disabled in WHS, such as Active Directory. There are hacks to reactivate them, but this will void the WHS license and remove your support. I've even heard reports of MS's "Genuine Advantage" software reporting that the SW isn't legal and dropping the ability to receive patches to the OS once these patches are applied.

I am also looking at WHS here, but since I require AD for some of my functions I probably won't use it without strict testing and verification.
 

hescominsoon

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2003
Messages
32
Location
hescominsoon
I have one client running Centos5 using samba. I have another client using something i just recently found called ebox which makes setting up a linux based server dirt easy. I have a third client running windows sbs 2k8. There's tools for everything..:) I would give ebox a try.
 

lgentle

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
171
Location
Lutherville, Maryland
Using WHS2008 as my FTP server. Since we have a MS Action Pack, it was included. We [the company I work for] will never use WHS, so, I installed it over my XP Pro install I was using as my FTP box. I'm not using it as the home server as it is intended. I was having problems with my XP install and wanted a server OS instead of client OS.
 

iMONITOR

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
7,050
Location
MACOMB, MI.
I'm not using it as the home server as it is intended. I was having problems with my XP install and wanted a server OS instead of client OS.
What advantage do you see in doing this? I wouldn't think there would be any. In fact, I could see some reasons not to.
 

crazyboy

Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2004
Messages
711
Location
NJ
Interested in Home Server as well. Need to find a pair of hard drives first tho.
 
N

N_Jay

Guest
Like I said I dont know if its what your looking for. Basically just thought you might want to check it out.
Nope, it is not.

If I wanted a web server, I would just enable IIS or load any of the many good Apache for Windows packages.

This is a back-up, File and Media server with web access and remote desktop.

Look in to it, its cool.
 

idontknow82

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
99
Location
Wisconsin
Nope, it is not.

If I wanted a web server, I would just enable IIS or load any of the many good Apache for Windows packages.

This is a back-up, File and Media server with web access and remote desktop.

Look in to it, its cool.
Downloading it now, I like the idea of a media server.
 

mike_s104

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
4,677
Location
Berkeley Co. WV/ Loudoun Co. VA
I'd have to agree with Windows Server 2008 R2 (only in 64 bit). Very stable (with adequate hardware and RAM) and user friendly. Later, if you need more features, you have them.

N_Jay,

Before you even think about Windows Server 2008 R2, make sure the server has all drivers available. When I did a complete rebuild from Windows Server 2003 R2 32bit to 2008 R2, I lost support for my oldest RAID controller. Everything else was perfect.
 
Last edited:

lgentle

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
171
Location
Lutherville, Maryland
What advantage do you see in doing this? I wouldn't think there would be any. In fact, I could see some reasons not to.
It's a server OS. More stable than a client OS.

What reasons could there be not to if you have the chance??
 

iMONITOR

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
7,050
Location
MACOMB, MI.
It's a server OS. More stable than a client OS.

What reasons could there be not to if you have the chance??
The biggest problem I've had is software compatibility. Some applications just refuse to install when they sense a server OS. Many vendors market almost the same software for several times the cost, just because it's running on a server. Anti-Virus, disk partitioning, back-up, etc. Then there can be similar issues with drivers for various hardware, like flat-bed scanners, etc.

It might be better today than it was several years ago. I was also trying to do it on server hardware, and that had it's own limitations. Poor support for high-end video cards, sound cards, etc.

I found this article that discusses it:

Windows Server 2003 as a Workstation: Great, But Not Unconditionally
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top