Gates announces Windows Home Server

tin:

What a stupid idea...
Most people in need of a home server are either going to be using older hardware with a free OS, or a pirated copy of the latest edition of Windows Server.
Do they actually expect to sell this in real life or just in fantasy land?

Dan Warne:

I reckon I'd buy it at the right price. Trouble with a desktop PC is it takes up space and often makes fan noise. That's possibly OK if you happen to have a cupboard spare with a handy ethernet jack, but that's not always the case. 

Also, a dedicated home server that doesn't have to run many applications could probably use lower-spec hardware than a typical PC. Then again, this is Microsoft, and it IS Vista so it'll probably have to have at least 512MB of RAM.

I like the small form factor though. I suppose the Linux community will duplicate it pretty quickly, and it surely wouldn't be too hard for Apple to adapt the Mac Mini to do this for Mac users (they REALLY need to change it so it can fit a 3.5" hard drive -- it's the difference between 200GB max and 750GB max!).

Finally, I reckon despite all its bluster about the roaring success of Windows Media Centre, Microsoft knows that both the industry and consumers have been a bit slow to come to the party with home theatre PCs. It's just too hard to make an affordable PC that has all the features and is small, low-noise and looks like a home theatre component. As a result, HTPCs are an exercise in compromises.

I reckon that Microsoft knows that there's a more viable market in media extenders build into other products -- TVs, consoles, set top boxes -- with the storage and processing power stored elsewhere.  

David Flynn:

Hopefully Microsoft will make it available to end-users who can them roll their own home server to their own spec, as these uber-geeks would surely be vital 'early adopters' for Microsoft, alongside the well-heeled who want to buy a home server off the shelf (or off Dell's Web site, as I am sure Dell will be very quick off the mark with this one).

But while I can understand Microsoft building Home Server as an extension to the Vista OS (honestly, would anyone expect them to do anything else?), it's a shame, because I can see two prime platforms.

The first would be a high-spec dedicated server system packed with a terrabyte drive (which by the time this ships towards years' end could be a commonplace top-shelf spec). It's the sort of 'typical' hub for a 'digital home'. Could be not much bigger than a stout bookend if it runs integrated graphics and a hard disk plus other basics (networking, USB/FireWire etc).

But the second would be the other end of the scale, and the one favoured by many users without such advanced needs but still wanting the benefits of centralised content - and that would be an older PC, perhaps the one just replaced by a snappy new Core 2 system. Chuck in a bit of extra memory, upgrade the hard drive and that's that. I've got an old Pentium III mini-tower here that's quiet as a whisper, and I'd love to make it into a simple-to-run home server using bespoke software just like Microsoft has mentioned. But damned if I'm going to want to splash out what could be $1000 on a home server system when I've also got to save for a new PC.

Bones:

Once again the question arises....WHY would you spend mega-bucks on a crap OS to run a home server ?. Even before I was half computer literate I had, and still have, a prehistoric P2 300 running E-Smith Linux with 64Mb of RAM as a server. Even a virtual newbie can install and setup this OS to work on a small network. The thing has been running literally for years and the only limitation to hard drive size is the degree of ancientness of the PC it runs on. Cheap hardware, free OS, simplicity of setup, no need for keyboard, mouse, or monitor for administration( login with telnet from a Windows box) make it a simple efficient and inexpensive alternative for the moderately unskilled user. Stuff Microsoft

raindog:

They're on the ball at Redmond, cant be more than a decade after products like the cobalt cube were released.
If Microsoft can punch out server boxes at X-Box like prices with around 2G of RAM and and Healthy HDD they have a chance of making a success of it, but I doubt the economies of scale are there for that to happen especially in an Australian marketplace. Home servers dont have the same must have attraction to the time rich portion of the population that a shoot em up games box does. A server box bristling with HD media hardware that would appeal is likely to be closer to the price point of a Korean car than the ticket price on a post christmas X-Box.
There are a plethora of server builds out there that will run like a train on a recently retired PIII or on that $400 budget Dell Server box off the promo fax (even with its pityful basic RAM spec).
SME server, Clark Connect, and similar projects all have no problem serving to MACs, PCs, and NIX boxes. Any problem MS has communicating with other platforms is more an "I wont share my toys" philosophy than any technical limitation.
The NIX builds may be geek products but isn't that the sector that will most likely have a home server?

Alan:

Intel did show two different reference designs in Microsoft's press and partner pavilions, but just hadn't yet finalized negotiations on a development agreement in time for CES.

Keshav:

This home web server is lot easier to use:

http://www.purplenova.com