...verrattuna Linuxiin. Asusin tutkimus on osoittanut, että Linux on edelleenkin ylivoimainen kotiserverivalinta Windowsiin verrattuna.
"Linux is the obvious choice since many distributions are free and its reliability is well-documented. Installing, configuring and maintaining Linux can be a time consuming hassle though, even if you're already familiar with the OS."
Laadullisen ylivoiman lisäksi myös HINTA JA TULEVAT KUSTANNUKSET HEIKENTÄVÄT WINDOWS HOME SERVERIN ASEMAA.
"Windows Server 2003, on which WHS is based, is far too expensive for a modest home server – a five-user license costs £150, and the price increases with the number of systems served. A cheaper option is to simply use a standard installation of an old X license – setting this up isn’t as convenient as with WHS, though. Also remember that if you want to use the server without a screen, you’ll need Remote Desktop Connection, which some versions of Windows don’t have. Alternatively, you could use a third-party alternative such as VNC.
Overall, given its straightforward configuration, reasonable price and easy-to-use, server-orientated features, WHS is generally a sound choice for most home server duties. Linux nuts will say otherwise, but then, they always do. The real question, is how well does it run on the TS Mini?"
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/storage/2010/02/19/asus-ts-mini-windows-home-server-review/1
"Linux is the obvious choice since many distributions are free and its reliability is well-documented. Installing, configuring and maintaining Linux can be a time consuming hassle though, even if you're already familiar with the OS."
Laadullisen ylivoiman lisäksi myös HINTA JA TULEVAT KUSTANNUKSET HEIKENTÄVÄT WINDOWS HOME SERVERIN ASEMAA.
"Windows Server 2003, on which WHS is based, is far too expensive for a modest home server – a five-user license costs £150, and the price increases with the number of systems served. A cheaper option is to simply use a standard installation of an old X license – setting this up isn’t as convenient as with WHS, though. Also remember that if you want to use the server without a screen, you’ll need Remote Desktop Connection, which some versions of Windows don’t have. Alternatively, you could use a third-party alternative such as VNC.
Overall, given its straightforward configuration, reasonable price and easy-to-use, server-orientated features, WHS is generally a sound choice for most home server duties. Linux nuts will say otherwise, but then, they always do. The real question, is how well does it run on the TS Mini?"
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/storage/2010/02/19/asus-ts-mini-windows-home-server-review/1
Vastaukset 3
Vanhimmat
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS9015653445.html
Analysis -- Is this a joke? I only recently started paying attention to Windows Home Server, since I tend to focus more on desktop operating systems and enterprise server systems. So I didn't realize until now that WHS is really just a vanilla file server.
There's nothing wrong with being an ordinary file server for the home. After all, with many home users having multiple computers and gigabytes of music, photos and movies, it's well past time for homes to start having simple-to-use file servers. But, why pay extra for it?
Breaking news... Eihän Windowskotiserverissä ole tietääkseni edes torrent tukea, ei IRC:tä, ei meseä... Ei niin mitään. Taisi myös puuttua PHP -tuki jos haluaisi tehdä siihen vaikka kotisivut.
eikös tuo onnistu 9x:llä xp:llä. xamppi vaan pyöriimään ja ainakin php fudaa.
näin olen käsittänyt.
voihan se ollaa että turvallisimpiakin järjestelmiä on....