Forum Home
PC World Chat
 
Thread ID: 115853 2011-02-06 20:36:00 WHS - 2011 RC SolMiester (139) PC World Chat
Post ID Timestamp Content User
1175734 2011-02-06 20:36:00 Anyone looking at this?...Install DVD = 4Gb?!...LOL

onlinehelp.microsoft.com
SolMiester (139)
1175735 2011-02-06 20:47:00 Not sure if how many people will download it after they removed the best thing about WHS - Drive Extender.
Even HP have stopped making WHS machines.
CYaBro (73)
1175736 2011-02-06 21:22:00 Not sure if how many people will download it after they removed the best thing about WHS - Drive Extender.
Even HP have stopped making WHS machines.

Drive Extender was also the biggest problem for WHS
SolMiester (139)
1175737 2011-02-06 23:03:00 Drive Extender was also the biggest problem for WHS

They did have problems initially but I thought it was all fixed now??
I've been running WHS pretty much since it was released and never had any issues.
CYaBro (73)
1175738 2011-02-06 23:14:00 Installed it on Sunday - went quite nicely, its loaded on top of the Server 2008 R2 so its reasonably solid.
I've been running WHS pretty much since it was released and never had any issues. Same here, On the original Install, never had a problem.

WHS has saved my backside a few times.

Couple of things I like about the new WHS2011, you can move folder locations around to different drives, and it has a back up function so you can backup what ever folders/ Data and PC backups to external drives, or any other drive for that matter.
wainuitech (129)
1175739 2011-02-06 23:47:00 Just adding to the above - The backups of the server to an external device, allow various times As Shown (www.imagef1.net.nz), evry 30 minutes if you wanted to and they allow what to be backed up Example. (www.imagef1.net.nz)


Install DVD = 4Gb?!...LOL The reason it could be so big is its loaded on top of Server 2008 R2, which in its self is just on 3GB.;)

Mind you , its still smaller than Small Business server 2011 which is 6.5GB
wainuitech (129)
1175740 2011-02-07 00:35:00 WT - No upgrade path from original WHS?...I though R2 was x64 only!, this mean WHS 2011 is x64 only?

Edit - Yes....x64 only!

Anything new to this release thats must have?
SolMiester (139)
1175741 2011-02-07 00:48:00 From what I've seen it's 95% the same as WHS v1.0, just based on Server 2008 R2 not 2003. jwil1 (65)
1175742 2011-02-07 01:49:00 WT - No upgrade path from original WHS?...I though R2 was x64 only!, this mean WHS 2011 is x64 only?

Edit - Yes....x64 only!

Anything new to this release thats must have?

yeah,Its only 64Bit,

I dont think there is an upgrade path - could be wrong, but the Original WHS was only 32bit anyway.

The Main differences that I have found so far, its easier to use and setup for a home user. For example the sharing/permissions of folders. You double click the user, Shared folders "maybe" better laid out Screenshot (www.imagef1.net.nz).

About the drive extender ------ while it does have an advantage to create a large drive so data can be spanned over drives, the disadvantage is if one drive fails you can lose a lot.

Having Separate Drives (www.imagef1.net.nz), means if the event of one drive failing the rest will be OK. The downside - you may have to be careful where you store what.Not to sure if the data will span over multi drives, may have to try that :). You can of course move a folder to a new location/drive at any time.

The backup option is good. As we all know, any drive can fail at any time, and with this new version you can back up what you want.
Currently I have to manually do it to an external drive :yuck: Not the most favorite task.

Have not tried the PC backup yet, still running off of the original WHS.

One 'trick" I found out - you cant change the workgroup from its default after its installed, since its based on server 2008 , so you have to do it while its installing -but found some software that does let you do it :thumbs:
wainuitech (129)
1175743 2011-02-07 01:53:00 WT - so it just duplicates files on 2 separate drives now?....Think it would be easier to just create an array at hardware level then! SolMiester (139)
1 2