backtop


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: 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.


"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki