Print 94 comment(s) - last by ElFenix.. on Oct 18 at 10:08 PM

  (Source: AnandTech)
Newegg lists Windows Home Sever OEM for $190

Microsoft is finally ready to roll with its Windows Home Server software platform. The Redmond, Washington-based software company pushed out a release candidate version of the software in June and released it to manufacturing in mid-July.

Microsoft Windows Home Server (32-bit) is now available to purchase by anyone looking to turn an old PC into a multi-functional storage/media/backup/remote access hub. Newegg lists the OEM version of the software on its website for $189.99.

Windows Home Server doesn't feature outlandish system requirements and will likely run just fine on a machine that is four or five years old. The bare minimum requirements are a 1GHz Pentium III processor and 512MB of RAM and many users have found much success with similar hardware.

For those that would prefer to buy a pre-built Windows Home Server system, there are plenty of solutions on the way. HP has a $599, 500GB EX470 server and a $799, 1TB EX475 server while competing solutions from Velocity Micro are also in the works.

Other companies who will produce Windows Home Server systems include Fujitsu-Siemens, Gateway, Iomega LaCie and Medion.

For more information on Windows Home Server and all of its features, be sure to check out AnandTech's preview.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Whats the difference.
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 10/11/2007 11:59:14 AM , Rating: 3
For the average joe-pc user, WHS automates a lot of the stuff an average tech-savvy user (like most of the posters here) can do with any basic machine and a little planning - and more importantly, knowledge of what to do and when. (Whew, that was one sentence.) It does add a health monitoring feature, but that might be to up-sell. If you have automated updates, or do them yourself regularly, then there is not much here for you.

I would spend the money to add a hard drive ot two to the mule I already have (Windows Server 2003).

RE: Whats the difference.
By psyph3r on 10/11/2007 12:13:45 PM , Rating: 2
yea, it's me in a box. I charge fifty dollars +5 dollars per gig per month to do what this software does....might have to consider offering it as a "Service Upgrade" muahahaha...

it'll make my life easier and I could expand since I won't have to make visits every month to every customer. this sounds delightful to get rid of several systems abandoned at my house for a small up charge. setups and upkeep of standard servers in a USER environment was too much of a pain in the ass before.

RE: Whats the difference.
By mindless1 on 10/12/2007 5:03:28 AM , Rating: 2
Are you on crack? For $50 + $5/gig a month you could just automate uploads to your website. All it takes is a reasonably wide (broadband) pipe, but who would spend that sum without even having broadband?

I was harsh, hey if people are willing to pay it you are entitled to it. It's about what they value and in some scenarios it's worth that fee and much more (business uses), but today the topic is a home server OS instead.

RE: Whats the difference.
By mindless1 on 10/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: Whats the difference.
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 6:33:18 AM , Rating: 2
You missed the point. The purpose of health monitoring is to let you know of problems before they become serious, e.g., your HDD getting ready to die. It also warns you about less serous things like unapplied OS updates. It's more proactive compared to the approach you advocate, which is to fix it after it completely breaks and where you've probably had some downtime and maybe lost some data.

RE: Whats the difference.
By mindless1 on 10/13/2007 4:10:23 AM , Rating: 2
You seem to miss the point. I don't need health monitoring. Health monitoring is only important to those without a solid redundancy plan. I won't bat an eye if a drive fails right now, it makes no difference if I had a few days notice.

As for warning about unapplied OS updates, did I ask for that? No. Do I care? No. It's not like we can't check that anyway and do so cautiously instead of being nagged to install something that occasionally causes more problems than it solves.

You imply problems (using the strategy you claim important) while I don't have these problems ignoring your strategy. One way has proven better than the other.

RE: Whats the difference.
By BitJunkie on 10/14/2007 1:11:28 PM , Rating: 2
I'm going to say you miss an ever bigger point. While it's nice to assume that the world revolves around ourselves, there are other people out there in userland who might have different needs.

Maybe for example someone else doesn't have a bullet proof redundancy plan, maybe they don't even understand what redundancy is all about. In which case having a system tell them the world is about to end is a good thing.

If you don't need it, don't use it. But your kind of technological fascism that dictates what should be in a mass market product is kind of laughable. The same way you spouted endless bollocks about Vista being bloated, other people have different needs and usage models. If you don't need it, go find a different solution.

"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki