The time has come for a home server for media storage and backups for Mac and Windows. Microsoft’s solution will fail, but even Windows users will buy Apple’s home server system in disguise.
Windows Everywhere is starting to wear very thin these days. In January, Microsofts’ Bill Gates introduced the Windows Home Server. While no one was paying attention, Apple’s Steve Jobs did the same.
The Windows Home Server will sell for as much as $1,000. How many homes will buy one? The biggest part of Apple’s home server solution retails for $179 and works on Macs and Windows PCs.
At Mac360 we’ve written about the need for backups, Mac or Windows, so a home server would appear to be a good solution. Except for a number of problems. The first is cost. $1,000 for a home server?
Windows Home Server runs a version of Windows Server 2003, and requires another PC. Apple’s home server solution is more elegant and requires a Mac or a PC, but the one you have, not another one.
I read Roughly Drafted’s comparison of Windows Home Server vs. Airport Extreme, and their perspective is about the same as ours. Airport Extreme is part of Apple’s home server strategy.
Of course, some prognosticators love another Microsoft solution. Take Paul Thurrott. Please.
Instead of a complex, expensive, difficult-to-set-up server solution that requires a certified Windows geek to manage, Apple decided that less is more, simple is better, inexpensive will sell more.
Add an external USB hard drive to a new Airport Extreme, and you’re ready with a flexible home server backup solution at about one third to one half the price of Microsoft’s Windows Home Server PC option.
Without going into all the complexities Microsoft has thrown into the landfill of Windows Home Server, suffice it to say it’s not something you can install on your PC, it’ll cost you more money for another box and new software to learn, and it’s more complicated than figuring out how much money Bill Gates has left.
Add that extra hard drive to a new Airport Extreme, Mac or Windows PC, and every Mac or PC in your home can be backed up, either via wireless or an ethernet cable. Even better, Airport Extreme doubles as a router for all your home computers, the wireless base station, and a printer sharing device.
Setup? Sorry, no Microsoft Certification necessary. Apple’s Bojour “just works” on Mac or Windows PC, as either will recognize the extra hard drive attached to Airport Extreme.
Some would argue that Apple’s solution is also overkill. After all, the extra hard drive really isn’t required, it just makes life much easier and provides a better backup system.
Are you ready for a home server backup solution? How does Windows Home Server compare to an Airport Extreme and your Mac (or PC)?
Add Panther’s Time Machine and a large external hard drive and you’ve got the best of all worlds for less than $1000, and the system “just works.”
The is Apple’s business model - keep it simple, make it elegant, and people will buy your product. Sort of the exact opposite of MS’s business model, eh?
I want Apple to create Airport Over-the-Top. It would be an 802.11n router with the following ports: LAN, WAN, USD 2.0 (x2), and Firewire 800. The LAN and WAN ports must, of course, be gigabit ethernet. You want a system that will put Microsoft notonly to shame but to bed (in the ground), that’s it.
Did I miss anything?
Oh, and if you are wondering why a dual USB 2.0, it’s there for quick connect/disconnect of another external device, in case you happen to have your hub too far out of the way.
A central file server for backing up data is one thing but what I really would like to have is a common place to access and update my mail, my address book, SOHO notes, iCal, etc from multiple Macs. This would solve the syncing issue I am having since dropping .Mac. Can Apple Extreme with a HD do this for me?
I’ve been waiting a long time for this. I just installed four 400GB Seagate Barracuda SATA drives into my G4 sawtooth Mac using a Firmtek 4-port PCI card from OWC. I did a RAID of two sets to make two 800GB drives. One for my media and the second for my backup. I’m looking forward to Time Machine. Now all I need is my AppleTV. I’m going to import all my music as 320 AAC, have shoebox.com scan all my photos and convert all my DVDs to Mpeg-4/H.264. I’m loving the whole idea of having terabytes of storage in my home.
I’m very excited to get fast wireless all throughout my home. In fact, Apple could offer the current Airport Extreme as the inexpensive model and I’d gladly pay more for the Purvis model. I’ve seen FW800. FW800 is a good friend of mine. And FW400? You’re not FW800. It’s wicked fast on fast hardware. 802.11n, multiple USB2 ports. Salivation. I’d add that it’d be nice to throw in a FW400 port for compatibility with the trillions of HDs out there already. I only have FW800 because the 24” iMac finally added it.
And to answer Rick’s post - I think the Aiport Extreme w/ added HD would be a nice solution. Any computer could access that central HD quickly and thus remove the need to sync everything. Your local HD could be for whatever else you wanted.
Oops..I forgot to address the sync thing completely. You might check out Chronosync, which would keep your data synced perfectly, including Address Books, calendars, Mail settings, etc.
What we are really talking about is a computer sans monitor, capable of being booted and controlled remotely. With a little tweaking, almost any decent external hard drive is just that, but when you can come out and say, “Look, folks, you don’t need all that extra stuff because you’re already a distributed home,” you’ve got a product that will really put the “Apple is overpriced” crowd out of business.
The trick here is building an end-to-end solution when the ends are already in place. What falls in the middle—the product, the price, the quality—is what will determine the success or failure of this plan. We had that with the early MP3 players, but it took Apple to make it a compelling consumer vision.
I’m missing something, because as far as I can see (Home Server isn’t out for some time), these products are not suited for the same purpose.
Yes, Home Server offers a network drive available to anyone for backups… any network capable HDD can do that trick (Cheaper than a USB drive and the cost of Airport Extreme). Don’t get me wrong though, Airport Extreme is attractively priced, with an easy way to add storage space.
Home Server is a trimmed down Windows Server 2003 R2 release, with hardware packaged by the OEM.
That means this machine should be compared to OSX server, or Windows Server 2003, to get a feel for what it will offer the home user. This machine is not a wireless router. It offers much more than just space to backup files.
Users and Groups can log in anywhere on your network because of this product, and take their profiles with them across multiple machines, and for those not wanting their child surfing the net at 12 o’clock at night, you can place access restrictions on accounts.
For those with older PCs or Macs wishing to utilize a more powerful machine, Remote Desktop can fit the bill.
It is still meant to manage backups in a more timely fashion, act as a storage point for Windows media, and allows older hardware to continue working in your home, and offers a management scheme that unify logins across your network.
For $1000 including hardware, that is much cheaper than buying OSX Server or Windows Server 2003. For those with 2 or three machines or more around the home, it might be attractive.
The AE is intriguing though, as it looks to really extend the range of wireless G to its limits. I think the USB storage is an added bonus. I haven’t seen one bad review of the device, and am considering getting one soon. (The draft N spec does put a bit of fear in me, but so far as what I can tell, the spec is virtually a shoe-in at this stage.)
Throw 10.5 on a MacMini, and for a lot less than US$1,000, you too can have the portability of accounts, access restrictions, and everything else that the Home Server option offers.
Throw 10.5 on a MacMini, and for a lot less than US$1,000, you too can have the portability of accounts, access restrictions, and everything else that the Home Server option offers.
Mac Mini: $599 ->Still an incomplete option.
+ OSX Server: $500
Account Sync (.Mac only useful on macs) and access restriction options are much more limited without upgrading to OSX Server. Manual account syncs and configuration would still be the norm. (Unfamiliar if OSX Server allows Windows users the authenticate against OSX to log on to the machine) The remote alternative thru OSX Tiger won’t match Remote Desktop.
Mileage varies with whatever option you use. Home Server looks to give a home administrator the best amount of control of the network, at a significant discount, but honestly, I can’t see Home Server a necessity in a home. The only way I see this being worthy is if you have a significant amount of users logging in to a variety of computers. -Maybe work out okay in a small business?
Unfamiliar if OSX Server allows Windows users the authenticate against OSX to log on to the machine)
I have been significantly underwhelmed by Windows’ management of Mac access and simultaneously impressed with the reverse. I wonder, however, if we might be looking at different targets here. In an all-Mac environment, I suspect that a Windows solution will not provide any advantage at that price-point. In a mixed environment or an all-Windows environment, the Windows solution may be superior.
Automatic syncing is a simple enough task, and it would take a fairly simple combination of a folder auction and Automator script to handle it all for notebooks. Automatic updating is already available for always-on connections, and we should see significant enhancements to this in 10.5.
I guess my point is that there doesn’t seem to be any functionality from the MS solution that is not available (for free, no less) on the Mac side. Add to that my personal distrust of Windows—my friends who use Windows and have not studied CS are always complaining about reliability, security, and unpredictable behavior—and I just don’t see the value, even before I agree that there is little use for such a solution (I love that term) at this point.
I read two things recently that talked about so-called “home servers.” The first was Microsoft’s overly complex home server product. Even geeks couldn’t figure it out. The second was that most people are intimidated by a “server” at home and don’t really know what it means.
With a Mac mini still in the $600 range, it makes sense to figure out how to use it and some of those high capacity hard drives as a “home backup” system, more than a home server.
I’d also think that Airport Extreme and an external Mac mini-sized hard drive would make a good backup system; especially with Leopard’s Time Machine on the horizon.
Thoughts?
At the school where I work we have half a dozen Xserves and huge disks for backup. And, yes, they need administration. That would be me.
I read two things recently that talked about so-called “home servers.” The first was Microsoft’s overly complex home server product. Even geeks couldn’t figure it out. The second was that most people are intimidated by a “server” at home and don’t really know what it means.
Nat, I’m with you. There is no such thing as a Home Server Market. Microsoft botched that up big time and created an opportunity for Apple. I don’t think the market is ready for anything more than a Home PC/Mac Backup System, and all that’s needed is Apple’s Airport Extreme, and an external USB drive to connect to it.
Most PC users don’t have a clue about backup. They use CDs mostly, some use DVDs.
There is no such thing as a Home Server Market. Microsoft botched that up big time and created an opportunity for Apple. I don’t think the market is ready for anything more than a Home PC/Mac Backup System, and all that’s needed is Apple’s Airport Extreme, and an external USB drive to connect to it.
Most PC users don’t have a clue about backup. They use CDs mostly, some use DVDs.
That’s very well said. I don’t know anyone, Mac or PC user, that has a “home server.” Even the servers Ron has at home are for business, and he’s the guy who preached back up, back up, back up to all of us. Wait, Wil might have a Linux server at home but he’s a bona fide geek, so it doesn’t count.
The real opportunity here is for backup-- either a single “server’ that backs up everyone else’s Mac or PC, or a single hard drive that does the same thing.
Mileage varies with whatever option you use. Home Server looks to give a home administrator the best amount of control of the network, at a significant discount, but honestly, I can’t see Home Server a necessity in a home. The only way I see this being worthy is if you have a significant amount of users logging in to a variety of computers. -Maybe work out okay in a small business?
As always. The point is that a Home Server is dead on arrival. PC users already have their hands full just trying to run Windows, let alone a server. The real market here is in backups. Make it simple, easy to implement, easy to restore. NOBODY has that down yet, short of cloning a hard drive, and even that has problems. I look forward to Time Machine but the problems with a home network and backup remain.
