Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Coming soon: Microsoft Windows Home Server?
arstechnica.com — There's been radio chatter this week of a possible new addition to the Windows family: a "Home server." If the chatter is right, Microsoft will unveil it at CES.
MrBabyMan- 783 diggs
- digg it
- Andy.D, on 10/12/2007, -5/+42This is the first I've seen of the possibility that this is a standalone product, like a NAS box. That would be pretty damned cool, if it's not overpriced.
- schestowitz, on 10/12/2007, -48/+32You can save yourself the money. GNU/Linux has been able to easily achieve this for years: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,838249,00.asp
- redsox32, on 10/12/2007, -43/+128digg me down so i can be the must dugg down comment in history.
- llbbl, on 10/12/2007, -37/+12Open Source? I dont think so. I'll stick to Linux tyvm.
- ImTheDarkcyde, on 10/12/2007, -31/+22"Open Source?"
and what exactly would you be doing with the source code to your home server? oh yeah- nothing. - strabes, on 10/12/2007, -21/+22@ImTheDarkcyde: Well the first thing I would be doing with my open source home server is not paying for it, unlike what I would be doing with it if I were to use Windows home server.
- pseudojd, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4@redsox32 It ain't gonna happen after after yesterday. -1500~ and counting.
http://digg.com/tech_news/DuggMirror_We_all_use_it_every_day_Time_to_show_it_some_love_by_digging - dignick, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5I've been thinking about building a linux home server, but mini-itx form factor + SATA II + gigabit ethernet seems to push the price up. If microsoft pushed hardware manufacturers to create hardware tailored for this application, and if it is therefore a reasonable price, I'd buy it and use linux instead. Didn't think I'd ever say this, but thanks MS!
- andyrobo60, on 10/12/2007, -19/+18I cant see windows home server selling very well. Almost everyone who has a use for a home server should be smart enough to see that a linux server would be more secure, more stable, A LOT cheaper and properly better in every other way.
- TOTALineptitude, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14If this turns out to be true, this would be one of the smartest moves that Microsoft has made in a long time.
More and more people are buying overpriced NAS's. I think the thought of recycling an old PC into a media server would appeal to consumers' resourcefulness and their wallets. - DocWhoWho, on 10/12/2007, -17/+27"You can save yourself the money. GNU/Linux has been able to easily achieve this for years:"
Yeah you could, if it was user friendly. Linux is not user friendly, there are too many distros, and it simply requires too much effort. Unless you are ubber geek, the common computer user is not ubber geek. Therefore, Linux is out of the questions.
You, like a lot of linux nuts, really don't understand marketing and the common user. - TOTALineptitude, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15"Almost everyone who has a use for a home server should be smart enough to see that a linux server would be more secure, more stable."
While digg users are technical enough to tinker with a linux server in their homes, I think your claim of "almost everyone" is overly optimistic.
"Almost everyone" is unfamiliar and scared of linux. Most people need a GUI and dont think that linux offers one.
Most people are going to say: "Linux? That's the thing with the Dos windows? No thanks." - nayr, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13for everyone out there: LINUX IS A KERNEL. yes, LINUX is not easy to use, but if you haven't noticed, the GNU userland, in combination with some gui frontends create an excellently easy to use server. See Ubuntu server.
- cmdrNacho, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6if your not good enough to set up a linux home server, then you probably don't have any needs for a home server. As far as cost.. you don't need uber machines to run a server.. this is more of a gimmick for microsoft to sell software and push unneeded hardware on users ... like vista. I have 3 pIII machines ive purchased for a total of $50 not including upgrades, that do the trick.
- MrPig, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2That is true, a separate box for a NAS is useless for most users. Their newest computer on the network should just use standard Windows File Sharing if they need a place to store files. I personally have a few Linux and Windows 2000 server boxes on my network - one of them being my 750GB "NAS".
- appletalk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@strabes
Since when does "open source" mean "you don't pay for this" ?
Stop digging up a wrong idea of free software! It's free from 'freedom', not free from 'price'. - usergentoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Just get Ximeta NetDisk for your nas server its smaller and cheaper compared to running another pc. Although its not as good as a linux nas server it still makes a good file share and storage solution.
- BobBeechin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Personally, I'd rather it be something based on Windows Server 2003, possibly dumbed down with a lot of wizards for common home administrative purposes.
This is my personal wish list for a home-server-in-a-box.
* Network Storage.
* Backup
* Centralized User login management (not necessarily Active Directory)
* Windows Server Update Services - no more having to update every machine from Microsoft separately.
* Media recording & streaming.
* Optional firewalling & Internet proxy. - breakaway, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why digg "andyrobo60" down? He's right.
- pejeno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Why digg "andyrobo60" down? He's right."
Because he's missing the key point here. Microsoft's market for this is HOME USERS. And a home user want something the linux solution lacks at: USER FRIENDLINESS. - spritom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@BobBeechin
Yeah, yeah, that's all fine and dandy for those features, but that's all just background entertainment. What I really want is a box to handle all the DRM on my LAN and double check all the workstations for WGA! That would rock!
- stmiller, on 10/12/2007, -16/+4'Bout time.
- deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -10/+21Sounds like a good idea on the surface but I really wonder how many hardware makers are going to adopt it. Any "home server" will have to be cheap and you've gotta assume the Windows license on these devices is going to cost $50-$100 and will probably require some beefy hardware. Why would any hardware maker choose this solution when you can implement on the same features on Linux cheaper, with more freedom, and on lesser hardware?
- ricodued, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18Because typical consumers aren't used to Linux at all, much less a server environment. Besides, how much horsepower does it take to serve up pictures, music, and the occasional video, maybe combined with a firewall and other network services such as printing? Not a whole lot compared to the high-end computers of today.Once you thrust them into a new server environment with all new features they've never heard of before, they'd better at least be in familiar UI territory. Otherwise they'll quickly give up and send the machine back and start word-of-mouth that it's an "overcomplicated" machine.
Linux will have its time, just not right now. Settle down. - deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17You can do all your administration tasks through a web interface. Most people wouldn't even know they were running Linux. (and FYI, there are millions of Linux devices out there in the hands of consumers. TiVo, many routers, virtually every sub $1000 NAS device, etc)
- ricodued, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2deadbaby:
Yes, Tivo and others are Linux powered, which is great. However, when you use a Tivo, you are using a special UI made specifically for the device. This is different in that it is much more simplistic and easy-to-pick-up compared to switching from XP to Gnome, then trying to perform administration tasks.
And that's a good point, I hadn't though about a web interface. Hopefully, this is a better experience than using a router config page or anything like that :)
It would almost certainly have to be through a web interface or, like the Tivo or Media Center, an extremely simplistic UI and (like Media Center) built on top of the OS itself (so that if you were comfortable, or so inclined, you could exit the 'Media Center' and go through the OS like a regular box). - JorgeGT, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2but what about current window networks?
I tried to set up Samba once...
...the config textfiles still hunt me in dreams. Maybe I wasn't elite enought, but I doubt my parents or my grandparents are able to setup that. Sorry.
Edt: wrong thread :-(
- ricodued, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18Because typical consumers aren't used to Linux at all, much less a server environment. Besides, how much horsepower does it take to serve up pictures, music, and the occasional video, maybe combined with a firewall and other network services such as printing? Not a whole lot compared to the high-end computers of today.Once you thrust them into a new server environment with all new features they've never heard of before, they'd better at least be in familiar UI territory. Otherwise they'll quickly give up and send the machine back and start word-of-mouth that it's an "overcomplicated" machine.
- sparkmonkeyz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10That is cool. I hope that this is real.
- sfacets, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19Comming next: Creepy neighbour accessing photos of your kids.
- dhughes, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2 I'm sure that will happen.
Yesterday I did a quick drive around my neighborhood and the city and I'd say only 10% of wireless routers had WEP turned on, of them some had no SSID listed or at least it wasn't the default. Most of the other 90% still had "linksys" "dlink" or "belkin54g" for their SSID, some literally had the name "default"! In other words they don't have a clue what to do or even worse they don't know what they don't know.
I've often thought a home server would eventually be something you'd see the average home have but if everything is wireless they better put security as the number one feature otherwise there will be a huge increase in ID theft or other stolen data, like you said family pictures.
- dhughes, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2 I'm sure that will happen.
- TheFinestShadow, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13Oh man, my house just bluescreened!
- MrSarcasm, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Would you rather take a kernel panic?
- consonance, on 10/12/2007, -6/+37Thank God, I was worried about the lack of versions that Windows Vista comes in.
- strabes, on 10/12/2007, -18/+12Now there's a total of 34!!!
- ajrahim, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3@ Strabes
you math skills suck - Scatropolis, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17and how many versions of linux are there?
There's only a couple that everyday consumers are going to see. - ricodued, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Scatropolis:
Somewhere around 800-1000, at least according to what I gather from distrowatch. - mezoko, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Scatropolis, There are about than 100 linux versions! 2.6.19, 2.6.18.6, 2.4.3, etc.... but you were talking about the distros, so let me explain. There are many distro of linux, though it very easy to pick. You go to distrowatch, you find the top 100 list (its on the side), you find out what gnome and kde is, and you pick between about 5.
- TheZorch, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5Don't forget about the newest one announced, the new Windows Vista Mega Ultimate Bend You Over & Ass ***** Your Hardware With Crippling DRM Edition.
Oh wait, that's in every version already. My bad. - MrSarcasm, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Yeah, let's better take linux-I-cant-support-your-hardware-because-the-driver-is-not-oss.
- Phocion55, on 10/12/2007, -26/+25Took my parent's malware-ridden, almost-unusable computer they were gonna throw away, loaded Linux on it, and been using it for this exact purpose for over a year now.
Best of all it's free.
You all can digg me down now for giving you another option.- joe90210, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4worthless.
- consonance, on 10/12/2007, -17/+8Not only is your comment off-topic and inflammatory, but extremely arrogant and condescending to boot. Your parents' operating system may change, but you'll always be an *****.
- Phocion55, on 10/12/2007, -17/+10Yes......be a good, loyal M$ customer and Digg down any free alternatives. That's what they want you to do.....
- CBTF, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8Or maybe you're just trolling.
- cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15You didn't give anybody here on Digg another option, you just voiced the same thing that comes along on each and every discussion that includes Linux. Its tired and old...
Who here on Digg does NOT know you can use Linux on an older computer as, for example, a file server? Anybody? Raise your hand. Anybody?
Ok, anybody here on Digg never hear of SAMBA? Anybody? Come on, anybody? - TheZorch, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7I dug you back up a point Phocion55.
I find it rather interesting that people will Digg down commenter who speak about the benefits of Linux....especially when they aren't evangelizing it like a lot of die hard Linux fanatics sometimes do. Perhaps it because you can't handle the truth that Linux is superior to Windows in certain areas. Yes, more computers in the world use Windows but that's not because its popular. Its because MS forces vendors to install their OS. Face the truth people, Linux has evolved into a very powerful OS and its only going to get better as time passes. While it takes Microsoft years to develop a new OS with only minimal improvements (I don't know if you'll call whats in Vista an improvement or a downgrade) Linux distros come out sooner and with several larger improvements with each release. - Phocion55, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Thanks and good points.
I find it extremely hard to believe that the people who are digging me down would just let a salvageable computer get thrown out. Why not put it to good use? You have a 100% free server that does EXACTLY what "Windows Home Server" does.
Why would anyone want to fork over money to Microsoft if it's not necessary?
Plus, I'm sure that Microsoft's server has a bunch of DRM restrictions and limitations that Linux does not. - caw18, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2My home server is based on an old computer someone was going to throw out. I set up Fedora Linux on a old AMD athalon machine about a week ago. In under two hours, I had samba set up, along with Apache for a webserver. I am by no means a computer geek, and I found that Fedora set most everything up for me. There were GUI interfaces for Samba, and for Apache setup. It was a lot easier that I thought it would be.
The most trouble I had was setting up Rsync and cron for automating backups, but after reading through a few forum threads, I got it setup.
Total cost: $100 for a new external Hard Drive for my backup system. Very sweet deal if you ask me.
- fuckingusername, on 10/12/2007, -15/+10please wait while Microsoft checks to see your version of Pissta is valid.
- BrewmasterC, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1So when will apple get the hint and put the xgrid server in Leopard...
- HalfNakedPappy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2OS X comes with Apache.
- celerate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@HalfNakedPappy
If you read the first paragraph of the article you'll see that this isn't specifically a web server, in fact the article talks more about home automation and centralized file storage. As far as web servers are concerned there are already plenty of free ones for most platforms, and Windows actually already has some of the easiest amateur web servers, so there'd be no reason for MS to step into that market.
- Madcowz, on 10/12/2007, -14/+8Quote: "Home Server," according to my sources, is about centralized storage, home automation and security"
There is NO way I am letting any windows product be in charge of home automation. They can't even produce a secure web browser (see: IE 'unsafe' for 284 days last year @ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/05/ie_unsafe/)
Would you trust Windows with your cooker, freezer, washing machine, and god forbid, your home security (does this mean locks?).
What would the insurance company say when your gas oven came on at 2pm, didn't light and then blew the house apart when the lights went haywire due to a fatal exception.... "Sorry Sir, we have noticed that you hadn't installed the latest Security patch released this morning, and your policy is null and void."
/mad- TonyCubed, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Yes.. because a hacker would really want to break into the server to switch the washing machine on for you...
- manifestdata, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10Wow, 284 unsafe and I didn't get a single virus. Stop being a newb and downloading your hacks for the Hello Kitty game and counter-strike and you won't get viruses. ANY computer is going to be as safe as the user. Put a porn browsing "serialz and passwordz" loving teenager on a Mac or Linux machine and I bet they will still get malicious software.
- subhuman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7No they wouldn't.
Not only is almost ALL spyware ActiveX or EXE based, so it wouldnt even run on Mac/Linux, but the user/admin separation in mac and linux means even if somehow a piece of malicious software got on there ( which for linux there is practically none) - it would at WORST delete your home directory or fill your hard drive up if you don't have quotas set or partitoning setup up well.
Before you run your mouth it's good to make sure you knoiw what your talking about. - bobbob1016, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ah, I get it, I should let a browser dictate what I can and can't do now. Thanks for clearing that up, manafestdata.
- mjh2901, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7What is it going to run on. I would guess the majority of home servers are like mine, old PC running Linux and some big ass hard drive or drives. Or a stand alone NAS box. If it is a product on top of windows is it going to be windows XP, 2000, 98 or will it be vista or nothing. Vista would require a lot more guts than most people throw at the home server. It sounds like this will be a new box only solution. People willing to throw new computers at a home server is going to be a really limited market.
I think I will stick with clarkconnect. While the more techie out there are probably running there favorite distros. - BigBadger, on 10/12/2007, -14/+8Awesome, the ms fanboys are going to piss themselves with joy over something that one has been able to do with linux simply and freely for years.
I don't know how ms comes up with these revolutionary ideas.- strabes, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3Me neither. They must have copied it from apple.
- ricodued, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Only difference is that Microsoft has the power to actually put these things in people's homes. If it weren't for MediaCenter, Linux probably wouldn't have a MythTV, we'd all have Tivos. Once Microsoft puts a few million of these in some people's homes, THEN Linux can and will start working it's way in, but not now. Most Linux servers are too complicated to set up or, in the case they are fairly easy to set up, are too complicated to maintain or configure.
Wait for Microsoft to get this up and running, then look at how they do it and improve upon it. - MaiSacNjoMouf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@BigBadger
You're right, they aren't revolutionary anymore, but they were in 1993 when MS released Windows NT Advanced Server 3.1
Oh *****, you forgot about that...
But I shouldn't expect you to know about anything that happened before you were born... - gweedo767, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@ricodued: yeah, if only Linux had the power to get Media Center devices into people's homes...I mean, if someone...like say "TiVo" would just use Linux and not Windows Home Server Edition, that would do it! Or maybe, just maybe someone like DISH Network would use it, that would do the job!
If you don't already know, TiVo devices and DISH Network DVR's all run Linux. There are FAR more Linux powered and other Proprietary Embedded OS powered Media Center devices than MS power ones period.
- s1oan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5What would happen if Microsoft tries to sell that 'Home Automation' as a separate program instead of a complete OS? My guess is that nobody would buy it!!!!! ...Same goes for the Media Center...
- helpmii, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6Linux will never take off. Ya, that's right, Never.
Really, the only reason it's popular right now is because it's a fad to use Linux and/or bash Microsoft.
- Madcowz, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8"Really, the only reason it's popular right now is because it's a fad to use Linux and/or bash Microsoft."
And there was me thinking it had been popular for quite some time now!
/Mad - helpmii, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Using Linux at the enterprise level as a complete substitute for Windows is completely unrealistic. There are so many tools that are produced by Microsoft or 3rd Party Developers that, of course, only work on Windows.
For example, there is no Open Source product to compete with Microsoft ADS.
So Please. Stop. The. Fanboyism. - DocWhoWho, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I agree, linux won't take off due to too many distros, most of which are half assed.
- yabos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@ helpmii
Haven't you heard of Open Directory? It's a direct competitor for MS Acitve Directory. I agree Linux will probably never replace all Windows machines in corporate settings but there are places where it can be used, one of them being servers.
- Madcowz, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8"Really, the only reason it's popular right now is because it's a fad to use Linux and/or bash Microsoft."
- blankoboy, on 10/12/2007, -14/+9Digg me down if you will but I already don't trust Microsoft with my Data...do I really want them handling my home security?
I can just see these types of scenarios in the future:
- Me getting arrested for break and entry because of a false postive id from Windows Home Security.
- Getting asked if you are absolutely sure you want to open the door to your house or throw away the garbage (UAC).
- The power to the house gets shut off until you can run WGA to prove you own your house (and sign over all your earthly belongings to Bill).
- Your house getting broken into all the time because Windows Home Security keeps leaving the "backdoor" open!
- The Update man will have to make monthly visits to your home to apply fixes so it does not implode.
There's plenty more examples Diggsters can come up with ;)- helpmii, on 10/12/2007, -13/+10Ya, but at least Windows would work.
With Linux, you would have to spend hours trying to find the right drivers and config for your specific type of light bulb. - TonyCubed, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2You're an idiot..
Edit:
Since someone just posted before me..
You both are idiots! :( - Phocion55, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5"Ya, but at least Windows would work."
I'd use the word "work" sparingly. - dhughes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5 So to continue this analogy would that mean the Linux house would be available in hundreds of styles and be free? ;)
- helpmii, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Ya but it also means you have to share everything, including your wife.
- helpmii, on 10/12/2007, -13/+10Ya, but at least Windows would work.
- seks03, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2It would be cool to setup a system where you could listen to your music in any room.... I know theres products that already do this but would be interested in seeing how Microsoft will handle it.
- TonyCubed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You can do the same. A few small computers here and there, plugged into some Hi-fi in each room. Sorted.
- helpmii, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Not everyone has "a few small computers."
- neithernet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@seks03
"I know theres products that already do this but..."
I think one of those products is called a "volume knob". We used those a lot in college. They seem to work pretty well for distributing music in every room. - HalfNakedPappy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Apple has it. Buy an Airport Express and you can stream music from any mac wirelessy to your stereo using iTunes. You can stream to multiple Airport Express stations at once.
- Werrismys, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Nah. Most ppl who want a 24/7 "home server" out of sight for automation, webcams, web hosting, backups, centralized storage etc use Linux already.
Even the very pro-MS ones I know usually have a Linux box hidden in closet for just this kind of stuff (and Windows for gaming etc).- helpmii, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Why is he getting dugg down? He speaks the truth.
- Phocion55, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1Because MS users have no clue
- lacronicus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1phocion, that is a compete overgeneralization. the zombies of dell simply buy what they are given, but they dont know whats better, because dells do what they want, so they are content and have no reason to go elsewhere. i mean, windows comes free, and usually comes with word if they need it. if not, then they but something free. they also go by the phrase "you get what you pay for" which is also true. the rest of the windows users either need or want to use it. i use it far games, and i have no wish to dual boot. i tried it, and while linux was useful, i have no need to go through the ahrdships of setting up a linux box jsut for the sake of having one. i also use many other programs that only run on windows. i do know its benefits, but the difficulties outweigh those. if i need to set up a home server i will take the time, but only because i have a skill with computers no one else i know has. they could probably not even install the windows os by themselves, let alone install linux, so if they have a need for this, it is a wise choice.
- sputza, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This sounds like a product that would never take off for the average home user. I think someone who would do something like this would be an advanced user who would be smart enough to use Linux.
- Darth_tater, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2or maby they want ease of use and integration into their already existing network
- gab00n, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1MrSpamMan, have you ever just let a story get to the front page without digging it there yourself?
- kiwiboyus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Depending on how much this costs I would actually be interested in this. I'm writing this on a PC running XP Home and mintLinux, and my
laptop is a dual boot also. I was considering a linux based server but ended up reinstalling Win2K Pro on my old spare PC so that I can have
my uConnect for Skype running on it full time. If I could have easily set up the uConnect on a Linux server I would have gone with that.- trogdoor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You do realize that there is such a thing as word wrap and you don't have to put hard returns everywhere and screw up
the
formatting. - Yez70, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I haven't been able to get uConnect to work with Vista yet - it lists the USB and Skype as 'disconnected.'
Neither Skype or VoIP Integration, who makes the uConnect, provide support or answer support emails. Their web site hasn't been updated in over a year.
- trogdoor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You do realize that there is such a thing as word wrap and you don't have to put hard returns everywhere and screw up
- NikoKun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1oh great... yet another server OS to confuse my clients... XD
If its cheap, and functional, and secure, then great!... but if its just a toned down version of 2003, with more restrictions, and still expensive... then thats worth nothing to me... XD - clearzen, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I'm confused. Why would you run windows as a server?? Transferring files is painfully slow with windows, I would hate to run a server on it.
- anphanax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2What are you using to transfer files?
- drjekelmrhyde, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Q: What is holding Linux back?
A: Linux users. That and the fact it isn't Windows, of course.
via Vincent Navarino - spjmm0, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I use windows everywhere and honestly, why would somone get this? Find a dedicated NAS device that does not require so much hardware.
- ClementN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1In the nearest future every house will need computing power in order to run itself .
So, there is nothing strange about Microsoft wanting to be there?
I am a home automation enthusiast and I can tell you that in the home automation and (even more) in the home security fields there is no room for "blue screens" (errors).
So, I really think that Microsoft isn't in the position to handle home automation and home security tasks at this moment.
We'll see...- lacronicus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1once again, people like you are trools that simply bash windows for the problems of a ten year old os. even a half way decent computer user will not crash windows. i dont, in fact, windows has been fairly stable, and will be if you give it decent hardware. sure, give xp a pentium 3, 128 megs of ram and it will be crappy, but give it some decent parts and its great. the apple hardware is probably half the reason osx is so stable. as much as i dont like apple, props to them for the fact that they dont send out crap from their factories. unlike a certain pc vendor we all know. but if you put windows on a mac, itll run pretty well. more stable anyway. so come on, quit dissing windows for your crappy hardware.
- infinite411, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Would this in essence allow you to turn your computer into a p2p sharing server. I would welcome a service that allows you to share specific items on your local drive then have those contents streamed to a youtube like site.
This would be extremely cost effective seeing as video sharing websites like youtube dosen't have to store the file on their servers. They would however need to communicate on a daily basis the files you have available and remove them from their search indexes when your computer can't be reached.
I would be a bitch on your upload bandwidth thoug. - TravisS, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I am almost positive there is linux software that allows you to run a homeserver pretty easily on linux, maybe not easy enough for a person that doesn't know a whole lot about computers, but why would a person like that need a homeserver anyway? There's always install debian/ubuntu -> apt-get install samba webmin-samba then add some shares and you have a really simple partially unconfigured fileserver
- neko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes, I don't understand why people seem to think you need a Media Center Edition of your OS just to be able to stream video, or why you'd need a Server Edition to be able to serve files.
The role that machine plays is defined by how you use it and what services you enable. It doesn't have to be specially branded as such. The machine I'm typing this on is both my primary desktop, and fileserver for the winxp machine to my right, and stores plenty of video to entertain me when played via the xbox+xbmc in the living room.
What's next, Microsoft Windows Checking Email Edition, specially optimised to run Outlook on startup?
- neko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes, I don't understand why people seem to think you need a Media Center Edition of your OS just to be able to stream video, or why you'd need a Server Edition to be able to serve files.
- srosebush, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2http://www.duggmirror.com/
- tooaru, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Is there anyway to have a feature where digg just automatically has a duggmirror link to the side??
- standfst, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0tooaru, which side? front or back?
- turdboogaloo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I ain't the smartest when it comes to Unix OSes but I was able to get FreeNAS up and running in about half an hour on an old PC that was lying around. It does the trick and doesn't need much to run. It does what it is supposed to do and it was easy to set up. It is cool the Microsoft is putting out a home server but I think I will stick with my FreeNAS for foreseeable future.
- richieforeman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Linux + Samba? =)
- kd1s, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Ut si! And how much does MS plan on charging for this little home server? Lets face it, Buffalo boxes are out there already and if you even have half a clue, you can take an old piece of hardware, chuck a SATA card in it, install Linux and use Samba for your shares.
- wildfire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well, while most of the comments have been focused on NAS setups, there are plenty of other usage scenarios that would be quite interesting to implement with this.
For example, IPTV (ala SageTV Placeshifter) would allow computers to view television without the need for a separate TV or a hybrid LCD/TV unit. Plus, the ability to record shows to a central server would make it extremely useful.
Second, although I was unable to participate in the Microsoft Voice Server 2007 beta program, a Windows-based PBX scenario would really interest me. I've been looking at implementing an Asterisk/Digium PBX system for home integration, e.g., softphone calling, call alerts, advanced call handling/routing, voice mail, VoIP, etc. Coupled with wireless handsets one could build a seamless home voice network that would also double as a control network for home automation, while being completely mobile.
Third, central administration, malware and update services would lessen the need to constantly check and maintain computers individually reducing the risk of forgetting to apply update(s) or configuration settings.
Currently, I've just finished installing Windows Longhorn Server x64 in my home environment with Active Directory, Windows Server Update Services 3.0, and Windows Sharepoint Services (for document tracking, file storage, and time/contact management). I couldn't get Exchange 2007 installed because Powershell 1.0 RC2 for Longhorn/Vista doesn't support the December CTP of Longhorn and Forefront Client Security currently doesn't support x64-based platforms.
Thus, if Microsoft is able to bring this to fruition soon, I'd expect to see many third-parties start to create more interesting solutions for the home to leverage a Windows Home Server offering. Here's to sooner than later. - jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yet more proof my phones are bugged.
To be honest, I don't see why MS would offer this, when they could just extend the media centre concept into a home hub idea, and then sell them as different packages, to suit people who want varying levels of the experience.
duh - Justin6512, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1oh god! not a "Windows" home server!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOO!
- tnargnitram, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't know about you guys, but I like my house un-crashed.
- Reno582, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well the most Home Users need is a media server, install a big ass harddrive, load up Vista and connect a media center extender, and there you go.
- Reno582, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1as for web serving, use apache or some other linux based NOS
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by