WHS v.1 (32), WHS 2011 (64), and old hardware

[BonzaiDuck]

I'm sort of stymied. I have a perfectly well-functioning WHS v.1 or "2008" based on Server 2003. With less than 43% disk usage, I'm in no hurry to expand it. It's running on a E8400 system and Gigabyte P35 or 45 chipset -- "UDR3." (or something . . . I can find manual or use monitoring software). The C2D Wolfdale was all I had available when I built it.

Now I've repossessed my old P4 Northwood 3.4 Ghz 3GB RAM, with clean XP Pro installed -- in tip-top condition.

If I buy WHS 2011, I would wish to reinstall the WHS v.1 on the Pentium 4. I have a good idea that it will work quite well.

But that means a hardware change, which means a re-activation requirement. How likely would it be for the MS Store or someone to give me a new activation key? How would I contact them?

 

[Kingbee13]

Just use the original key, I've reactivated after a rebuild no problem

 

[ViRGE]

Just use the original key, I've reactivated after a rebuild no problem

Ditto. The software is technically OEM, but that has more to do with the fact that MS doesn't provide support. Unlike desktop Windows where there's a real need to keep OEM users from moving copies of Windows around, there's no real need to do so with WHS since it doesn't have a retail equivalent.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Just use the original key, I've reactivated after a rebuild no problem

Did your rebuild include changing both motherboard and processor? Just asking, because once I get started with this project, I'll have to live with the intended result.

 

[Kingbee13]

Did your rebuild include changing both motherboard and processor? Just asking, because once I get started with this project, I'll have to live with the intended result.

Yes over the course of WHS v1 I changed the cpu twice and the motherboard once, and on whs2011 I changed the mobo 3 times and the processor twice

 

[Raduque]

I had WHS v1 running on a Pentium D 820. It was a simple file sever and nightly backup server. It would regularly peg both cores to 100% just logging in on the console. I wouldn't recommend running it on a single-core Pentium 4.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I had WHS v1 running on a Pentium D 820. It was a simple file sever and nightly backup server. It would regularly peg both cores to 100% just logging in on the console. I wouldn't recommend running it on a single-core Pentium 4.

Thanks to all. And also thanks to Raduque: My options have changed, so I'm going to jettison the old Springdale mobo, 3GB of DDR and the Skt-478 P4. "There comes a time . . . " when you realize that old tech stuff is becoming cyber-junk stuff.

The latest development: I've discovered "stuff" in my parts-locker that should have been used, but wasn't. Back in '07, I was feverishly ending a four-month project (massive case-modding included) to build a C2D or C2Q from a Striker Extreme 680i. [Don't tell me about the shortcomings of that high-end board -- I know . . . ] Through some error, I damaged the PLCC BIOS chip, but at the time, I didn't know it. I only "knew" the mobo was "dead." Sent it in for RMA. Couldn't stand waiting; bought a second board. When the first board came back, I can't remember what plans I had for it. It ended up in the parts-locker; maybe I pulled it out again to test an E8400 (current WHS); I think either the original PLCC wasn't replaced by ASUS, or I screwed up the new one, but by that time, I'd "learned some things" and got some various BIOS revision PLCC's from "BIOSMan."

I'd also set aside a Conroe C2D E6600 -- hardly used at all, because I grabbed a Kentsfield for the final build. Forgot about that . . . too . . . .

Now I find that the mobo works great after replacing the PLCC chip and putting the E6600 in there.

I think the Striker lost ratings-points for power-consumption, but I ordered the $49 WHS 2011 -- which is "64-bit." I also understand that the new WHS no longer has the "drive-extender" feature. But I still have an option to expand the first (WHS v.1) server.

What are the shortcomings of the old server OS version that would make the newer one preferable overall?

 

[ControlD]

What are the shortcomings of the old server OS version that would make the newer one preferable overall?

The real benefit of the newer version is support for 64 bit systems. The restore CD that came with the original version of WHS only had 32 bit drivers if I remember correctly so you had to do a lot of manual driver installation during 64 bit client restores to get things working right. WHS2011 is also built off of much newer server software so I'm sure there are plenty of under the hood improvements that are not readily seen.

Your new system should be fine. I tried running WHS2011 on a dual core Atom and it was terribly slow, almost to the point of not being usable. An E6600 should be plenty powerful enough though. Just make sure you feed it some RAM.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

The real benefit of the newer version is support for 64 bit systems. The restore CD that came with the original version of WHS only had 32 bit drivers if I remember correctly so you had to do a lot of manual driver installation during 64 bit client restores to get things working right. WHS2011 is also built off of much newer server software so I'm sure there are plenty of under the hood improvements that are not readily seen.

Your new system should be fine. I tried running WHS2011 on a dual core Atom and it was terribly slow, almost to the point of not being usable. An E6600 should be plenty powerful enough though. Just make sure you feed it some RAM.

I'd "acquired" two sets of G.SKILL DDR2-800 2x2GB, and already have one set installed on the 680i board. Somewhere I read that the 64-bit WHS 2011 required 4GB. I'm well aware of the problem four RAM sticks often raises on the 680i systems. If that proves to be sluggish, I've got three kits totaling 10GB, and I can swap some hardware and the WHS versions.

One way . . . or the other . . .