10 Computers & 10 Users

From time to time, people ask the home server team how and why we made certain decisions for the initial release of WIndows Home Server.  Currently, you can define 10 user accounts in the Windows Home Server Console and you can install the Windows Home Server Connector software on up to 10 home computers running Windows XP or Windows Vista.

In all of the secondary research that we reviewed and primary research that we did for home server as part of the product planning process, it was very rare to find broadband connected households and home-based businesses with more than 10 people and with more than 10 home computers.  Additionally, Microsoft offers a great product, Windows Small Business Server, that scales well beyond 10 users for more sophisticated home-based businesses or small businesses that plan on growing.  You can read about the upcoming release of Windows Small Business Server 2008 on the microsoft web site.

We didn't want to build a consumer product that used CALs (Client Access Licenses) as we really didn't think consumers wanted to deal with managing licenses for their home PCs and sometimes when you say CAL, people hear "cow" and respond that they live in the city not on a ranch and don't really have a need for cattle.

However, we knew that there would be rare cases where someone had 11 computers or 12 or 17 or ? in their home.  So, long ago we made the decision that a user could have 2 home servers, where a given home computer would only be "joined" or "connected" to one for the purpose of the daily automatic image-based backups and centralized health reporting through the Windows Home Server Console. 

The home server team is very customer focused and continues to listen to feedback through Microsoft Connect.  A few people have submitted suggestions that we should allow for more than 10 users and/or more than 10 computers.  We resolved one of these early suggestions as "Won't Fix" for the initial release of Windows Home Server.  But people sometimes resubmit this as a suggestion - the latest one is here (you need a Windows Live ID to access the suggestions on the Windows Home Server Connect site)  

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?

I am interested in your thoughts and feedback. 

t. (aka "todd the product planner") 


Comments (42)
  1. Anonymous says:

    Windows Home Server News Links and News Items mentioned on the show E-Mail Server on Windows Home Server

  2. Anonymous says:

    Definately give us exchange 2007 without the need for AD, or at least make it invisible.

    Not that im against AD, im a MCSE but I think AD doesnt belong in the home.

  3. Anonymous says:

    As the Windows Home Server team look at planning future versions Todd Headrick (Windows Home Server Product

  4. Anonymous says:

    The backup service built into Windows Home Server is designed for easy and efficient storage and recovery

  5. Anonymous says:

    I agree with what has been said about using CALS (or whatever name you call it).

    Plan A:

    Standard license 10 computers/users. Since newegg has the WHS DVD set for $139.99, charge those "advanced" users a one-time fee of $14.00 per pc/user over the 10 user/pc limit ($139.99 divided by 10).

    Plan B:

    Update the current WHS to accept 15 computers/users for everyone.

    Plan C: Do a modification of both plan A and B.

    Whatever you do, DO NOT issue a new SKU for WHS. Let there be one WHS where the updates are done on a per-user basis and not as a separate install.

  6. Anonymous says:

    My issues is not that Home Server does not support more than 10 users – that’s no problem.  It is the fact that it does not support more than 10 computers.  Being one of the geek crowd, I have a grand total of 6 computers myself (home desktop, home notebook, work primary notebook, work secondary notebook, work demo notebook, and game/consumer demo notebook).  That means that my 1 user account takes p 60% of the allocation of machines.  Add a wife and kids, and we are actually out of slots.  So who ends up being the one losing out – me.  The end result is that 1 or 2 of my machines don’t get backed up as needed.

    I would love to see a 10 user and 25 computer limit on Home Server for other folks like me.


  7. Anonymous says:

    Like others have said: NO to multiple versions… NO to ‘cals’ as such.. but YES to being able to just purchase additional lots of say license for 5 computers & 5 users – however, I see no reason for the limit on users even in with the initial WHS purchase – just have unlimited users – it is silly IMO to have equal numbers of computers and users when obviously many have several users for each computer.

    So.. to recap.. initial purchase = license for 10 computers, unlimited users. Additional purchase = lots of licenses for 5 computers, still with unlimited users. There would have to be some way that when additional computers are purchased, the license limitation is adjusted internally.

  8. Anonymous says:

    I’d just like to echo the sentiments of the previous commenters:

    * No new SKU’s

    * Either just give us CAL’s (called anything you like) or just remove the limits – if people want to backup their entire mega-corp on a WHS… well then it’s their loss.

    * It would be good if the WHS tech would find it’s way "upstream".

    My Thoughts:

    * Just say no exchange for home – the cloud is fine for email. ( I believe there is already a post describing your reasoning behind this and I remember agreeing completely )

    * What about WHS ultimate extras?  πŸ˜› just teasing..

  9. Anonymous says:

    Don’t try and sell 2 versions, that would cause more trouble than it would be worth.

    I have 12 PCs at home, but I decided that 3 of them didn’t need to be backed up. (too old and slow)

    When my kids get older this may become an issue, so I can see how some families are having trouble already.

    What I would LOVE to see is Media Center added into WHS. Let it record my TV, so it will be the only system that has to be on 24/7.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Ditto WHS should be WHS. Don’t balkanize the functionality. If you feel compelled to support users with 100 nodes on their "home" server (yah, right…) then some scheme for an SKU add-on license quantity seems like the best solution. A one client user should get all the function.

  11. Anonymous says:

    I really think this a terrible idea. Look at all the confusion with the 7 different Vista versions. Home Server is eventually supposed to be something regular people will use. If computers are confusing to them now, why add an additional choice? Just give Home Server an insanely high limit on the number of users and computers (maybe 25 and 50 respectively) and trust users to not violate the rules. Wild idea but you know, it just might work πŸ™‚

  12. Anonymous says:

    IMO (since you asked :)) —

    If there *were* 2 versions of WHS —

    the "Basic" would be well suited, like the existing product, to ~10 clients.

    An "Advanced"-type product should start with 15, out-of-the-box, with the option to purchase/expand more at a reasonable expense.  A lot to create, including payments, etc.  but allows for more scenarios.

    Myself — I have only ~3 computers for backup, but need LOTS of users.  More users would be good.  Especially a remote-file-synchronization feature.  So someone, remotely, could sync/backup data to the server.  (a’la WebFolders4WHS)

    What I’m trying to say is… that I’d pay (more) for an Advanced version, depending on the feature set, even if it had too-many-seats…

  13. Anonymous says:

    WHS is a lovely product, especially being so young and light. I have 4 physical computers and a lot (around 15) VMs. I really don’t like the limit at all. I think you should keep it simple, ditch the limit altogether, microsoft doesn’t lose anything and people will love it. Please don’t turn it into a sad confusing cash cow… Also, I’m all for making it powerful, AD, IIS, maybe even support for running SQL server…

  14. Anonymous says:

    My dream would be a combination of WHS and SBS.  I was actually really hoping that SBS2008 would include the computer backup and disk system of WHS, then it would be perfect.  As is, now I’ll be running WHS for backups and fileserver, and SBS2008 for email and account management in my (too complex sometimes) home network.

  15. Anonymous says:

    What are folks talking about – enough SKUs?  I think it would be great if kept the trend going – at both end.  How about adding a WHS Basic edition with a limit of 4 comptuers and only the NAS functionality. Then WHS Home edition (as is).  WHS Premium with change the licensing to add CAL based but include mail service.  WHS Ultimate would have the ability for households to share and backup data between them (you know – "families").  And similar to how "Windows Office Visio" is not in any of the Office suites, we could also add other features outside of the regular editions.  How about a WHS DVR module that is an option, but only on the Premium and Ultimate editions?

    Having 4 or 5 editions can’t possible confuse the market and slow down adoption…can it?

  16. Anonymous says:

    I would not differentiate Home Server with different feature-set SKUs. Instead, keep it simple and make a 10-user SKU and a 20-user version (with perhaps a simple wizard to upgrade from the 10 to the 20 if the need arises). People will be able to understand what they need.

    The Vista Feature-SKU explosion has really hurt the Windows community in terms of simplicity and clarity. Please don’t do that to Home Server.

    I would love advanced functionality (better media integration, an email server, IIS7), but for a market this young, you really shouldn’t add more complexity to the purchasing decision.

    Add the advanced features and simply leave them off by default. This way "mom and pop" can easily get HS up and running performing its core competency — backup. Advanced users can then turn on the extra features they want.

  17. Anonymous says:

    Personally I would love to have a "pro" version which officially allows you to use the 2003 part and perhaps also use more server roles and buy cals. In addition I think the connector should be able to work with more then one WHS.

  18. Anonymous says:

    I agree with jadm, if people really need more than 10 user accounts, then allow them to buy another 10 user accounts.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Not to spam, but now that I’ve vented and taken the time to actually read the other comments…

    1) jrronimo’s comment: print it, frame it, plan it for the next maintenance/power/service pack. πŸ™‚

    2) damirb: http://www.vmware.com/products/server/ or http://www.microsoft.com/windows/downloads/virtualpc/default.mspx . Really !! (I’m teasing :)). By the way, I do run a couple of VMs on VMware server running on my WHS (vpn access, Nintendo DS access point, etc), and it is SO useful I could cry !

    And finally

    3) Media Center and WHS integration is the holy grail that’s missing to make a good product great.

  20. Anonymous says:

    183 Microsoft Team blogs searched, 81 blogs have new articles in the past 7 days. 174 new articles found

  21. Anonymous says:

    for a home server… 10client are just enough..

  22. Anonymous says:

    I am against having multiple versions of WHS.  As everyone else has said:

    1. Allow "advanced" users to buy more client licenses.

    2. Disable advanced functionality, and let an advanced user RDP in to enable them.

  23. Anonymous says:

    I signed up only to say:

    NO NO NO NO NO ! Has Microsoft learned nothing from Vista ? NO MORE SKUs ! This is NOT the way to go !

    If people really need more than 10 users, then allow them to buy a 2nd license of WHS. Enter the license, 10 more CALs suddenly available.

    Sheesh ! Fire the person who thought that 7 Vista SKUs was a good idea and brainwash the concept out of anyone working at Microsoft !

    (Yes, I’m incensed. Way too much of my time as a sysadmin is taken up dealing with licenses, CALs, Enterprise vs Standard vs Datacenter and which feature is in which edition. Don’t make me suffer at home too !)

  24. Anonymous says:

    I’d be for multiple SKU’s if the advanced SKU’s offer more features other then just the number of computers/users.  I would love to see AD in the next release in at least a member server role if not acting as a DC itself.  Stuff like that to me is advanced, not the number of computers/users, I say just drop the limit all together unless there is a technical reason why it’s there to begin with.

  25. Anonymous says:

    An arbitrary limitation of 10 users does not make sense. Why put a limitation at all? What would Microsoft lose if people connected more than 10 machines on one Windows Home Server?

    Wouldn’t it be cool if headlines read one day "Enthusiast manages to backup 768 PCs with one WHS!". Could someone top that? Too bad MS doesn’t do cool πŸ™‚

    Limitations are silly and Microsoft can afford to be above that. Why make such a big deal out of details? Why even bother spending time coding/testing things like "10 users/computers max"? This does not make sense to me at all.

    I’d be super impressed if anybody dared/managed to backup more than 20 computers reliably with it πŸ™‚

    Be bold, stop thinking 20th century and dare to reach new limits.

  26. Anonymous says:

    I agree with danirb.  I have several test machines as well as a couple of VMware virtual machines.  My kids have a desktop and a laptop and it all adds up.  I only have four users, but have hit the computer limit on occasion and needed to delete a couple less frequently used machines.

    – Bob

  27. Anonymous says:

    Just to add my voice to the cacophony that that’s a terrible, terrible idea.

    You’re so used to being able to milk your monopoly that you’re just going to kill another promising product.  You’re competing against Linux-based NAS devices with this one, they’re going to just keep getting better and they’re not going to have arbitrary user/computer limits.

    If people are running into issues with your artificial user limits, remove the limits.  Fix the product.  Don’t spend your time trying to figure out how you can charge more money to your already dismal user base.

  28. Anonymous says:

    Really more than 10 computers in a home?  I think 10 is a reasonable number.  I am against creating a new sku.  This would take away development time away from adding features that more than .001 percent of the user population could actually use.  Why not simply increase the number of seats from 10 to 15 or 20 and leave it at that.  Personally, I would like to see MS spent time at adding additonal functionality/add-ons to WHS.  i.e., Phone center- a mini-pbx like add-in for homes.  Caller-ID, call loggiing, centralized phone book,answering machine, etc.  Another add-in would be a home recipe plug-in which could include recipes/with ingrediants steps, etc.  Finally more integration with Media Center.  Pooled/centralized tuners, WHS based recorded TV that can be shared, etc.

    Guys, stop worrying about ways increase profitability by adding more sku’s, it’s not working with Vista and it won’t work with WHS.  Focus on adding add-ins, that the mjority of the enthuasiast crowd want.

  29. Anonymous says:

    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.

  30. Anonymous says:

    2 servers? "Advanced" vs "Basic" versions? Please.

    Just issue CALs.

    This is a typical example of Microsoft using a complex solution to solve a simple problem.

    A basic user gets 10 users/computers. Someone with more than 10 computers in their house is going to be an advanced user, and is going to be able to understand the concept of buying more licenses. Most likely, they’re the sort of person who is already familiar with the term "CAL".

    If people think you say "cow", then just change the name. The word "License" works fine for this, as does "Seat", as does "User". Not everything in the industry needs to be a 3 letter acronym.

    The other problem you’re going to run into is that Windows Home Server is an excellent product for small business, not just the home. The backups and drive spanning are a dream. Plus, there’s the inherent power of win2k3 server. So, one WHS would potentially serve the fileserving and backup needs of an office of up to, say, 30 people. For a small office, WHS reduces the needs for an sysadmin…

    IMHO it’s simply a better product than SBS… with the exception of the lack of AD. Y’know there are a lot of people would definitely go for AD on WHS.

    So… you’ve either got to migrate the drive spanning and backup to your small business offering, or expand your target from "home" to SOHO.

    Most importantly, realise that you have a product that scales beyond 10 users and 10 computers, and have a SIMPLE solution for those who desire that. i.e. issue CALs.

    Running 2 home servers just makes no sense to solve a licensing problem.

  31. Anonymous says:

    As I stated on Connect, I don’t feel many of these people are thinking this through.  Microsoft should leave WHS just where it is.  There should not be two versions, there should not be CALs.

    There is already a "pro" version of WHS, it’s called SBS.

    If you are a common "home" and you have 20+ computers, you probably need some therapy, or at least throw out the old junkers that are essentially wasteful power-absorbing ancient computers and look at consolidation.

    It is not uncommon for most home desktops and laptops to have acquired 50GB-100GB of in-use drive space including OS, for 20 PCs that’s up to 2TB per backup set on WHS.  Attempting to run standard WHS appliances with 10TB+ of storage is becoming unreasonable and beyond what anyone would sanely classify as "home" use.

    And purchasing a WHS server such as from HP and connecting a pile of 500GB/1TB internal/USB drives to get 10-20TB is becoming unreasonable and overly costly and the entire venture should be reconsidered to use more suitable hardware/software for the task.

    If you want other family members to "stay in contact", that’s what email or messenger is for, and if they need remote access into the WHS then give one account per outside relative household or even for all relatives, each grown-up-and-moved-away-kid doesn’t need their own individual separate account just to view your family photos.

    Anyone who wants a version of WHS that has twice the capabilities can purchase SBS2003 at twice the price.  If MS pushes WHS into the level of SBS, it will end up costing the same as SBS.

    There is a reason why businesses and corporations who are running large 20+ user TB+ servers with SBS/Server 2003/8 have IT people.  The average home user, which IS what WHS is designed for, does not have the needs or the skills to deploy and maintain an SBS level system in their home.

  32. Anonymous says:

    I am a case were the 10 computers are enough but I would like more users.  Granted only a couple of the users will be connected at one time.  I would like to give various family members access to the remote access portions, so they can get the family photos and videos.

    So why not make it easy for me to buy additional licenses thought the WHS console. Click a button (Add Users/Computers) that take me to a web site to purchase users seats/computers (CAL’s), then D/L a file that the servers uses to add the actual CAL’s.  The end user does not need to know what CAL’s are they just need to know that they bought access for x number of users or computers.

    While I am commenting;   I really feel that some version of AD is needed in WHS.  I have several computers around my home and they are all configured so that any member of the household can use them.  With AD I should be able to restrict access, and set parental controls across all computers in the house. Right now if I need to limit the access time for one of the kids, I have to do it on every machine which is a little time consuming in addition to being really annoying.

  33. Anonymous says:

    Read through the post and have to agree that 10 users are surely enough.

    WHS is just as the it states, for a home and home users. Would Windows Family Server sound better, just to state its for a home and family?

    And the price itself reflect what its meant for, personal and family use.

    "Advanced" editions could turn out to be nothing more then extra production cost for a handful buyers.  And if there is families with more then 10 persons, it would be normal to share one or more PC’s.

    In very rare cases, if there are, and MS is really eager to satisfy those cases, I would recommend a extra connector-fee sold separately in a special connector package.

  34. Anonymous says:

    No, please, don’t do it! Multiple SKUs is *not* the way to go. You might as well be releasing a new SKU every time you add a new feature. I’d be inclined to support the majority view here of a single version of WHS with the ability to add more computers up to a point.

    Hardcore users can go with SBS 2008. Ultra-hardcore users can go with Windows Server 2008. There are already enough products in the market by Microsoft covering just about every niche possible. We don’t need any more.

    Also, if you go down the license route, please don’t call it a CAL, because nobody will understand the maze that is Microsoft licensing. Make it as simple to understand as possible. Don’t even call it a license. Say something like "You’ve reached the 10 computer limit for Windows Home Server. Adding another computer will cost $xx. Would you like to continue?" – that way, people know what you’re talking about πŸ™‚

  35. Anonymous says:

    I have no problem with the 10 user limit, but I’m already over the 10 computer limit with just me and my wife.  

    The thing I’d really like to see in an "advanced" version is Exchange "Lite" email for my personal domain.  I’m currently running SBS and it’s way more than complicated than I want, but it’s the only thing that gets us push email to our Windows Mobile phones.

    I doubt we’re the only people that want to have a *simple* way to do our personal e-mail to our phones and via OWA.  

    Email like this is a feature that I think would justify an advanced version.  Unless you are adding big features like that just let us buy extra licenses.

  36. Anonymous says:


    As a WHS user, I would especially like to see a focus on reducing single computer setups and management regarding user accounts.

    Like in a business, I would expect to be able to setup accounts with a user profile pointing directly on the server for mail, files and preferences (including parental control).

    For now, everything is still managed through each individual computers and theres no way (for what I can see) that you can, for example, setup an account for a child that would keep the same favorites, the same parental control settings and other preferences on all computers connecting to the WHS with the built-in tools.

    That would be a very useful way to use a home server!

  37. Anonymous says:

    I think selling a CAL pack online for those few users that have more than 10 users is a reasonable compromise.  The problem I have with hearing SBS touted as an alternative is that there are a number of features that don’t overlap…add the easy backup functionality, media sharing functionality, webguide, etc., etc. to SBS and I would buy it instead in a heartbeat.  I would far prefer to have AD (yes, I think IntelliMirror and folder redirection are cool and I can see a use for them, even with the beauty of Live Mesh available) but why should I have to give up some of the unique features offered by WHS?

  38. Anonymous says:

    Whatever solution is selected, it must be easily upgradeable.  In other words I can’t see any reason why I would have more than 6 PCs in my house, but should I add another 5; I should be able to easily allow the extra PC, without having to reinstall the OS or buy another machine. An online purchase of a further CAL would be preferred.  Or even better allow 25 users as no household could ever need that many clients.

    I definitely like the idea of integrating home media server capabilities.

  39. Anonymous says:

    I agree completely with everyone here — NO MORE SKUs! Vista’s SKU list is a mess and often the question I get asked during the day as a Network Admin is "What version of Vista should I get on my new PC at home?" Please don’t fracture WHS.

    Aside from just upping the limit to 20 or 25, I *LOVE* the one guy’s idea of just having a button for "buy more Access Licenses". When you press that button, I see an Continue/Cancel box popping up that explains "Each computer that you want to back up needs to have a license for Windows Home Server. Windows Home Server comes with 10 Access Licenses by default and each additional one is $14."

    Functionally, two things should happen once the user puts their credit card information in: 1. WHS automatically adds the license to its list so that the user doesn’t have to type a 25-digit key. 2. Each License should have a key (hopefully less than 25 digits, haha) that is e-mailed to the user once the transaction is complete so that the user can add one again in case they have to reinstall their WHS.

    Finally, Licenses should be available in blocks of 5 and maybe 10 (with the ability of a SINGLE 25-digit key to be good for 5 or 10 licenses.) This way, a user could say "well, I need 20 licenses, so I’ll just buy a block of 10. Look, I have one key to enter in case I have to set this up again. Wow, this is great software Microsoft!"

    As for "Why Microsoft Limited WHS to 10 CALs In The First Place", I’m sure they did a ton of studies not just in how many computers people have, but the ability of the average WHS to handle the load of X computers backing up from 12 a.m. to 6 a.m. At 10 computers all sending data upstream, I’ve got to imagine there’s a lot of traffic straining a user’s poor router, or maybe the write-ability of the WHS is limited by its "average" hardware… I’m sure the 10-computer limit actually makes sense, even if it does seem arbitrary and low for us power-user types. If this is the case, then there could be notes in the "buy license" dialogue about how much space the average computer takes up and a warning that a user might need to add more hard drives to their WHS or upgrade their home network. I run gigabit, but I’m pretty sure that’s not the case for the General Populace. πŸ™‚

    I don’t think home users need Active Directory or Exchange, although I totally see where people would want that. What do people gain from having a Domain at home? I’d rather have Fast User Switching, thanks. E-mail from my @homeserver.com URL would be nice, but with gmail/hotmail/etc., it’s not necessary, I agree.

    Finally, a feature I’d *really* like to see in Windows Home Server 20XX is the ability to back up my Xbox 360. I don’t know what the failure rates of the hard drive in a 360 are, but I am dreading the day I boot up my 360 and hear "click click click" and find out all of my saved games are gone. If WHS could back it up, then I’d just go to the store, pick up whatever HDD off the shelf and restore the drive. Such a feature would require one hell of an effort from the 360 team combined with the WHS team, but it would be a pretty awesome feature. Then users wouldn’t have to worry as much about license transfers and re-downloading in the event of a 360 HDD Failure. Again, though, I don’t know if there’s even a worry for this, but it’d be good to know my saved games are safe.

    One thing I’ve always wondered is how WHS reacts in an environment where more than 1 exists. WHS seems to just scan whatever subnet it’s on for a WHS and then prompt for a password. For multiple WHS’ to coexist in a network that uses large subnets (like mine, haha), WHS would have to scan for ANY available WHS and then let the user choose which one they want to back up to. Something like this could work in terms of a "Windows Business Backup Server" (WBBS, heh) where multiple backup servers exist making them easy to build/deploy, though it would require more accounting.

  40. Anonymous says:

    For me, I’d want to be able to use my Homeserver as my Media Center…  Currently, I have to have two devices "always on" – my Media Center PC and my Homeserver.  I think it makes a lot of sense to have the Homeserver as the ‘all in one background machine’ – being able to use my HS as my Media Center, and connect to it with my extenders (including 360) would be ideal, and bring my power bill down too.

    But, I agree, don’t go down the multiple versions route….  Just give us a scalable Version 2.

  41. Anonymous says:

    I very much echo the sentiments that another SKU of WHS would be a bad idea.  I also agree that you don’t need to call them CALs.  After 10 computers/users just have the new user wizard make you enter in a code or put in your credit card number or something to purchase a "license" then and there.

    I can’t say how much I agree with the feeling that SBS really needs the backup and drive extender from WHS.  PLEASE, can’t we get that as some sort of an add-in for SBS2008?  Either that, or just cut the SBS team out of business and add AD and Exchange to WHS (as optional components, of course – we wouldn’t want to make everyone have to use AD).  Then completely remove all user licensing, go ahead and let us hang ourselves by running 200 users off a MediaSmart. πŸ™‚

    Seriously though, it would be nice to have some way of adding licenses to WHS so I could handle more users/computers.  Not a new SKU, just a way to tack on more licenses.

  42. Anonymous says:

    For me (7 computers in *da house*), 10 is a good number – although I think SBS is not an alternative to someone that does need more. In that case, the possibility to buy some more licences would be the ideal solution, I guess.

    But since we are talking about upcoming features in a WHS_V2, I’ll take the oportunity to press for the one I think is THE most important: the support (natively) for something like the LighstOut add-in. The ability to have some sort of power management in the server is VERY, VERY important.

    And yes, we already have LighthsOut, but its installation is not straightforward and, as it is, it is not for everyone. It should really be included with WHS.

Comments are closed.

Skip to main content