Talk:Windows Home Server

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Windows Home Server article.
Article policies
This article is part of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a WikiProject devoted to maintaining and improving the informative value and quality of Wikipedia's many Microsoft Windows articles.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on WikiProject Microsoft Windows's importance scale.

There seems to be a fair amount of interest in this OS due to it being recently revealed to the public. I was kind of disappointed that the page had not had more in depth information as now is when a lot a people are apt to go looking for basic info. My technical knowledge is rather limited, especially in regards to server software, so I don't feel confident adding much to the page, but I wanted to encourage others. I've noticed a fair about of apparent misconceptions in the product and a muddy understanding of what it can and cannot do. In particular in regards to whether it can be used by systmes other than Windows, like OSX or Linux. I saw one comment that suggest this will be possible. Also, I saw a video on MSDN's Channel 9 that was very informative that someone updating the page might want to check out. There was one part, if I understood it correctly, that said if someone knew what they were doing (ie. not a novice) they could use remote desktop to access much richer functionality than the basic control panel interface provides. It seems like much (if not most) of Windows Server 2003 can be accessed. Someone who knows this OS might be able to talk about what this could mean as far as an enthusiast using Windows Home Server as opposed to the novice user. I hope someone can use this information to flesh out the article. --72.24.86.95 09:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm the GM for Windows Home Server and will try to update this article when I can. I already fixed a few inaccuracies as well as replaced the bogus/FAKE screenshot tha was original there with a real one.ckindel 23:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] FOSS alternatives/"See Also" section

I think their should be a section mentioning open source alternatives to WHS. WHS looks good, but people need to be informed that their are FOSS alternatives. FreeNAS and Openfiler in particular spring to mind. Personally I like FreeNAS because it has upnp support which allows you to stream media to an xbox360 without relying on Windows Home Connect.

--Jmantra 13:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No for see also section. Links may be inlined, though. But I don't think the apps you specify are competitors to WHS. WHS is not a NAS server or UPnP media server (btw, Windows Media Connect has been deprecated in favor of Home Media Ecosystem (HME). Vista, Zune Media Player software, Zune music player and WMP11 includes HME servers; WMP11 for Vista and X360 includes clients). While they are a part of its feature list, WHS can act as host (application server) for applications written using the WHS API as well. --soum talk 14:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

While WHS isn't really a NAS server and those distros aren't really in direct competition with WHS, they both serve similar functionalities to WHS, so i think they are worth a mention.

I didnt say they should not mentioned, I said they should not be mentioned as being competitor to WHS. It can be mentioned as in "WHS includes shared storage akin to NAS servers like <insert the most common NAS server> here". Better still just stop at NAS (so that we dont take sides singling out a single product). NAS solutions are definitely linked from that page, arent they? --soum talk 15:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
i agree with Soumyasch. In addition, the other Microsoft OS pages don't have a list of competitors so it probably wouldn't be a good idea to break with that tradition. 128.54.42.248 18:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Obsession with the number 10 it involves everything

[edit] Interface

Is it true that it can be connected from both the web browser and its own console program (Windows Home Console)?? Please clarify this --Jutiphan 23:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes.

The Windows Home Server Console is a rich Win32 application that *executes* on the server. The UI is remoted to the client via the Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP). A small app running on a client PC provides a local window frame for this app making it appear that the app is running on the client (when it is really running on the server).

In the Remote Access scenario, the home administrator can access the Windows Home Server Console via a web browser over the Internet because the Remote Access webapp uses the Terminal Services/RDP ActiveX Control to enable access.

ckindel 01:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can WHS be used to run your own apps?

Is it going to be possible to install your own software (e.g. webservices) on this server, or will it be locked down like the 360? The 360 security rocks. It's the ONLY console that's never been hacked, and EVERYONE has tried. I might sleep better knowing it has hardware security like the 360. ...But I'll probably complain if they lock it. ....Then again, I think I'll complain either way. Yeah, I'm an impossible customer. So what's the verdict? Brien86 07:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes.cek 17:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, can I add that to the article? Brien86 07:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I am a definitive source ;-). cek 22:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool, so it can run, for instance, SQL server?PonThePony 10:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It could (at least the beta can, during the install it says it's Win2003 SBS, not Web Edition), but that's not actually the point of the darned thing. --Blowdart 06:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

no worries, I've hacked many 360's and I've hacked the beta version of WHS. security sucks

So can newsreaders and P2P be run on it, which would make sense on an "always on" machine? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.37.205.21 (talk) 12:34, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Windows Home Server is NOT based on R2

Windows Server 2003 R2 is a release of Windows Server 2003 SP1 that includes a second CD containing new, optionally installed technologies (see Windows Server 2003 for a full list).

Windows Home Server uses none of these optional technologies.

Windows Home Server is based on the Windows Server 2003 *SP2* codebase.

Reference: http://blogs.msdn.com/danielfe/archive/2007/01/26/windows-home-server-for-hobbyist-developers.aspx

cek 03:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Home Server team blog contains more information

The Windows Home Server team blog contains more details on the product that someone may want to incorporate here.http://blogs.technet.com/homeserver/

cek 03:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Windows Server Comparison

I think that it would be good to have a comparison between the standard Windows Server (2003 or "Longhorn") and Windows Home Server so we know what Windows Home Server can and can't do. 220.237.189.10 02:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure; yes it's running under 2003, and both share files and printers; but that's about it. Also there's already talk in the beta feedback forums of what services will be removed, so right now it's all up in the air. --Blowdart 11:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshots

I have a bunch of screenshots on my blog, which if anyone things will be useful I can upload here (if someone will guide me through how to do it and mark them as GPLed) --Blowdart 07:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Official website on microsoft.com

[1] is now live.

I'd update the page myself, but the NPV rules prevent me from making such a change myself. cek 02:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

While i'm at it, why is the new External Link to the "Windows Home Server Forums" the first external link? That link is to an UNOFFICIAL forum (the official Microsoft forums are at http://forums.microsoft.com/WindowsHomeServer

Another piece of feedback, in case anyone wants do do some editing:

Under "Picing and Availability" it reads 'In a Channel 9 video interview, Windows Home Server General Manager Charlie Kindel said that early Home Servers will cost about the same as a low-end PC, or around $500.'

The Channel 9 link goes to the wikipedia page on Channel 9. That's cool. But shouldn't there also be a link to the video of me too, say like this:

In a Channel 9 video interview, Windows Home Server General Manager Charlie Kindel said that early Home Servers will cost about the same as a low-end PC, or around $500. cek 02:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] User Interface

It looks like Windows Home Server also has a own graphical user interface in addition to the one that can be accessed on a web browser, just like Windows Server 2003 has. Images of this can be found on Paul Thurrott's WinSuperSite. Off! 16:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

(Off topic) Am I alone in thinking the web interface for shared folders looks awfully lot like Windows Live Folders? --soum talk 16:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 10 PC's

Someone noted they cant find a citation for the 10 PC limit. I did a Google and Live search and, yep, sure enough, we have never said publically anywhere that there's a 10 PC limit. cek 03:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


There is one: http://blogs.technet.com/homeserver/archive/2007/05/04/speaking-of-the-number-10.aspx

[edit] More information

This article needs information such as: the build number and beta number or release candidate number of the latest preview release version of Windows Home Server. 76.183.213.20 22:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(I was formally known as IP address: “76.183.213.20”) Hello, anyone there?  Tcrow777  talk  20:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Domain or Workgroup?

Does WHS set up it's own domain? Is it compatable with existing domains? 203.33.3.12 01:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't include a domain controller. --soum talk 04:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Nor will it fit into a domain network. It's for home, there's no domain support. --Blowdart 22:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It is possibale to setup home server rtm as a domain controlor all u have to do is remote desktop to the server goto system32 then type dcpromo then goto the dcpromo.exe to start the domain controllor setup 58.174.66.52 (talk) 08:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

See http://forums.microsoft.com/WindowsHomeServer/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1434320&SiteID=50 for some discussion of this topic. — JBazuzi (talk • contribs) 16:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison with similar products section

The section is full of OR. How is this anymore like Server 2003 web edition without looking like the rest of Server 2003 family? And because both are family members of the server 2003 family, how can we say that home server is built off the web edition codebase (as the secn seems to imply) and not off the codebase of which both web edn and whs are built? Its not verifiable, I'm removing it. --soum talk 19:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been on the microsoft certified professional course, so maybe I know something you don't? Besides I also linked to the OFFICIAL MICROSOFT BOOK on the subject! Available on Amazon, if you want to buy it. If you think it biased, then by all means edit. But also please learn the difference between 'unsourced' and 'I don't own that book'.ANTIcarrot 23:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Two things: One, Soumyasch is a Wikipedia administrator and seasoned editor; you should trust the knows what he's talking about. Second, please read up on Wikipedia's original research policy. If you want to make a claim that the features of WHS are also available in XP, fine -- find a reliable, peer-reviewed source that makes this same statement and explains itself adequately. It' also not really useful to write stuff like, "yeah, well, if you add all these other third-party pieces, you'll get something similar". That goes beyond the purpose of the article... all we need to do in this article is describe the product itself. -/- Warren 00:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
@ANTIcarrot, no one is going to buy and read a damn book (or even a free web page for that matter) to know something; they are going to read an article for that. Looking up is for verification. If what you say does not satisfy the user's need of information, it does not belong in the article. The questions I raised were not answered in the article.
Plus, does the book you cited compare WS2K3 and WHS? If not, the comparison must have come from you. It is your original research then. It is not verifiable independently by others. As such, it is not includable here. I am sorry to say, but you (or me, or any other Wikipedia editor, for that matter) do not constitute a reliable source and your words are not acceptable in an article, no matter how many courses you have taken. --soum talk 02:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I vaguely recall a policy stating that blatantly obvious things do not need sources. "The sky is blue." "10<100" "Zeroth law of thermodynamics et all" Etc. And I don't recall any rule that requires sources to be free or low cost. Especially for highly technical topics. But if you want to 'interpret' the rules to mean anything you want them to mean, then fine. I have better things to do.ANTIcarrot 18:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
No one asked for a free source. All was asked was a reliable verifiable source to back up your claims. The secn stated, "As currently described it looks very similar to Server 2003 Web Edition", with absolutely no substantiation of the claim how so. It begs the question how it is similar to ws2k3we without being similar to other ws2k3 editions (thats not blatantly obvious). The secn does not answer that. No one is going to hunt a source down to know something (they might do it to verify the knowledge). Unless that is made clear, it should not be here. Next is "and the term 'add on' implies both are not capable of running regular x86 software". Where does "add-on" come from? And what is "regular and irregular" x86 software. The processor does not distinguish the ISA based on OS. None of that is blantantly obvious to make the connections on your own and still have it verifiable. Plus whats the point of the section? Why would one be interested in obtaining WS 2K3 WE when reading about WHS? And why would one be intersted in knowing what softwares and hardware one must hunt down to have equivalent functionality. I reiterate, the section does not belong here. --soum talk 18:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Issues vs. Problems

"Issues" is an over-used and increasingly abused word. I recommend changing "issues" to "problems". Unfree (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Under Known Issues -- No native backup, someone introduced a bullet that says that WHS is vulnerable to Fire, Theft, etc. Aren't all things vulnerable to this? And what does this have to do with Native Backup? Edward (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That was me. I'll explain what I meant, and maybe a more skilled Wikipedia editor can figure out a way to make the page make sense. If you could automatically do a backup of all your WHS content to a web-based backup service, or to a friend's WHS in another part of the world, or to an external USB drive that you stored in a safety deposit box, you would be protected from fire & theft. Clearer? — JBazuzi (talk • contribs) 16:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Knowledge base article solving issues

Blowdart - please leave my edit alone.

This article "Data files that contain NTFS alternate data streams can be corrupted on a Windows Home Server-based computer" http://support.microsoft.com/kb/943393 relates directly to the file corruption issues. Would you **please** read the article. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/943393 "Data files that contain NTFS alternate data streams can be corrupted on a Windows Home Server-based computer" This in turn leads to the download about signing streams. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/941914/ "An update for Windows Home Server lets you obtain a trusted certificate for your Windows Home Server computer during remote access configuration of your personalized domain"

I've got home server. This worked. Do you? Even if you follow the cited link for the issue eariler on in the article (ref 17), a sentence before the anti-ms vibe "even though" (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/943393/en-us) it actually takes you to 941914, the one you keep reverting!

ED: Okay, I'm sorry, looking up I see you have home server. Am I really wrong then? Is my home server just fluking *not* corrupting stuff right now?

Paulecoyote (talk)

The knowledge base article on the SSL certificate is for remote access; originally the devices had self signed SSL certificates. Just after launch MS changed that so it had an (IE) trusted root, and secondary certificates, doing away with any SSL warnings. The corruption KB article is wrong, it is not a resolution; I will see what I can do about getting it changed. --Blowdart | talk 15:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was looking at 943393 which does have a fix, not 946676 which *doesn't* have a fix and is quoted in the article and mentioned before 943393.

Perhaps that paragraph ought to be reworked if they are two seperate but similar issues. I was certainly confused and am a little embaressed about how confused I actually was / am.

Paulecoyote (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You're not the only one that's confused; I've reported it to MS and we'll see if the KB article gets updated. --Blowdart | talk 10:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No revert war about Power Pack 1, please

In the "Native Backup" section, Contributions/81.23.56.25 added this text:

Update -as of 22/05/08 Microsoft has informed beta testers that this feature will not be present, and may not be released with the Power Pack 1 RTM.

I reverted this edit because it's an uncited claim. I haven't seen any suggestions, even in blogs, that the Server Backup feature won't be in Power Pack 1. My revert was reverted, without explinatation; I have reverted that revert.

Also, Wikipedia is not a news site; using "Update" style writing is not encyclopedic. Instead of adding a sentence that contradicts the previous one, better to modify the existing text to be correct.

Additionally, I don't think the date format and use of "RTM" match WP:MOS, but I'm no expert there.

Furthermore, I believe that all Power Pack 1 Beta testers are bound by an NDA. If Microsoft *has* told beta testers something interesting about PP1, and that beta teter shares that information publically, that may be a violation of the NDA.

Finally, 81.23.56.25 also reverted a good edit that fixed a typo ("add address"); I have reverted that bad revert, as well.

I will not engage in a revert war on this topic. I will not revert again. I hope that another wikipedian will help resolve the situation. — JBazuzi (talk • contribs) 15:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative Solutions?

I'm glad that WHS isn't the only option for a home server, but is the WHS page really the right place to describe them? I mean, they don't exist solely to be alteratives to WHS, right?

What I've often seen here on wikipedia is that various alternative to something are all in the same category. I find that very helpful when I'm looking for alternatives to a given product. — JBazuzi (talk • contribs) 22:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That section was added yesterday; I've removed it. The Home server article is the appropriate place to look for a list of like software and products. A category will need to be created someday, but it doesn't seem like there's really anything out there just yet that is in the same class as WHS... -/- Warren 23:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Plus without a comparison table somewhere how can you tell if it's a true alternative? What features are a must have to make it a true alternative etc.? I agree removing it was best. --Blowdart | talk 07:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)