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
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Windows Home Server News Links and News Items mentioned on the show E-Mail Server on Windows Home ServerAnonymous
January 01, 2003
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.Anonymous
January 01, 2003
As the Windows Home Server team look at planning future versions Todd Headrick (Windows Home Server ProductAnonymous
January 01, 2003
The backup service built into Windows Home Server is designed for easy and efficient storage and recoveryAnonymous
January 01, 2003
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.Anonymous
January 01, 2003
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. DamirAnonymous
January 01, 2003
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.Anonymous
January 01, 2003
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? :P just teasing..
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
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.Anonymous
January 01, 2003
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.Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removedAnonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removedAnonymous
January 01, 2003
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...Anonymous
January 01, 2003
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.Anonymous
January 01, 2003
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?Anonymous
January 01, 2003
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.Anonymous
January 01, 2003
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.Anonymous
January 01, 2003
I agree with jadm, if people really need more than 10 user accounts, then allow them to buy another 10 user accounts.Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Not to spam, but now that I've vented and taken the time to actually read the other comments...
- jrronimo's comment: print it, frame it, plan it for the next maintenance/power/service pack. :)
- 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
- Media Center and WHS integration is the holy grail that's missing to make a good product great.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
183 Microsoft Team blogs searched, 81 blogs have new articles in the past 7 days. 174 new articles foundAnonymous
January 01, 2003
for a home server... 10client are just enough..Anonymous
January 01, 2003
I am against having multiple versions of WHS. As everyone else has said:
- Allow "advanced" users to buy more client licenses.
- Disable advanced functionality, and let an advanced user RDP in to enable them.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
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 !)Anonymous
January 01, 2003
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.Anonymous
January 01, 2003
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 :) 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 :) Be bold, stop thinking 20th century and dare to reach new limits.Anonymous
January 01, 2003
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
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removedAnonymous
January 01, 2003
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.Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removedAnonymous
January 01, 2003
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.Anonymous
January 01, 2003
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.Anonymous
January 01, 2003
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.Anonymous
January 01, 2003
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.Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removedAnonymous
January 01, 2003
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.Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Hi, 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!Anonymous
January 01, 2003
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?Anonymous
January 01, 2003
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.Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removedAnonymous
January 01, 2003
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.Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removedAnonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed