Windows home server vs Server 2008 R2

I didn't even know you could mount system images. At least not the default windows ones anyway. Either way I will think file backup is better. image backup would take too much room. I have an image with all the must have apps i use every day, then i just install the rest of the crap and I'm back to minty. In addition it's a fresh install so it doesnt bring any of the problems from the image from a week ago. I do intend to fool around with Server 2008 R2 just for the learning experience. I am the sort of person who likes to know as much as I can without knowing everything.

PS. The reason file backup is the best for me is i will send these files to the server PC and then they will be backed up with carbonite. so my 2 stage backup will be close to perfect.

I think back up methods are subjective, as long as they do the job. Me personally, I don't use an image-based apps as a backup, unless I'm wiping the drive. I only worry about backing up the data I need. The reason is...to many people hide behind the incorrect line of thinking that a fresh install must take hours upon hours. It takes less than 2 hours, and gives me the latest drivers, with that clean install approach. If my drive died, I'd have my data stored safely, and would only need to restore it.

I'm not knocking the imaged based backup method, as it would work just fine as well. I just choose to backup with a different method.

Yep, fresh installs give you only want you want and none of the garbage you don't need.

As far as the WHS vs 2008 r2...IMO, I would use WHS. 2008 will give you some valuable experience, but you can also screw up stuff and have your home network down for days while you try to fix it. Once you start taking courses on 2008, I'd put it on a separate box on your network until you become proficient as an admin.

Do you really need a home server box, though? Currently, I have a simple NAS running a lite Linux distro. I haven't hacked it yet, and don't feel the need to. It just works. User accounts, permissions, groups, quotas, RAID, FTP, etc. It has all the good stuff, and was inexpensive. I run incremental backups to it every day, full backups every month, and use Goodsync to sync my most active critical folders on a continuous basis. Two years and counting with absolutely no crashes, and it uses a lot less power than a server PC would.

The Reason I want the windows home server box is to have my pc's backup to it, and it backup to carbonite. Carbonite says it should work. I need to do this because my laptops secondary drive dies and now the data is all on my external 2TB meaning it won;t get backed up. I don't particularly want it on my laptop anyway seeing as I don;t need constant access to that data specifically, but I still want it backed up. The real solution may just be to switch to backblaze which supports external drives.

Backblaze is new to me. I use IDrive for my online backups. It supoprts backing up from mapped drives, so as long as my NAS has folders mapped to drive letters on my desktop, I'm good. I've been using them for a few years, and have had no bad experiences with backup or retreival.

I have my laptop backup to a folder on my NAS named "LAPTOP". That folder is mapped as drive "L:" on my desktop where the IDrive app is installed, and is included in my IDrive backup set.

I don't want to sound like a commercial for IDrive, but you may want to check them out. They do have a free option if you just want to try it out. They also offer an app which you can istall on a USB drive. Backups happen automatically upon plugging in the drive, and it can also be backed up to their cloud storage.

I'll absolutely check them out.