re: How amazing in Windows Home Server? We Got Served blog shows that Paul Thurrott thinks it is amazing and a sign that innovation is alive and kicking at Microsoft. And no, small businesses should still go for SBS

Markyhearts — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:55:40 GMT

I find Paul Thurrot's comment interesting, because I've just been weighing up SBS and WHS for my business and gone with WHS. I looked at the total cost of ownership for SBS, including server maintenance, administration and so on, and it was pretty high, even though I like doing things myself and count myself as a 'power user'.

My reasoning: I basically figured that it was best to use WHS instead of SBS in my office and have the other things (SQL server, Exchange) remote hosted, which I've been doing for a while anyway. That way, I spend most of my time working, not fiddling with networks and firewalls, and I have all my office stuff backed up and remotely accessible.

Another advantage of this setup, is that its using fewer resources - my Tranquil T3 home server uses about 34W, and my hosted Exchange and SQL is in server farms which are more efficient through virtualisation etc. than having an SBS capable standalone server, even the 'green' Fujitsu Siemens TX120 which I was looking at.

In the long term, the lower cost is definitely in balanced in favour of the WHS and remote hosting combination. What I really like is that if my business gets significantly bigger I can install an SBS server alongside the WHS, using WHS to back up it and any critical PCs in the office.

Consider getting WHS if, like me, you're running a small business. You'll be suprised at what a slick little package it is.