By Philip Churchill on April 21st, 2008
HP MediaSmart Server Team Q&A
We Got Served talk to the guys behind HP’s MediaSmart Server and gets answers to some regularly asked questions like what are the Top 3 support call issues?, why did HP disable Shadow Copies on the MediaSmart Servers? and what can you tell us about the next version of the HP MediaSmart Server? These and lots more can be found on Terry’s post here.
Share this WHS Article with Others:
The biggest support call issues are dealing with all sorts of WHS problems, issues, glitches and YES even the KB 946676 data corruption sort.
As for disabling more features in WHS, which is already limited by 10 PC Clients, 5 DRM transfers, and two Remote Desktop simultaneous sessions, without support for Vista 64bit, without support for Bitlocker on any version, and just about every Microsoft software application that fails to succumb to the data corruption bug, if you want to call it that, then YES, WHS is limited for your own benefit and use. A server that doesn’t file share.
So then why the need for all them third party add-ins? Being how WHS has so much to offer us? WHS Ready?
Forget about selling us a second version until you cleaned up, fixed, repaired and added in the missing features instead of making other third party add-in beta solution fill the void.
Microsoft blew it so many times, such as with the Internet search, which Google triumphs! Buying Yahoo will only result in yet another huge blow for Microsoft I predict. As Microhoo doesn’t work. Yasoft you say? Doesn’t work either!
Question for Josh Peterson
When you stated, “For example – streaming digital music collections around your home” when using HP EX475 (Has WHS) how are you going to share Microsoft DRM digital music collections being how Microsoft limits activation of your music keys to just 5 PC clients?
Isn’t WHS sold with the limitation of just 10 PC Clients? So is this the type of digital music experience you want your customers to experience?
Can you explain?
Is it any wonder when Allen stated in the article, “strict requirements in terms of product capabilities” as why WHS wasn’t supported by more than just 2 major OEM manufactures?
These strict requirements obviously didn’t even bother to check Microsoft’s own software use on WHS, being how these product capabilities were NOT delivered as advertised and promised. Take the data corruption design flaw, still unresolved and the projected fix isn’t even until June 2008.
How to upgrade WHS version 1 into the upcoming WHS version 2 “Vail” if 64bit is only supported? That would require only 64bit hardware solutions, 64bit hardware drivers too.
It’s more than apparent in how Vista’s hardware drivers proved to be a total disaster here. If Microsoft cannot get WHS version 1 32bit working correctly why would anyone think WHS-2 would work better on 64bit anyhow?
When will WHS 32bit or 64bit support Vista 64bit using Bitlocker? So the best doesn’t even function with WHS? Does that mean, WHS should only be used for crappy, buggy and unfinished beta code applications, third party add-ins for the public to experience via Microsoft’s customer strategy?
Why shouldn’t Microsoft customers expect to experience a fully working home server, and NOT a broken work around device that has questionable concerns, worries and issues?
Question for Allen Buckner,
You stated in your article how HP MediaSmart Servers, “streaming multiple HD content streams” but in all truth, this isn’t HD 1080p your talking about, right?
Isn’t 1080p also part of high definition video too?
Are you telling your customers they can stream multiple 1080p, (which is the standard reference in High definition quality) using WHS with at least two PC clients at once?
How many customers will purchase WHS thinking it supports multiple streams of 1080p High Definition video, such as from Blue-ray content?
Let’s be honest, WHS doesn’t and wasn’t design for 1080p HD content to be streamed at all…
Why didn’t Microsoft support power efficiency in WHS?
Such that it turns off when not needed?
Why didn’t Microsoft support Wake to Lan in WHS?
So that WHS can be accessed over the Internet when away?
Why didn’t Microsoft support the ability within it’s security settings to offload recorded TV content from a Vista PC onto WHS? That’s something most users would expect, right?
Why didn’t Microsoft support a shared printer in WHS? Especially, being how WHS is a centralized always turned on device that’s shared? Go figure…
Is this how Microsoft plans their strategy buy using a business driver pool of drivers for home consumers purchasing a “Stay At Home Server”? Is it any wonder why WHS failed to install printer drivers? Another Vista in the making here…
Why didn’t Microsoft think to increase the Remote Desktop connections in WHS? Other than with the limited just two RDP connections….
Congratulations on not mentioning “the flaw.”
Dear HP MediaSmart Server Team,
The time for relief from a proven data corruption flaw in WHS is not in the distance future of June 2008, but now when in need, which should have already been taken cared of way back when first discovered, when first reported, when first proven to be such a serious problem for Microsoft’s own customers.
Why is HP still selling WHS with a proven design flaw that causes data corruption? Especially, given how HP EX475 uses multiple hard drives which Microsoft states leads to the WHS Drive Extender design flaw of data corruption?
Is this how you protect and show concern for your customers? Isn’t it bad enough Microsoft didn’t check it;s own product good enough, didn’t listen to it’s beta testers good enough and then having released this upon the public, but for the kicker, decides to put off and delay any resolution until June 2008.
HP was selling WHS in their SmartMedia Servers way back in November 2007, and no action has been taken to even WARN your customers about this serious design flaw causes data corruption. Is there any labels on your products stating so? When customers decide to purchase WHS, if even from an OEM like HP, where is this information about how Microsoft has a design flaw without resolution?
Isn’t that fraud when something is advertised and obviously NOT able to deliver as promised?
Stop backing Microsoft on this issue, and have the courage to do the right thing, being NOT to sell WHS, until at least they got it FIXED. Isn’t that fair?
Linda Melon
UCLA
How about letting your customers know the steps Microsoft is taken to resolve this KB 946676 data corruption problem, with a more thorough explanation that doesn’t whitewash the details, and confuse everyone with more propaganda rhetoric?
Why would anyone want to buy WHS when it demands all external hard drives to be formatted first with NTFS just to connect and share your data? Making WHS customers transfer all their data through their PC clients to WHS using Ethernet is very, very slow method, that’s completely unnecessary, being how a real server actually serves your data and doesn’t force and demand your PC client to become the server to WHS!
Screenshot Proof: cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2007/10/whs2.png
You’re assuming that all customers will take drives with existing data on it to plug into and expand their WHS storage pool. The majority of the time, customers will buy new, blank hard drives from the store to plug into their WHS.
If a customer is planning on using an existing drive, chances are pretty good that it is already plugged into a PC, where the files can be transfered off before the drive is plugged into WHS.
Taking a minority, worst case scenario and playing it up into a huge end-of-the-world failing? Would this be any different with a RAID configuration on a Linux-based server? What do you suggest would work better?