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

Why no $70 upgrade version?
By mcnabney on 10/11/2007 4:10:28 PM , Rating: 2
There is mention of using this on an older PC which would most likely already have XP (or NT/98) installed. Why not a cheaper upgrade version since that hardware has already had to pay the Microsoft OS tax? This software really isn't an O/S in the terms that a consumer is thinking. You aren't going to be playing Medal of Honor on it or anything. It is a dumbed down version of a five year old server platform. The only thing unique about it is the disk management. For most uses a customer would be just as happy picking up a NAS and bypassing some of the invasive DMCA quirks that Microsoft has added. I would wager that this O/S is going to be following Bob.

RE: Why no $70 upgrade version?
By Donkeyshins on 10/11/2007 4:31:13 PM , Rating: 2
Well, first of all, this is based upon the Server 2003 kernel, so your 'upgrade' from XP or NT/98 wouldn't really apply as I defy you to find a 10-license version of Server 2003 for under $190. Second, there isn't an 'OS tax' - I've been involved in the Beta and I know that the WHS team put a lot of time and effort into this product - it is more than fair market value for the R&D time invested.

For those folks who are complaining that the price is $50 too high and it would be easier and cheaper to build something similar using XP and 3rd party applications, please go ahead and do it. Then figure out how many hours it took to get a system running that does everything that WHS does. Then divide this number by 50.

That is how much your time is worth. Don't forget to mention that to your boss next time you are negotiating a pay raise.


RE: Why no $70 upgrade version?
By mcnabney on 10/11/2007 6:53:44 PM , Rating: 2
It may be based on Server 2003, but it is crippled. The value of Server 2003 licensing is based upon the commercial marketplace. It is a tool to make money. In the home setting it loses all of that value. Outlook Express = Free. Microsoft Exchange and Outlook = very expensive. Home Server is much more of an Outlook Express-like product. Based upon a more expensive product, but designed to be Cheap and simple.

I have always purchased OEM versions of NT/XP/Vista for considerably less for the hardware I assemble myself. But that is a fair price because I actually utilize the O/S in many ways every day. The Home Server O/S is only interacted with when it needs to be managed. Much like a router would need only occasional interaction. The rest of the time Home Server needs to manage only the most basic I/O requirments (this is why a $10 CPU will do). The Home Server O/S just doesn't add any value to the user's experience.

A good comparison would be a NAS, which can be purchased for a little more than the O/S cost alone.

A better comparison would be for hardware companies to build the same type of Home Server products that we are anticipating, but using Linux to save on the inflated O/S costs.

RE: Why no $70 upgrade version?
By mindless1 on 10/12/2007 5:10:56 AM , Rating: 2
LOL, I don't give a damn if it does "everything", when are the shills going to learn that it's not a competition to achieve random goals MS deems important to meet?

As for nonsense about "mention that to your boss", let's be clear on this point:

If you are so incompetent that you were piddling around not setting up a server until now, waiting for THIS product, you already should have been fired.

"Your time"? DOn't be an idiot. If you haven't yet found a solution for a fileserver before now (making this product only an additional learning curve and more time spent), you are simply a n00b trying to pass the buck and claim MS did it, and they're to blame when your inability causes problems.

Bosses don't like excuses why they need to pay again for tech that already existed. The number one complaint is excessive expenditures for hardware and OS that wasn't needed. This is a good example @ $200 per.

As for the challenge of "go ahead and do it", don't you GET IT YET? We already have, did you really think people said "oh we need a fileserver but it's not important until MS says it is and releases a custom OS for home servers"? That's just so silly!

RE: Why no $70 upgrade version?
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 6:46:04 AM , Rating: 2
Did you reply to the wrong post? I don't see how the OP said anything about not having found out about fileservers prior to WHS, or many of the other points you make.

Anyway, to address the points you make, I'll give you an example of what I have here in my home. We have 4 computers in our home, two for me, one for my wife, one for the kids. We also have a server - it's currently running Windows Server 2003R2.

On our server we have the usual stuff a family might store there - digital home photos, digitized home video, our CD collection digitized, our documents, etc. Also, I run periodic backups of the server using a USB drive connected to one of the computers.

Isn't it obvious how Windows Server is overkill for our home use, and how WHS will be much easier to manage, and give us capabilities we currently lack? For example, sure, I could turn on IIS, develop a web site to share our pics on the Internet - but that sounds like a lot of work, and WHS can do that just by enabling a switch. Also, WHS can back up our computers and possibly also eliminate our server backups as well.

WHS fits an emerging need in multi-PC households that need a central store. In our home, we recogized that need years ago, but for most folks that is just now becoming an emerging need. In addition, setting up WHS is going to be a lot simpler than putting together a Windows Server or Linux server, and WHS is going to give a lot of capabilities that are hard to emulate in a traditional file server. Because of this, I think that WHS will be pretty successful.

"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs

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