@SJ- I think I may have failed to convey what I was trying to say.
Not really, I think we're just trying to debate this from the same side (e.g. we agree)
I am very much in support of WHS as a SOHO server solution over using workgroups. I also meant Foundation was a glorified NAS if used exclusively in it's base role as a file/print server. That being said, any dedicated 'real' server is a far better choice than trying to run even the smallest business network without one.
Got that part, have not problem with it/agree.
I won't even start to comment on SBS since I feel it's a generally mis-marketed product. Don't know if it's true where you are, but from what I've seen it's not a good choice for about 75% of the businesses I've seen that bought it. Most would have been far better off with the standard server product.
Yepper, there too we are totally
on the same page. I just hate seeing SBS shoehorned onto a single processor box with 2GB of RAM and a software RAID1 array, trying to run Exchange (in even a limited capacity) without exploding. Easily half on the machines potential is wasted on services nobody knows about, needs, or can use...But it's a catchy name that sells well if the sheep is properly (scared) primed.
That being said... The point I was originally driving at is that WHS being such a perfect fit for SOHOs doesn't need to be pulled away from, or made less atractive to the SOHO segment as it's the only really practicle (MS Product) for them.
Granted I could be completely daft, but... You seemed to be saying (originally) that DriveExtender was being pulled out of WHS to make it less atractive to the SOHO market that's what I've been driving at. Anybody with a budget desktop server budget (SOHOs...) is either going to with a straight workgroup *Shudder*, WHS, or a Linux flavored NAS box. So MS would be shooting themselves in the foot if they pushed SOHOs away from WHS.
I agree if DNS is set up properly. But half the server issues I get called in on are the result of DNS configuration mistakes So from my perspective, that's a pretty big if. I'm sure you've had your share of calls for that. Why so many company "computer gurus" feel the need to muck with DNS settings on a Windows server will always remain a mystery to me.
Amen to that, if I ever find one of these people I'm going to tape that chapter of the manual to a brick and beat them with it. It's not that I mind picking up new clients who are astonished by how their network sprung to life when it was finally configured properly. It's just that AD is a freaking decade old now... Am I really expected to believe that none of these clowns had time to pickup and crack open a manual in ten years time?!?
Quotes I just know you've heard (that make me cringe too):
Why does the DHCP server keep shutting down and deactivating itself?
Why does it always take 10 minutes to get to the desktop from the logon screen?
Gee the server is really fast first thing in the morning, but after I check my webmail it gets really slow or doesn't respond at all.
And my all time favorite from the ones that think they know:
But the Primary DNS server (as listed in TCP/IP settings) is always checked first...Right?