is there a reason to use WHS if you are already using server2k or 2k3?

[BlahBlahYouToo]

?

 

[RebateMonger]

Depends what you are trying to achieve. I try to get all of my Server 2003 and SBS 2003 clients to install a separate WHS for making backups of their client PCs. If all you want is a file server, those are a dime-a-dozen. Server 2000, Server 2003, Linux, etc. will all share files.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
Depends what you are trying to achieve. I try to get all of my Server 2003 and SBS 2003 clients to install a separate WHS for making backups of their client PCs. If all you want is a file server, those are a dime-a-dozen. Server 2000, Server 2003, Linux, etc. will all share files.

heck, won't XP/Vista share files?

i guess i used 2k for AD, the ability to centrally administer users and apply security on groups.
gives you the ability to log into any pc on the domain (without creating a local user) and pull their roaming profile, access their home directory, access to shared folders, etc.
does WHS use AD or some type of directory structure to do this?

sounds like the main reason to use WHS is for easy PC backups.

 

[RebateMonger]

WHS is designed to run in Workgroup mode. In some ways, that's better, because it provides a bit of extra protection against malware getting into the backup folders on the WHS server. If you are backing up your PCs and your servers with WHS, the very last place you want malware to access is that backup folder.

 

[nerp]

WHS is excellent if you have a lot of various sized HDs and want to build a large, expandable, redunant place to store media and documents, adding and upgrading/replacing HDs gradually over time without fussing with images, restoring, copying or RAID. That's why I like it.