Microsoft confirms enthusiasts' fears: No more Windows Home Server

Hi there
For HOME servers a Linux distro could easily perform this function -- and its FREE. On a SERVER you don't need to install many apps (if any) and any sort of networking with Linux is far simpler than Windows --stuff tends to work OOB.
For simple file and print sharing Linux isn't too complex -- and as people get more experienced they could use Internet gateways and media streaming too.

In the SERVER area Linux still has a very significant role to play -- I'm not sure whether apart from hobbyists etc whether Linux will ever make it to a workstation OS but for servers it's perfect.

For people who want to try some pre-built servers just try some of the L.A.M.P servers already out there --Linux/Apache/MySQL/Php.

Here's one if you use Ubuntu

Install and Configure a basic LAMP server in Ubuntu 11.10 - Overclock.net Community

Loads of others.

Cheers
jimbo

What makes Ubuntu better than any other Distro? Why not CentOS? Linux Mint? Vector Linux? Kubuntu? LinuxMCE? YALD? Knoppix? Yellow Dog Linux? Or dozens or dozens of others?


And I'm sure many people would prefer to have a Windows version.

The thing about Windows Home Server that made it appealing was that it had all backup routines working out of the box with XP, Vista, and 7 machines without needing anything besides having the sysadmin connect the server and client(s) together via software WHS also provides. WHS is also Windows, which meant WHS integrated naturally with Windows-based networks and that most conveniences found in consumer Windows versions were also present; makes things like file and printer sharing mostly hassle-free.

Sure, Linux is free, but it's hard to beat a solution That Just Works(tm).

I may sound ignorant, but what can WHS do that is needed that couldn't be done by W7/W8? One even can use the regular desktop as a server for the files if one doesn't want an extra PC.

Automatic backups etc. can be done in any version of windows.

MS used to sell W8 for $40, so there goes the cost argument.

Sure there may be a use here and there for WHS, but when they sold it for $60 and only a few thousand people really need it, it really isn't profitable to them.

This isn't really news either. I read several months ago that MS is officially stopping WHS.

HerrKaLeun said:

I may sound ignorant, but what can WHS do that is needed that couldn't be done by W7/W8? One even can use the regular desktop as a server for the files if one doesn't want an extra PC.

Automatic backups etc. can be done in any version of windows.

To list a few:
* Automatic backups spanning weeks, months, or even years depending on your configurations and HDD space on the home server.
* Recovery of data from the server to an "empty" computer.
* On-demand recovery of individual files and directories.
* Centralized monitoring of maintenance on client computers, such as remaining HDD space, required updates (or lack thereof), and backup frequency.
* Designed from the ground up to be a server rather than a client/workstation, owing to its WS2008 origins.

HerrKaLeun said:

MS used to sell W8 for $40, so there goes the cost argument.

Windows 8's $40 price tag was a promotional price, it is now back up to triple digits. WHS2011's price of $60 was its full price.

HerrKaLeun said:

Sure there may be a use here and there for WHS, but when they sold it for $60 and only a few thousand people really need it, it really isn't profitable to them.

If there was a failure, it probably had more to do with the fact Joe Average doesn't know what a "home server" even is, and chances are he also considers a "server" to be something highly technical and beyond his means. WHS2011 might have gotten more acceptance if more people knew what a home server is and what essential tasks it could do to enrich and secure people's lives with arguably little hassle.

HerrKaLeun said:

This isn't really news either. I read several months ago that MS is officially stopping WHS.

This topic is from last year. :D

FuturDreamz said:

What makes Ubuntu better than any other Distro? Why not CentOS? Linux Mint? Vector Linux? Kubuntu? LinuxMCE? YALD? Knoppix? Yellow Dog Linux? Or dozens or dozens of others?


And I'm sure many people would prefer to have a Windows version.

Hi there
I wasn't favouring ANY Linux distro -- I just wanted to post an example of where one could follow a reasonably simple set of instructions and create a LAMP server. Almost any Distro where you could install APACHE, MySQL and PHP would work. PLEASE UNDERSTAND what the poster is saying before replying.

Cheers
jimbo

HerrKaLeun said:

I may sound ignorant, but what can WHS do that is needed that couldn't be done by W7/W8? One even can use the regular desktop as a server for the files if one doesn't want an extra PC.

Automatic backups etc. can be done in any version of windows.

MS used to sell W8 for $40, so there goes the cost argument.

Sure there may be a use here and there for WHS, but when they sold it for $60 and only a few thousand people really need it, it really isn't profitable to them.

This isn't really news either. I read several months ago that MS is officially stopping WHS.

Hi there
Trouble with using the standard Windows desktop as a server is that it's a SINGLE USER system -- also it has all the overheads of running a desktop OS. True it can share files etc but its much better to use a SERVER for this process.

One good way actually is to run a Linux server as a Virtual machine if you don't want to use a separate machine for the server. IMO servers should always be run as Virtual machines anyway - the hardware is powerful enough for these to run at almost Native speed.

Things like CRON etc make running scheduled jobs like backups etc very simple and the Virtual server could control access to shared drives, Internet access, email etc.

Note - A server running as a Virtual machine can be accessed by anyone who is given permissions - it's NOT necessary for users of the server to have any account on the HOST machine.

Note also modern Virtual Machine software also allow the virtual machines to run as background tasks.

You can boot the HOST without having any user logged on. The VM's can be started as services at logon. This also means that when the HOST isn't in use it can be locked while leaving the VM's still running. You can access the VM's via any client computer on the LAN (or even the Internet if you set up your router properly) so you can even turn the Host's Monitor off too.

Cheers
jimbo

jimbo45 said:

FuturDreamz said:

What makes Ubuntu better than any other Distro? Why not CentOS? Linux Mint? Vector Linux? Kubuntu? LinuxMCE? YALD? Knoppix? Yellow Dog Linux? Or dozens or dozens of others?


And I'm sure many people would prefer to have a Windows version.

Hi there
I wasn't favouring ANY Linux distro -- I just wanted to post an example of where one could follow a reasonably simple set of instructions and create a LAMP server. Almost any Distro where you could install APACHE, MySQL and PHP would work. PLEASE UNDERSTAND what the poster is saying before replying.

Cheers
jimbo

What I'm saying is that WHS is far easier, simpler, consistent, and reliable (in a windows-specific environment)