Nice post over at the Windows Home Server Team Blog today in which Product Planner Todd Headrick asks readers to imagine a world with TWO versions of Windows Home Server - a basic version and an “advanced” version.
So, now we are back in the product planning phase and culling through all of these suggestions. What if we had 2 versions of Windows Home Server - one for the “basic” household and one for the more “advanced” household. What should we think about using as limits for the number of users and computers for a “basic” version and for an “advanced” version?
Todd’s post focuses on additional user limits, but if there were a premium version of Windows Home Server, I’m sure there could be a lot more in it too. Certainly I can see the advanced version offering the improved digital media integration we’re all looking for with Windows Media Center, leaving a much cheaper basic version free to compete with dedicated NAS devices.
Can you see a world with two SKUs of Windows Home Server? If so, how would they differ? And which one would you want running on your home server? A basic version giving you a similar experience and feature set to today’s Windows Home Server, so something a bit more advanced?
Certainly seems like developing an advanced version of Windows Home Server is in the product team’s thoughts right now.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:30 am
I would say a big ‘No’ on multiple versions.
Having features that you can turn on/off in the OS i would love to have, but not multiple versions.
The main mantra for Home Server was to ‘keep it simple’ if i’m not mistaken. By creating multiple versions of the product then you add confusion to the person buying the product (marketing loves to segment the market but it would be a big mistake).
Hardcore users like myself will always select the pro/ulimate/whatever-has-the-most-features version, but i’m worried for the ‘dumb’ user. The user that goes to the local electronics store and picks up a complete HP-box and that has no idea what it actually does beyond the basics.
Multiple versions of WHS would also mean that addons might work in one version, but not another (i.e vista ultimate supports feature N but not the home ed).
You can argue that ‘dumb’ user will not install any addons etc, but i know from experience that they eventually will (anti virus?), further more you’ll make it harder for developers to create functional addons. By creating multiple editions you also make it harder for the ‘dumb’ user’s technical friend, that will have to fix the home server when something happends (”i’m sorry but i cant do that because this is the home ed that dosent support feature N”).
This is not a server product for businesses that is installed and managed by proffessionals. It’s a ‘home-server’ and it needs to be _simple_.
My suggestion:
-Release only one edition of the WHS OS (do not make ultimate,pro,home,enterprise ed)
-Release only one cd/dvd set with both 64bit and 32bit editions on the same disk.
-Give users the choice to turn on/off various features (media center, website, adv. disk monitoring).
-Give users the possibility to use their WHS with as many or as few possible computers as possible (as developers you’ll only make it harder on yourself implementing this part and artificial restrictions always give users pain).
-Hide advanced options from the user unless the explicitly want to see them. Use safe defaults. This way you can add advanced customization but still make it manageable for ‘dumb’ users.
Remember marketing people, you dont want to just sell a product; you want to make the user buy from you a second time aswell.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Maybe they could introduce a “power-user” pack with advanced (but not over-the-top) features.
September 5th, 2008 at 11:09 am
This stinks of the Version fiasco of Vista to me.
I can see that the 10 user limit is to limit the overlap with SBS, as was mentioned in the original article, but I agree with Thomas’ ideas above, except for the licensing.
I like the idea of 10 users, and then you can load a license pack, which increases it in increments of 5 or 10. Not necessarily CALs, okay maybe CALs, but the base number of 10 is always there for the simple home user.
Multiple versions just lead to heartache.
September 5th, 2008 at 11:23 am
I agree with thomas. WHS was meant to be SIMPLE. Well, keep it simple! Maybe the possebility to buy a “Pro Pack” could be considderd. But no other version should hit the marked.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
I’m so tired of companies that fracture product lines. What is the point, aside from driving customers to pony up for “premium,” “professional,” “ultimate,” etc.? The reason I won’t switch my home machines to Vista has less to do with performance, since the service pack release, than it does with the fractured feature sets.
In my view, if MS were to offer “two versions” of WHS, I’d end up trashing my WHS on the HP box, and get a different operating system to run the features.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
When WHS first came out I remember being quite surprised at how expensive it was (both as OEM and as packaged). Leading up to its release there had been hype about tiny form factor $200-$300 WHS servers. But I was a little let down to see a $180 sticker price for the OS and not much short of $500 machines.
My thinking was that this would be a great little product to give away almost free. More importantly for Microsoft, I thought this would be a great “hook” to keep Windows households on Windows, which of course is an increasingly harder thing to do these days with Linux and OSX gaining popularity.
For me, if there were another version, I still think it would be a good strategy for Microsoft to have a WHS Basic free edition. This would also drive down the price of the machines and create more interest in the market segment that just doesn’t want to spend $500 on WHS. Today WHS is still a niche product, but it seems to me that it could be more valuable as a strategic component.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Leave the stuff alone microsoft.. if people want more then 10 computers on whs just sell CAL’s or better jet, disable the limit!!!!
I made the mistake buying vista on day 1, then realizing remote desktop had been removed and brought to “ultimate”, now I need to “upgrade” for $100+ for remote desktop WHICH I HAD ON XP.
In stead of “enabling more stuff” they will cripple the current version (for WHS2) and then rip people of, see the vista track record.
I just replaced my laptops with a macbook and macbook pro. Combined with time-machine hooked to my airport. Due to the Vista licensing crap I had.
Spend a couple of thousand euros on my home entertainment now (whs server with 5TB, vista media center, xbox 360 extender) and its money well spend but I get really pissed of sometimes by the stupidity of some crap
Like I cant connect to my shares through the extender (unless I use a hack only available on ultimate GRRRRRR) no mpeg4 on extender mode, tv pack only to OEM, stop making up licensing crap (I have to do that at work already, licensing servers anyone?) and start fixing the simple stuff!!!!
September 5th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
I agree with the fact a user can buy additional license pack if needed. I would love to see a better integration and interaction with MCE 2005 and WMC. Not only videos, photos, and music can be share, but also recordings. If we want that functionality, we have to use a hack which sometimes is a pain to have it to work. It would be so easy to Microsoft to supply a kind of Pro Pack or a specific add-in to enable this feature for users who want it. It would be painless for the user.
Thanks for reading me
September 5th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
No no no! Please don’t do to WHS what was done to Vista. How ’bout just a check box during installation for basic install or advanced install.
September 5th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I agree whole heartedly: Do NOT do multiple SKUs of WHS!
It is just confusing. Vista has way too many choices. Don’t do this to WHS!
September 5th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
I’m pretty much agree with the majority here. Multiple versions is a bad idea. The ONLY way I’d be for it would be if there was a Very (free?) inexpensive version that had only minimal features.
Features I’d like to see:
- Strong Media Center integration.
- Some method of online/remote storage automation, encrypted of course.
September 5th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
The one sku frame of thought sounds reasonable until you put your business hat on and think about what its going to take to gain marketshare. To compete with various NAS platforms I think Microsoft needs to come out with a more price concious sku for OEMs.
Microsoft need to be mindful of the cost of entry (for OEMs) so that WHS gains marketshare.
$89 WHS (Standard) 4 Client Licenses
$149 Advanced WHS Pack - TV Pack with 6 Additional Client Licenses
September 5th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I prematurely submitted my last post as I was formulating my thoughts. All I know is the $170 price tag does not allow WHS to gain more of the NAS market. I think it needs to be priced around $59. Also keep in mind that for
September 5th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
I am also against additional SKUs. And don’t limit the number of machines below 10! I only have four machines in my home, but by the time I look at the machines I support (parents, friends, other family) that number is up to 8 machines. Also, I would say that the WHS crowd, by their very definition, are an advanced group to begin with. So you gain nothing by offering an OS that most users are not going to understand, set up, etc. Think it through! There are two ways a user is going to end up with a WHS.
1) The user buys a premade server with OS included. (MediaSmart in my case.) If the user is buying a premade version, then Microsoft offering a cheap version that the manufacturer then uses has the potential for damage to both the manufacturer AND Microsoft. Can you see reviews that go something like this?
HP delivers a small form factor home server that is handcuffed by a basic version of Windows Home Server.
Epson’s new box is a great little server for the Japanese market, but the OS is a stripped down version that will leave you wanting!
2) The other way to get your hands on WHS is if you are building your own box… Which means that you are, by the very act of building your own box, an advanced user. Which advanced user building his/her own box is going to start putting everything together to have a server in the home, then buy the stripped out version? If I could do it all over again, I’d be REALLY tempted to build my own box. As it is, I have been watching the dual core group over on another MS forum. I REALLY want to upgrade to a dual core.
Now, it is possible that I am wrong about my assumptions, but I have yet to meet a basic computer user who has even heard of WHS and when I tell them about it, they glaze over most of the time. Even my IT department had never heard of it until I had one. And just about everyone on these forums and others are more on the advanced side. Even the newbs like me when I started are more advanced than any base WHS version I can imagine. So what would be the point?
To the poster above, troll the interwebnet and you’ll find that there is a way to enable RDP on Vista Home Premium and Home editions.
September 5th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Well, straight off, Media Center in both. Period. I would say keep the basic much as WHS is right now. Plain and simple. 10 users, 10 computers.
As for the advanced, allow AD support. Period. maybe use more than 10 u/c, or perhaps use the CAL method for more users. I would also say release it as x64.
Use the basic versions for the average joe. Make the Advanced version for the SOHO and enthusiasts/IT guys.
I understand peoples desire to avoid multiple SKUs at all cost, but maybe there are people who don’t need all the features, ever. And don’t want to have to pay for a bunch of stuff they’ll never use. I think having just 2 SKUs for WHS is an excellent idea, and if you can think of some credible reasons why not to, feel free. Other than the belief that MS will cripple the basic version.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Multiple versions has its pro’s and con’s.
Pro’s can be to reduce cost and therefore increase accesability in different markets/countries.
The lower end versions of OS’s allows smaller cheaper machines to be built to run them again… enableing people access they might not have had.
Con’s can create confusion and it seems generally P**S people off.
For me there are too many verions of Vista, yeas have multiple SKU’s but not this many. Remote desktop being removed from Home and even basic is rediculous considering product such as WHS are now out there!
Regards multiple versions of WHS I would say Yes (in the distant future) for reasons noted above But! be very careful and clear where they both stand. The reason I say distant future is It would be better to spend money and time supporting and more importantly marketing the current WHS we have…Yes uptake has been good but it has not reached main stream yet by any means, I am yet to see a good retail store have a fully working demo/promo of WHS (prob the media smart) showing what it does to joe public…Imagine if anyone could go in to say PC World and see it being demo’d or have an informative display backed up by knowledgeable staff to tell them why they need a Stay At Home Server, then WHS could really be driven to the masses.
I am a big fan of MS and their technologies, MCE and WHS but over in the UK I very rarely see a good demo/ product display pushing said tehnologies. I will for one do my best to inform family and friends about WHS and MCE but I cannot tell Joe Public! MS that is up to you and the retail networks.
Thank You
Rick
RB
September 5th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
I would prefer just one version of WHS. I would like the idea of being able to turn on or off “advanced” features. The one “must” have in the next version (basic install) would be Media Center. To me, WHS is only half way there as a home server without this feature.
Regarding “advanced” options, I am not sure what advanced features would be desired, but it would be nice to be able to install them during the initial install, and/or be able to turn on/off these features easily in a simple check-box arrangement. Don’t hide them throughout the Control Panel.
The one problem I do see is that all the features that would be desired by some enthusiasts is that it will eventually push the feature count to the point where one might as well purchase a version of Windows Server 2008. Perhaps Microsoft should simply have a version of Server 2008 that includes the backup features/file structure of WHS, for those who want to push the limit, and have the single version of WHS. With the Media Center feature, of course.
September 5th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
I agree with Jim Clark…. REAL media center support needs to come to WHS. I would not be opposed to paying some extra fee for it but I dont want a separate version of WHS. Just put it in WHS 2.0 and have it be an addon product or better yet just integrate it.
September 6th, 2008 at 1:36 am
Can’t see why not:
Features I’d like to see in an advanced version would be:
-Mail Server (Exchange based, outlook anywhere, owa, UM)
-IP-PBX (OCS based, with desktop client like communicator, tanjays, external call routing through WLM, or other VOIP provider)
-Edge Firewall (Forefront Edge based, multihomed, VPN support, proxy cache)
-Home Web Server (WSS Based)
-Search and Indexing (search center url published to Vista desktop search)
I’d like to see Media Support using MCE in the standard version.
September 6th, 2008 at 2:19 am
I have to admit that I am somewhat confused by all the “regular” server features that users are requesting. WHS as designed and marketed by MS is a home backup solution. Any and all of the data that is on the WHS should, by definition, be data that originates from another source. And is backed up elsewhere. This is the case for my music, pictures, movies and other data.
The features that I am seeing requested quite often are features in MS’s business server solutions and features that would require the backup server data to backed up elsewhere.
Please, I like features that would improve monitoring the WHS box, allow that data to be “served” thru the house (media center), and build on the simplicity of WHS. For those who want “real” server functions, buy whatever version of Server 2008 that would suit your tastes. I also doubt that MS would want WHS to have anywhere the functionality of the business server products. I would really like to see MS maintain the KISS principals of WHS.
For the enthusiasts, buy Server 2008. Let WHS do the job it was intended to do: backup data. And improve the ability to “Serve” that data thru the home with the next version.
Altho, I will contradict myself, lol, by saying that improved web serving capabilities would be nice. But I think there might be repercussions from ISP’s. Who wants to pay for a business internet account?
September 6th, 2008 at 4:38 am
I could actually see three distinct versions.
1) An minimum version with basic NAS functionality that is only sold to OEM’s for building NAS boxes.
2) The current version updated to include all the functionality of Media Center with support for several TV Tuners - say 5.
3) A small busineess version without any entertainment functions but good as a file server for small Doctors office, body shop, etc.
This would just be packaging and would cause little confusion in the market.
September 6th, 2008 at 5:59 am
Hello,
I posted to the Connect site a couple times about Mesh and WHS interoperability. Personally, I think that it would be optimal to have a version of WHS that is built from the ground up solely around expanding Live Mesh functionality. I have even suggesting a rebranding of WHS to “Live Mesh Server” or “Mesh Home Server”. If there was to be a divergence in SKU’s, I would recommend that one become a simple turn-key and “meshified” home appliance. Ideally, this SKU of the home server would be a joint effort with the Mesh team, and would be solely dedicated to expanding Mesh and “should-have-been-in-the-Mesh” functionality. More advanced capabilities could be packaged into a separate SKU, which would be more similar to the Small Business Server and less consumer oriented. WHS was originally marketed to be “a server for the family” and my own impression is that it is really just a “server for the tech-enthusiast”. Focusing around Live Mesh functionality and becoming an integral part of the Windows Live productset would do much make WHS palatable as a family product for the non-techies.
September 6th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Multiple SKUs of WHS, Advanced or Basic? No!No!No!No!No!No!No!No!No!No!No!No!No!No!No!No!No!No!No!No!No!No!No!No!
Did I say no to that?
The beauty and appeal to WHS is that it is a simple affordable “everyday” solution. If you are needing more advanced options, then you need to look at another product. If you have your own domain and dozens of computers, then most likely you already had your own centralized storage solution, backup solution, and web server. Keep using those and leave WHS alone. Better Media Center integration/support, yes that is a no brainer. But, cals, exchange lite, and the other advanced features will kill WHS. That is what SBS is for, not WHS.
If there can be anything learned from WHS it is this, we like it simple. Instead of making WHS more complicated and complex with multiple SKUs, advance features, etc. try making the other Windows versions more simple.
Still in the case of WHS, please, please, please stick with the K.I.S.S. solution (Keep It Simple, Stupid). I would hate to see this sacrificed to the gods of complexity before it is even really had a chance to live. Learn from Vista mistakes AND from WHS SUCCESSES!
September 6th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
WHS is right because it is simple. It should stay that way. At work I have moved us to Linux partly because I simply cannot understand Microsoft licensing (and I have a Ph.D in Nuclear Physics).
I like Tim’s suggestions. WHS should be a server not just a disk based backup solution. It certainly should not morph into SBS server but some things would be great. My favourite would be a wiki. This could have two options; internal or external with optional password protection.
This would be great for children collaborating on their homework and me collaborating with my small business clients.
September 7th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
I like WHS because it’s simple. I would like to see better intergration with MediaCenter in WHS, but isn’t there a way to do it without having ‘basic’ and ‘pro’ versons?
There are too many versons of Vista, I can’t keep them all straight. I’d hate to see WHS go the same route. I agree with what others have said. WHS costs too much, and the cost is a barrier to large-scale acceptance.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
For me I would love the ability to stick a couple of tuner cards in and to be able to record directly onto my WHS. Then I can use it as a central hub for recording and not have to have 2 machines on at the same time for doing an easily integrated task.
A nice web interface for it so you can add recordings etc whilst out and from mobile devices.
Other than that it is spot on for what I want it for
September 8th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
More Stuff Built in ?? (One Sku)
• Compatibility with one care would be nice!
• The ability to add additional users and computer is a good feature
• Centralized account management , parent controls and User Data
• Advanced Power management features
• Improve Media server ability
• Integration with live mesh,window live ID and live office …
I like what Jim Clark said
I would really like to see MS maintain the KISS principals of WHS.
Anything else should be handled by an add-in (Other SKUS)
Exchange – give me a add-in
Home Web Server (WSS Based) – Give me Add-in
………………………………
September 8th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Totally agree about things being kept simple, and if they can offer advanced services while maintaining that, then great.
Those that just want to KISS in terms of functionality, rather than configuration, there’s a problem with that.
Other products ‘will’ come to market eventually - based around the home user space - that will serve PBX/Voice, e-mail, automation, diagnostics, hell even a fridge stock inventory. Our houses ‘will’ eventually become computers. Your light, blinds, windows, heating, fridge, kettle, locks, rubbish (trash), cat flaps…..everything.
MS need to be in that space, and they are perfectly poised to take this product and lead the way of house array technology. It would not suprise me to see MS buy a leading automation protocol like X10, or invent their own standard.
Personally, I think it’s rather all exciting. If you don’t get as excited as I do, stick to the standard verion
September 8th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Not that I want to keep it that simple, WHS is an OS I prefer the add-in approach for adding functionality If I don’t want a function I don’t install the add-in I don’t deal with the bloat as far as substandard applications built in to the OS do you use notepad for your word processing needs. I want improved functionality and stability keep new stuff as add-ins Microsoft in not going to give us anything for free having the ability to add just what we want is better
September 8th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
I like the add-in approach also, but it doesn’t always make a sensible business model for the vendor. The add-in ability, is only there to satisfy the ISVs, and also to extend the desirability of the product platform.
I think MS will continue to evolve the product. They need to add extra features, and compelling ones too. Or, the revenue pipeline dries up. Why buy Home Server 2 without a good reason to, or at least something cool that might be useful. By approaching a modular route, it offers too much flexibility for potential purchasers to just get what they need, rather than pay just a little over the odds for one particular feature they want. It’s something M$ have been doing since day one, and is part of why they are so hugely successful.
Anyone, back on track. Talking of PBX/Voice/email and web. I would be pleased to see a server addition that hooks into the new SaaS hosted apps that are gathering huge momentum - that way you don’t need the bloat (as folk call it) on your server. Have a server interface that acts as a cache between the hosted environment.
I ‘heart’ WHS
September 9th, 2008 at 2:51 am
I would suggest for WHSv2, SOLID media centre features. DivX, Xvid support, ability to simply work as streaming server and have it handle ALL the usual windows codec’s etc so my library of content ‘just works’.
I would support a ‘premium’ WHS if he came with communication features such as a cut down version of Exchange. Yeah I know it’s not the mission etc etc but just think…what is actually missing from this OS that all us enthusiasts would use? Accessible mail that all the family can use (within the 10 user limit) so we can jump from our laptop to desktop to our work machine to our smart phone and keep our contacts and Outlook accessible just like our WHS remote access to files.
I would pay $$ for that feature. I mean please, if it came so cheaply on SBS, couldn’t we have it too?
I bet that within 10 years many homes will have servers and crappy ISP and work hosted mail just won’t cut it.
Why don’t MS take control now and imagine the uptake by business types so they can synch their Blackberries and iPhones etc as well as us early adopters.
It’ll open up the market for WHS in an instant.
This is something to really consider.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:08 am
I agree - Microsoft should create 6 to 8 different SKUs of Windows Home Server.
And, then bring the Vista Marketing Team over to market the product. That should help too…
Sincerely,
Steve Jobs
September 9th, 2008 at 3:50 am
^^^ That’s funny, “Steve”!
September 27th, 2008 at 2:49 am
I think it should they should keep it simple as possible. One of the main reason why the average consumer is staying away from it is they feel intimitated by the name “Server” or afraid they can’t set up a “home server”, Microsoft or HP should offer to set it up for free or $50.I did my research and read all the blogs, pro’s and con’s what it can and can’t do.I am new to WHS, an average Joe who don’t know too much about computer and OS. I consider myself as a “dumb” user. I purchased a HP in the box media smart with 1 HD, I added 3 more 500 GB HD, with no problems. Set-up and connecting 3 computers running on XP Pro and 2 Vista Ulitimate was a no brainer. Intalled the update service pack 1, loaded McAfee and PV connect from HP without any problems. Remote access is working on all the computers.
“it’s so simple a caveman can do it”
BTW there are already different versions Windows Home Server released, its called Windows Server 2003 and Windows 2008.
October 4th, 2008 at 3:10 am
Hi all,
I think that there should be a business focused version of WHS.
Let me explain my reasoning:
I run a small engineering business; I have no expertise with computers/networking, and not enough cash flow to bring in IT pro’s. The things I need are:
• Centralized storage/backup of my work files
• Remote access to files
• Backups of each of the employees email
• A print server
At the beginning of summer I decided that I wanted to switch from a p2p network to a server based setup. I (like a sucker) believed the marketing of SBS 2003, bought a copy and proceeded to try to set it up myself. It was a disaster, I was barely able to make it connect to the internet, let alone configure the rest of the settings. Three weeks wasted.
Then I bought a copy of WHS. What a huge difference! It is extremely easy to use and I had it up and running in no time. I have automated backups of everything. When I am on the road I have a wireless broadband service so I simply remote desktop into my office computer and do all my work that way. When one of my employees computers went down I was able to set her up on a different machine, restore the latest backup of her .pst file and away she went, while I restored her original machine. I bought a network attached print server.
The problems I have are that a) WHS does not have enough users for me, which I got around by installing filezilla. b) There is no easy way to automatically back up to a remote ftp that I have physical access to e.g. a NAS in my home with ftp functionality.
There must be hundreds of small businesses who have no computer expertise and are too small to afford professional IT help but for whom WHS is just a little bit limiting. These people probably don’t need the media center connectivity.
What I would really like to see is a “network in a box” containing – a server with WHS installed (if SBS supports up to 75 users then give me 25–30) – a router that just works – Detailed installation documents – a NAS that can be “paired” with the server, then just plugged into another network somewhere else. This would be for people like me who just want stuff to work with minimal fuss.
Call it Windows Home Business Server - WHBS
Sorry for the long post!
October 4th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
I vote for:
* No additional WHS SKUs! Ever!
* Media Center integration (e.g., “TiVo killer”)
* “Green” power management (e.g., LightsOut integration)
* Cloud backup services
* Lower cost
While I see things like AD support, VoIP, and such added to the wanted list, these are getting out of the home user base and entering the gray, fuzzy feature list that lurks between WHS and SBS. I’m sure there are plenty of consultants who feel they can’t sell SBS to very small businesses and see WHS with more CALs as the perfect entry-level backup / file / print / remote access server.
For that market share, it’s looking more like a product is needed to fill in the fuzzy zone. Rather than fragment the WHS market, a new product could be generated: SOHO Server. It would have AD support, offsite e-mail in the cloud, automated cloud backup services, and the like. Thus the markets would look like:
Windows Home Server –> SOHO Server –> Small Business Server
Don’t confuse the target market with multiple SKUs for the same product (see: Vista). If there’s a need for the SOHO / technical enthusiast market, build a new product for it. Don’t dilute or confuse the existing brand.
October 5th, 2008 at 3:46 am
Definitely no more than one version of Home Server. But the option to enable “non-default features” should be considered. I wouldn’t like a Pro Expansion Pack, but rather features that are disables by default.
Currently Home Server lacks support for more than 10 users, MediaCenter features, Better backup of the Home Server itself, better powersaving feature set, encryption, AD integration … and … and …
But always remember simplicity - the set up should not be more complex than it is today. So a slow expansion toward some extra features would be preferable in my opinion.
October 5th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
OK fine not a second version of WHS, But a different product that has a greater focus on business consumers while retaining its simplicity.
Segmenting a market IS a good idea. Microsofts mistake with vista (in my opinion) was making some odd choices about which feature sets to include in each sku and not communicating effectively with consumers. Also, out of the millions of people who use vista I suspect that most people who bought it separately from their computer went for the cheapest option, and most people who bought it with their computer didn’t think about it that much. Thats why there are so many people who don’t have the features that they want. Server software is something that is much more researched before it is bought and so different sku’s wouldn’t be such a problem.
There IS a gap in the market between WHS and SBS that a server software product with the right mix of features could filled profitably, and honstly I don’t care what it’s called. I agree with everyone who thinks that WHS’s simplicity is the best thing about it.
November 4th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
-media center integration. if you already have an always-on box at home, that’s enough, you don’t need two.
-support off all current formats out off the box, just like vlc player, no codec downloads and stuff
-easy streaming to other devices(ex: xbox) and pc’s in the house. especially streaming of live tv to other media centers!! most people don’t have sat cables in every room, so you could simply put some tuners in the server and there you go.
-easily moving files on the server!!!! (from one shared folder to another shared folder)
-power management, but this depends mostly on hardware…
-µtorrent integrated or easily installable
-print server
-i don’t see the need for two versions, other than MS ripping people off. simply keep all the advanced stuff in a menu apart.
-surprise me with USEFULL stuff
November 5th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
i think it would make sense to have 2 versions IF:
-one had media center integrated and would serve as a media server.
-the other one wouldn’t have it integrated.
This would make sense because you need different hardware for the 2!
a media center server would need some beefy hardware to support HD recording from different tuners while streaming live tv and video from harddisks at the same time.
the current home server needs very little processing power, so this would be very different and much more expensive hardware required.
that’s why some people think only enthousiasts would adopt it in the beginning. (http://msmvps.com/blogs/chrisl/archive/2007/11/09/1290052.aspx)
i think it is the future because the hardware developps pretty fast…
November 18th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
@thomas - I fully agree with Thomas about only needing 1 WHS version that has an Expert/Advanced mode for those of us who know what they are doing and as he said for the friend of the ‘dumb/normal(Non technician)’ user.
I could use this Advanced mode right now!!