Windows 7 - Windows home server vs Server 2008 R2

I'm trying to decide between Windows Home Server and Windows Server 2008 R2 for my home server PC. Ordinarily it would be a clear cut choice, but I've got a free copy of Server 2008 R2 through my academic MSDN subscription. I'd like to avoid spending extra money if Server 2008 R2 would do the job. But I'm willing to buy Home Server should it prove necesary. Any input is appreciated. Thanks.

Server 2008 R2 is a more fully functional product. You will be able to do similar things, but it might be a little more involved getting it set up and working. Plus, if you are interested in IT, you could use the Server 2008 R2 experience....but you won't get hired for your knowledge on Windows Home Server.

My vote is Server 2008 R2 without a doubt.

Too right.
Server 2008 R2 is currently the bee's knee's of Windows servers.

I might aswell try it, What do I have to lose? I can still set up automatic backups and such right?

Not automatic backups of clients, no.

Instead, setup a share on the server, map a drive to your clients and run an imaging application on the clients and save the image to your server.

Unless I missed something, I didn't see where you stated what you actually hoped to accomplish. Those two products are not an equal, apples to apples comparison. They both fill different needs and roles.

That being said, it is like many of these decisions. You, and only you know what you actually need a server to do. That will make it very clear which option to use. None of us are going to be able to answer that for you, especially without you even telling us what roles you need the server to fulfill.

Basically I want it to function like windows home server entirely. I was just hoping Server 2008 R2 was a more robust version that included Home server features. And I don;t want image backups, It's the worst possible way to backup a PC. Images are for reinstalling, File Backup is for security.

It is, but it isn't. Yes, I know that's confusion. Server 2008 R2, in some ways, is far more robust in things like permissions on folders, Active Directory, etc. However, that robustness usually means you need some level of server admin experience to set up.

So, if you want something easy for a server admin novice, WHS is the way to go. It simplifies the options, but it simplifies the process to set them up. If you want a play around server to learn...using Server 2008 R2. If you want something to be of some importance, managing your important files, without needing to learn...WHS is your answer.

Thanks guys. I'm going to try 2008 first because I already own it and it's free but odds are i'll end up buying home server soon enough. Simple is good enough for me right now. I hope to take some networking and computer security courses however, in addition to my current Game Programming courses.

If this is the case, Windows Server 2008 R2 is not the product that you want. The Windows Home Server product is a streamlined version of the OS that is intended for home use by people who aren't too savvy and don't want to learn about server administration. Home Server is managed via a browser like interface. Windows Server 2008 R2 is a full blown server operating system designed for small and large business alike. It allows you to run DNS, DHCP, Active Directory, IIS, FTP, etc. Windows Server 2008 R2 is for the person who wants to get into IT or likes knowing how everything works and takes the time to learn how to setup it up properly and manage it.

Sorry about my suggestion earlier...you have to keep in mind that I am a server admin myself and do this for a living.

Disagree with you there. While I also do file level backups, image based backups can be mounted and files copied out of them...in addition to being able to put your machine back to exactly the way that it was. Image based backups are very robust and give you everything in 1 package. As long as you have room to store it, they are great.