Microsoft’s upcoming Windows Home Server will most likely be a runaway success — it solves a problem that tens of milllions of households have. Statistics Microsoft cites on the Home Server blog back that up — and the numbers are even bigger than I imagined.
Back in 2005, Microsoft did research to find out if there would be a big enough market for Home Server, and the numbers, even then, were eye-popping. The Home Server blog notes that Microsoft found this in 2005:
* More than 15 million households in the US, and more than 40 million worldwide, had a broadband connection with two or more PCs sharing the Internet connection.
* More than 90% of those households have a digital camera.
* Seventy percent of the households own a game console.
* Less than 20% believe they have a good backup solution.
Remember, these are 2005 numbers. Today, you can expect the numbers to be even bigger.
It’s interesting that Microsoft cites backup as the primary need for the Home Server, because the company itself is primarily to blame for people having no good backup solutions. The backup software included with XP isn’t particularly usable — it won’t back up to CDs or DVDs, for example. And as for the backup tool, included in Vista, the less said about it the better.
Still, the backup and sharing capabilities built into Home Server appear to be considerable; I, for one, can’t wait to get my hands on it.
When I read the subject of this post, I thought, "Surely you're not serious. And if you are serious, I'm certain I'll disagree." But I found neither to be the case. You're serious. And I don't disagree. As I started reading, I began thinking, "why would anyone setup a Windows Home Server for backup when they could just setup a Linux box and install Bacula (which has a Windows client, BTW)." Then I thought about my mom, dad, wife, sister, and neighbor and tried to imagine them setting up Bacula. It made me agree that Windows Home Server is going to be a better alternative for most users. And if MS does push its backup capabilities, then it may well be a hit.
Well, I'd buy a Windows server in a heart-beat, as long as it's not tied to a specific vendor's hardware. A succession of bad experiences with HP customer service has left me unable to stomach another HP box.
My experience trying to get my iMac and my PC to play together, particularly with printer sharing, is that although it might be technical possible, and I might be able to do it, it's not worth the bother.
I'm pretty sure I have all my digital photos backed up, so I don't actually need a backup solution, but I'd like to have a home server just as a file store (and I may end up buying an NAS appliance anyway).
What would make my heart swoon is if the home server also supported a VPN for remote access.
Just another couple hundred bucks to spend on something that is so simple. Why not just spend the over inflated price, that you know Home Server will be, on an external backup drive (That includes all the software you need,err maybe). Anyway I fell that Home will be another thing attackers will start targeting and Microsoft will then issue some wonderous servise pack that causes more problems that fixes. Granted I have not read much on the Home Server just going by past results from The Mic.
Everything... absolutely everything MS has even written has been hacked so... what backs up Home Server for the time when (not if) the system is compromised?
From what I've seen with all the other Windows products, this will be one more expensive control-alternate-delete offering from a company that appears to specialize in damage control... sadly, only their own...
Everything... absolutely everything MS has even written has been hacked so... what backs up Home Server for the time when (not if) the system is compromised?
From what I've seen with all the other Windows products, this will be one more expensive control-alternate-delete offering from a company that appears to specialize in damage control... sadly, only their own...