«

It is not an email server. If you need that, you need SBS. Not a bad choice,
I might add. But WHS does not need high end hardware. It needs a good NIC -
GigE preferred. It needs lots of HD. and for the rest? 1 GB of RAM and any
old P4 is quite enough. And it doesn't need a video card, keyboard or mouse.

There's nothing going on that's a big hog here.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Flatus Ohlfahrt" <> wrote in message
news:Xns9934AA875AA04flatusTFL@130.133.1.4...
> On Fri, 18 May 2007 20:22:50 GMT, Colin Barnhorst wrote in
> news:41FA39C9-F829-4E87-9399-:
>
> There are servers and there are servers. If a server determines, at the
> cluster level, what portions of a new iteration of a
> file are to be stored, then, IMO, more than the traditional hardware oomph
> is required. By 'one-box-holds-all', I mean file
> storage, serving, back-up, remote connection capability, and, wishfully,
> central email repository. Obviously, a dedicated
> server is a completely different beast than a workgroup peer.
>
> Flatus
>
>> What do mean by "one-box-holds-all"? It's a server. It
>> needs lots of storage but pretty plain vanilla hardware.
>> It lives to serve files to your home network. That's
>> pretty much all it is for. What else are you thinking it
>> is designed to do? It certainly isn't any alternative to
>> your client OS.
>>
>> "Flatus Ohlfahrt" <> wrote in
>> message news:Xns9934A0DD488BBflatusTFL@130.133.1.4...
>>> My thinking is that for WHS to mature into a
>>> 'one-box-holds-all' device, it has to have hardware
>>> resources beyond what a P4 equivalent will provide. Hence
>>> the desire to load up with resources while still
>>> evaluating whether to buy into the concept.
>>>
>>> FWIW, I enthsiastically subscribed to the notion that
>>> anything heftier than a 286 was overkill for most small
>>> installations of the early versions of NW. So, I'm not
>>> adverse to taking a minimalist approach to server
>>> hardware.
>>>
>>> We have a large house with lots (4) of wired computers, a
>>> notebook, and a PocketPC. Except for those occasions when
>>> a grandkid wants to use one of them, I'm the only user of
>>> any of them.
>>>
>>> Having a centric approach to my type of computing is
>>> certainly attractive. But, only if I can incorporate mail
>>> and extremely rapid file transfer times for media files.
>>> Making backups work is a trivial exercise.
>>>
>>> With a basic PtoP system, I can do everything I
>>> want--until I'm out of the house. That's why I've been
>>> looking at alternatives.
>>>
>>> XP x64 is certainly attractive as a super peer--especially
>>> when you add the capability of remote desktops. But, I'm
>>> frustrated by the inability of some of the programs I've
>>> become dependent on, to run on my x64 machine.
>>>
>>> Now, I realize that you and many of the others here, have
>>> forgotten more about some of these technologies than I
>>> ever knew. And, the problem is made worse as, these days,
>>> I forget what little I did know at an increasingly rapid
>>> pace.
>>>
>>> Flatus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 18 May 2007 14:37:49 GMT, Charlie Russel - MVP
>>> wrote in
>>> news:AB6C11CE-F4DC-47B8-BDCC-:
>>>
>>>> Indeed it will. It's unfortunate that WHS is simply not
>>>> an option for me - I was excited when I first read about
>>>> it, and still think the potential is amazing. But there
>>>> are certain features that simply don't work in this
>>>> version (and that NDAs require me to not talk about here
>>>> in public) that mean I will have to wait. Meanwhile, I've
>>>> got a great box built with a LOT of storage that is now
>>>> being converted into a TiVo media server.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> We fought hard for what we earned.
> Tricare for Life is at:
> http://www.tricareforlife.org
> Tricare is at:
> http://www.tricare.org

On Sat, 19 May 2007 07:02:59 GMT, Charlie Russel - MVP wrote
in news:396E0134-D344-4C84-BE4B-:

Yes, I've used it just as intended--a box sitting peacefully in a corner with nothing beyond a power cable and gigabit LAN
connection. Recognizing that it is beta and still a work in progress, I have experienced some of the difficulties others have
reported relative to very, very large files. That's why I was considering tossing resources at the problem to see what the
effect would be. (I expect these glitches will be ironed out before product release. And, I expect the final product to be very
well received.)

I may well try SBS because of the email. But, before I do, I'll try to find a standalone email package that will sit nicely on
the XP x64 platform. I like x64. It's as stable, for me, as NT4 was.

Flatus

> It is not an email server. If you need that, you need SBS.
> Not a bad choice, I might add. But WHS does not need high
> end hardware. It needs a good NIC - GigE preferred. It
> needs lots of HD. and for the rest? 1 GB of RAM and any old
> P4 is quite enough. And it doesn't need a video card,
> keyboard or mouse.
>
> There's nothing going on that's a big hog here.
>