Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

VIDEO: Windows Home Server ''Vail'' Beta

Last response: in News comments
Share
April 28, 2010 12:11:57 AM

Quote:
and at least one160 GB hard drive.


I understand that it's common to require a hdd that has x amount of space, to ensure it has enough to hold the software / OS. But requiring a 160GB hdd? Is that common?
Score
0
April 28, 2010 12:12:38 AM

Progress is always good.

There can't be that many 1.4Ghz x64 CPUs, I'd think.
Score
0
Related resources
April 28, 2010 12:18:34 AM

I would think only AMD has a 1.4Ghz x64 chip
Score
-3
April 28, 2010 12:21:44 AM

So will it run on a Phenom II X64?
:p 
Score
-3
Anonymous
April 28, 2010 12:27:44 AM

And where is the video precisely? Doesn't the article title having the annoying "VIDEO" label in all caps mean that this page is supposed to have a video?
Score
-9
Anonymous
April 28, 2010 12:52:01 AM

when does the beta expire??
Score
0
April 28, 2010 12:53:16 AM

It will run on a atom 330 with 2gigs ram just fine, 4 months up time and still counting and yes it will give an error if it detects less than 160gb hard drive. Vail is nice but i would not pay for it(i did not)

I will appreciate 64bit when i upgrade next year
Score
0
Anonymous
April 28, 2010 1:19:40 AM

Another MS bit of rubbish.. wanting too much. costing tooo much .. doing not much..
sound familiar..

Just install Ubuntu..
Problmes solved..
Score
-9
April 28, 2010 1:29:06 AM

WheresTheBeefAnd where is the video precisely? Doesn't the article title having the annoying "VIDEO" label in all caps mean that this page is supposed to have a video?


I'm only human. Give me a break. You're one of those people who always remembers the milk, to pick up the dry cleaning and has never once sent an email without the attachment? I see this is your first post too. Charming first impression you make.
Score
7
April 28, 2010 2:01:27 AM

Yes. Finally 64-bit. I might actually build a server now.
Score
1
April 28, 2010 2:24:01 AM

Cool stuff, DL'ing now... :) 
Score
0
April 28, 2010 2:25:31 AM

lauxenburgYes. Finally 64-bit. I might actually build a server now.


Glad to see they're forcing 64-bit.

touristIt will run on a atom 330 with 2gigs ram just fine, 4 months up time and still counting and yes it will give an error if it detects less than 160gb hard drive.


What sort of error? Will it allow you to install and run it regardless if it's less than 160gb?
Score
1
April 28, 2010 2:36:55 AM

Quote:
I'm only human. Give me a break. You're one of those people who always remembers the milk, to pick up the dry cleaning and has never once sent an email without the attachment? I see this is your first post too. Charming first impression you make.


Haha, nice pwn. Geez mistakes happen; people need to lighten up. Sometimes I think Tom's Hardware has the most complainers.

Thanks for finding/posting the info. I have been anxiously waiting to build my home server, but I wanted to wait until "Vail" came out. I am downloading the Beta now!

Hopefully it will be cheap like WHS 1.
Score
2
April 28, 2010 3:01:54 AM

I am not sure why they have the 160 GB requirement, but what use would there be for having WHS on a hard drive less than 160 GB? You wouldn't be able to backup or stream hardly anything. And if you needed to back up, it would be pointless to buy a computer for that and install WHS.
Score
1
April 28, 2010 10:13:51 AM

This is a nice sign...nice the have x64 support. I have been waiting on Vail for some time.

I only hope that you can convert your current content from WHS v1 to this, and they drop the silly non-NTFS formatting of the drives that they currently have, so if your server fails, you can still get to the info on another non-WHS machine.
Score
0
April 28, 2010 12:51:37 PM

JMcEntegartI'm only human. Give me a break. You're one of those people who always remembers the milk, to pick up the dry cleaning and has never once sent an email without the attachment? I see this is your first post too. Charming first impression you make.


Funniest thing I've read all day. Thanks for the laugh.
Score
4
April 28, 2010 1:38:32 PM

JMcEntegartI'm only human. Give me a break. You're one of those people who always remembers the milk, to pick up the dry cleaning and has never once sent an email without the attachment? I see this is your first post too. Charming first impression you make.


Who forgets the milk? That is the first section I go to when I'm at the store.
Score
1
April 28, 2010 1:48:00 PM

I'll just continue to use Windows XP since all my RAID manufacturers have drivers for Windows XP. And I'll do my backups with Acronis since it can detect every network card (And RAID card oddly) I've thrown at it.
Score
0
April 28, 2010 2:36:51 PM

babybelugaWho forgets the milk? That is the first section I go to when I'm at the store.


You'd make a great milkman.
Score
1
April 28, 2010 3:18:46 PM

JMcEntegartYou'd make a great milkman.


If I had a dime for every time I heard that...


I would still be confused by that comment. <('.'<)
Score
1
April 28, 2010 3:45:54 PM

i just dont see Microsoft creating a server platform that will be able to compete with the security of a Linux server... at least not at the moment... open source just seems the way to go for me when it comes to a server i can trust with my data...
Score
0
April 28, 2010 3:56:42 PM

babybelugaIf I had a dime for every time I heard that...I would still be confused by that comment. <('.'<)


Never forgetting the milk ... ? Oh nm.
Score
1
April 28, 2010 5:09:45 PM

Ms. McEntegart,

I think babybeluga is too young to know what a milkman is (he is a baby beluga afterall...)...actually, I think everyone here is too young to know what a milkman is. I mean, you can figure it out easily enough...but still. This brings me to a question: Do milkmen still operate in the UK? They basically stopped in the US around 50-60 years ago.

2zao,

Arguments about Linux vs MS Servers security aside, I am interested to see what security this new WMS uses. I know it is based off of Microsoft Server 2008, but the security description on "Vail" is lacking. Seems rather important especially since they are advertising remote use.
Score
0
Anonymous
April 28, 2010 6:31:34 PM

windows home server is useless, windows vista allows you to hook up a NAS or multiple HDD in your system, it allows you to create users, and privileges, and you can serve files, and other server stuff like printer.

dont waste your cash on a stupid POS get vista premium it does all the same, except you need to see some sites to help you undersand command line fixing
Score
0
April 28, 2010 6:31:54 PM

... this subject has been milked dry ...

... it was a udder-ly ridiculous in the first place ...

... I'm going to moo-ve along now ...

On a more related note, this article should have been titled, "Microsoft has un'vail'ed its new version of Windows Home Server"
Score
1
April 28, 2010 7:08:22 PM

I disagree. WHS is very easy to use and is also cheaper ($100). Setting up what and when to backup is a lot easier than normal desktop OS, as are the media streaming functions. Anyways, I would get Windows 7 and use the home group function before I used Vista. I would also point out WHS is less than 4 GB...

Why on earth would I buy Vista that is usually more expensive, more complicated, and more of a resource hog over WHS?
Score
1
April 28, 2010 7:37:28 PM

snoooooooooze. I couldn't watch more than a minute of that boring video. How about actually doing a little work on an article and write a summary instead of just plopping a friggin video in.
Score
-1
April 29, 2010 3:58:12 AM

I'm sad, I would have a server, unfortunately the processor doesn't support x64 otherwise it would work
Score
0
April 29, 2010 5:18:18 PM

I can't imagine anyone with a home server with less than a terabyte of storage, and probably much more. The 160GB is like the 1GB of RAM. That's the minimum needed to run the OS. Who builds a 64-bit system with 1GB of RAM?

I still can't figure out what the difference between a server and a network is.

I have four systems and use Windows 7 for my home network. Granted I don't rip DVDs to my hard drive to share over the network. And I get choppy playback when I try to stream media over the network. But I can't see how a home server will improve the playback.

Is the way I use (or more accurately NOT use) my home network so different from the vast majority of home users? Is Windows Home Server targeted at a very limited segment of users? Or am I the one missing the boat?

I know quite a few techie types and my home network is more advanced than nearly all of theirs. I don't know anyone that even talks about networking their computers at home. So I wonder who actually buys and uses WHS.

I back up from one computer to another. Have RAID 0 on my "server." I'm still trying to work out the kinks in the back up from my laptop to my "server" but that is more a question of how much time it takes to do the back up than whether it works or not.

I synch files from system to system so even if one is shut down I have a current version available. And Home Group is working great for everything else. Printing isn't always perfect (the system the printer is attached to goes to sleep) but I know that I can just buy a printer with wired or wireless networking to solve that problem.

So the questions remains: Why use WHS? And, how many people actually use it?
Score
0
!