Whats next for WHS?

[Ol Bob]

My windows Home Server box seems to be running well now that power pack 1 has cured most of the early ills.I read that ms is working on a power pack 2 but hasnt announced any release date and further that V2 is being considered.But I dont see much support around the software industry for the development of add-ins or other goodies for this os which leads me to believe that whs maybe a dead end product never to be heard from again.I would like to see an add-in for mapped drives in the console and something in the way of a virtualization add in page for it to allow remote desktop login to a win 98 or 2000 vpc enviroment.I dont have any serious need for these I just think they would be fun to play with.Any one have any other ideas? WHS has a lot of potential. I hope they dont give up on it.

 

[mc866]

Personally I would love to see some updates but at this point I don't think we'll be seeing anything significant especially because it sounds like they are working on an updated version.

 

[WT]

I recently upgraded mine with an AMD 1640 and 2gb RAM stick, and it has definitely responded with much improved performance. Every so often I check in on the new third party add-ins being released, but so far nothing has made my WHS any more worthwhile. Having a daily backup of all of my data is most important, so anything else that the box can do for me is purely gravy. I toyed with the MyMovies add-in, but my HTPC already does that, so its redundant in functionality in that case.

It would be nice to see some of the newer WHS Encore software fitted into WHS, but I would bet we will see limited functionality from HP towards that goal.

 

[RebateMonger]

The biggest marketing problem with WHS is that nobody can make money on it. It saves a ton of labor when it's used to restore PCs, it requires nothing in PC resources, the software is cheap, and HP has the pre-built WHS server market wrapped up with their low-cost EX475-EX485.

The best thing that somebody could do for the market would be to build an inexpensive OEM case that works as well as HP's. Or maybe a $250 Dell WHS box.

As far as WHS features: backups, backups, backups. There needs to be a way to make automated backups of both the backup database and the file shares. And a nice way to back up the whole server would be nice.

I think that WHS is the most important product that Microsoft has introduced since Windows 2000. I hope they stick with it.

Originally posted by: Ol Bob
But I dont see much support around the software industry for the development of add-ins or other goodies for this os which leads me to believe that whs maybe a dead end product never to be heard from again.

WHS was slow to take off, both because of its newness and because of those early data corruption scares.

As far as paid third-party apps, I don't see much need for AntiVirus on a server that's not accessed by humans, has a firewall, and isn't used to browse the Internet (assuming the desktop clients are all protected). And Internet-based backups from WHS aren't very practical because of the HUGE data files that many are keeping on their WHS servers.

 

[Madwand1]

Update it to the Vista/2008 platform. It'll be interesting to see what they do now that Vista is almost obsolete and the next great server thing is still a ways off. The Server 2008 platform would still be a big improvement, and not upgrading to it would demonstrate a serious lack of vision in Microsoft for this platform, IMO.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Madwand1
Update it to the Vista/2008 platform. It'll be interesting to see what they do now that Vista is almost obsolete and the next great server thing is still a ways off. The Server 2008 platform would still be a big improvement, and not upgrading to it would demonstrate a serious lack of vision in Microsoft for this platform, IMO.

V2 is based on W7 server and should be available in '10

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: bsobel
V2 is based on W7 server and should be available in '10

Neat. I'd look forward to that, even though the lag from a Vista/2008 perspective is disappointing.. Do you know which Q is currently expected? And what's your source?

 

[RebateMonger]

Some WHS features already are Vista/2008-like. Such as the ability to load disk controller and NIC drivers from USB during a restore. Those Restore GUIs look very Vista-like. MS stole stuff from all over their product line (Server 2003, SBS 2003, Vista) to make WHS.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: bsobel
V2 is based on W7 server and should be available in '10

Neat. I'd look forward to that, even though the lag from a Vista/2008 perspective is disappointing.. Do you know which Q is currently expected? And what's your source?

The MS blog on WHS and job postings. If you google for WHS v2 you'll find lots of folks discussing it from about mid last year.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: bsobel
The MS blog on WHS and job postings. If you google for WHS v2 you'll find lots of folks discussing it from about mid last year.

OK, I just saw that. If as it says we consider W7 to be Vista R2 with a unified code base, then it's more reasonable to do the skip and also get a sooner rather than later release for the next server.

 

[Staples]

Most likely any real changes will be in a new version.

If they had Windows Media Center in it, I might be interested in it.

 

[Ol Bob]

I took a look at W7 and like what I saw, if WHS V2 is based on that I may consider purchasing. Maybe MS would consider some sort of licensing model for whs/w7 buyers that doesnt require people to buy a seperate copy of w7 for each client pc. After having to buy 5 oem copies of xp pro as well as whs I wont be upgrading to anything else anytime soon.
I also note the lack of system restore in whs. I know there;s a hack to install it on svr'03 from a xp disk but I would prefer it to be incorporated into the console, possibly to include the ability to restore clients from restore points saved on whs as well.Not sure if this would be the same as restoring a client from the whs stored backup tho.

 

[BD2003]

1) Obviously it should be updated to the server 08 core, with the better security, I/O priority, etc.

2) It should integrate with skydrive for online backup. Obviously not for movies measured in gigabytes, but I'd like to easily have my photos and documents synced off site.

3) The "server backup" idea they added in PP1 was interesting, but who the hell came up with the idea that it should be a manual process, and that it should leave out the system partition? It should be automatic, and be able to directly restore the server.

 

[coolVariable]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
The best thing that somebody could do for the market would be to build an inexpensive OEM case that works as well as HP's. Or maybe a $250 Dell WHS box.

Yes! Please!
The Chenbro case is the only case that comes close to the HP cases and it is ridiculously expensive!

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: coolVariable

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
The best thing that somebody could do for the market would be to build an inexpensive OEM case that works as well as HP's. Or maybe a $250 Dell WHS box.

Yes! Please!
The Chenbro case is the only case that comes close to the HP cases and it is ridiculously expensive!

ooh both of these are phenomenal ideas.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: BD2003
1) Obviously it should be updated to the server 08 core, with the better security, I/O priority, etc.

2) It should integrate with skydrive for online backup. Obviously not for movies measured in gigabytes, but I'd like to easily have my photos and documents synced off site.

3) The "server backup" idea they added in PP1 was interesting, but who the hell came up with the idea that it should be a manual process, and that it should leave out the system partition? It should be automatic, and be able to directly restore the server.

4) WHS and Windows Media Center need to become one. A box loaded with hard drives is begging to have tuners added to it, so that you can just deploy thin clients at your TVs.

 

[coolVariable]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: BD2003
1) Obviously it should be updated to the server 08 core, with the better security, I/O priority, etc.

2) It should integrate with skydrive for online backup. Obviously not for movies measured in gigabytes, but I'd like to easily have my photos and documents synced off site.

3) The "server backup" idea they added in PP1 was interesting, but who the hell came up with the idea that it should be a manual process, and that it should leave out the system partition? It should be automatic, and be able to directly restore the server.

4) WHS and Windows Media Center need to become one. A box loaded with hard drives is begging to have tuners added to it, so that you can just deploy thin clients at your TVs.

Not sure.
I like having WMC coming from a full PC ... it allows you to play games on your big screen TV?

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
4) WHS and Windows Media Center need to become one. A box loaded with hard drives is begging to have tuners added to it, so that you can just deploy thin clients at your TVs.

As I understand it, MS is looking at this. There's discussion of splitting WHS into two products: One with Media Center capability and one without.

Adding Media Center functions will change the nature of a Windows Home Server. The additional graphics and CPU capability required will require a more powerful, costly, and higher-power-consumption box.

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: ViRGE
4) WHS and Windows Media Center need to become one. A box loaded with hard drives is begging to have tuners added to it, so that you can just deploy thin clients at your TVs.

As I understand it, MS is looking at this. There's discussion of splitting WHS into two products: One with Media Center capability and one without.

Adding Media Center functions will change the nature of a Windows Home Server. The additional graphics and CPU capability required will require a more powerful, costly, and higher-power-consumption box.

Yeah, I'm torn on this. I used to be a big Media Center devotee, but since I've moved I only have OTA HD, I just use live broadcast and hulu on my 360 through PlayOn. Now the combination of the 2 products is less interesting to me. My WHS does what I need it to do as a basic server/backup device, quietly, cheaply and reliably.

It doesn't help that MS has pretty much bungled Media Center into an even more niche product than it was at release. It's viability as a platform is quickly waning with the lack of satellite HD support and poor communication from MS on WTF they are going to do with DCTs as cablecos move to SDV.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
Adding Media Center functions will change the nature of a Windows Home Server. The additional graphics and CPU capability required will require a more powerful, costly, and higher-power-consumption box.

It's understandable that people want to reduce the number of boxes, and so combine the two functions into one, and also understandable that Microsoft might want to cater to this market despite losing the additional OS license revenue, but from my perspective, the file server role is a unique and separate one, and the less it gets in terms of changes, desktop usage, high-performance requirements and challenges the better.

To illustrate, the last thing I'd want for for my long-term central storage would be a high-performance gaming box, as that configuration will change frequently as the market changes, and often be not very stable because of such changes -- installations, patches, driver updates, crashes, etc.. While a media box is not exactly a high-end gaming box, it's closer to that than a standard file server, which IMO should do one thing really well -- preserve and serve data, reliably and quickly, and not be impacted with video card, card driver, software, codec and CUDA of the quarter, as we have in the HD area at least.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
Adding Media Center functions will change the nature of a Windows Home Server. The additional graphics and CPU capability required will require a more powerful, costly, and higher-power-consumption box.

It's understandable that people want to reduce the number of boxes, and so combine the two functions into one, and also understandable that Microsoft might want to cater to this market despite losing the additional OS license revenue, but from my perspective, the file server role is a unique and separate one, and the less it gets in terms of changes, desktop usage, high-performance requirements and challenges the better.

To illustrate, the last thing I'd want for for my long-term central storage would be a high-performance gaming box, as that configuration will change frequently as the market changes, and often be not very stable because of such changes -- installations, patches, driver updates, crashes, etc.. While a media box is not exactly a high-end gaming box, it's closer to that than a standard file server, which IMO should do one thing really well -- preserve and serve data, reliably and quickly, and not be impacted with video card, card driver, software, codec and CUDA of the quarter, as we have in the HD area at least.

But think of WHS as the central place where content is stored by the capture cards and then sent out to extenders (360, W7 boxes, etc). This doesn't require the 'latest and greatest' game support on WHS, just support for capture devices. No one is looking at WHS for playback...

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: bsobel
But think of WHS as the central place where content is stored by the capture cards and then sent out to extenders (360, W7 boxes, etc). This doesn't require the 'latest and greatest' game support on WHS, just support for capture devices. No one is looking at WHS for playback...

If the server is really doing nothing with it, then why isn't a dumb file server good enough?

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: bsobel
But think of WHS as the central place where content is stored by the capture cards and then sent out to extenders (360, W7 boxes, etc). This doesn't require the 'latest and greatest' game support on WHS, just support for capture devices. No one is looking at WHS for playback...

If the server is really doing nothing with it, then why isn't a dumb file server good enough?

It would mange the capture cards as well and for extenders, it renders content locally and sends it to the devices.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: bsobel
It would mange the capture cards as well and for extenders, it renders content locally and sends it to the devices.

I'd put all of that on a separate box which would probably do most of the rendering also, and keep it off my file server, for the reasons I've already given. Of course I understand others wanting to do things differently and perhaps save on the number of boxes; I'm just giving my perspective on this.

 

[Madwand1]

I'd also want to see good RAID support. Windows has crappy software RAID for far too long, and there's no good excuse for crappy RAID these days, considering that anyone can see even chipset vendors doing a passable job, let alone the open source that's publicly available for anyone to read, understand and draw upon.

I get the part where RAID is too complex to maintain for the average user, but this is Microsoft, and it's the 21st century, and examples such as Drobo, show that it is possible for a smart system to do RAID and provide its storage efficiency with redundancy while taking the complexity off the user.

I find the apparently RAID-hostile attitude of the WHS team to be something of a disgrace. RAID may be complex, etc., but it's a technological wonder, and taking a negative attitude to that while praising your own simple-minded and sometimes utterly broken file duplication design just looks weak to me.

/rant