I was reading the IT news today, as I usually do at some point during the day, and of course there were several things about the opening of the 2007 International CES in Las Vegas. The big news is that Bill Gates (Chairman at Microsoft - but if you didn't know this, I must ask: in what planet do you live?) started to talk about a "home server", a server that the average home user would have at home, to store their files and stuff like that.
Personally, I think it's a great idea to have a server at home (I do, of course), but then again, I'm not an average user, and I like spending time being my own network administrator. Gates answers to that saying that the so called "home server" will be so easy to use that there will be no need for a network administrator. That's the part I don't believe in, especially under US$ 500 like they want it to be. Let me explain myself.
Gates is promising a hardware (manufactured by others, mind you; by HP at the moment) that has recoverability to physical failures, that is easy to add storage and with easy remote access. Don't misunderstand me, that's all very feasible... but not for US$ 500. If it was, why would small companies still be spending loads of money with their servers (even having network administrators)?!
What I'm guessing here is that this new "Windows Home Server", following the traditional "Microsoft approach" where they make the software and other people make the hardware, will not be very different from what you can do today with a Windows XP, only with better wizards because it's going to be with Windows Vista (so it will also look better). If you're an average user but you'd like to have a little more than shared files, you still will need to make a choice: you will either spend a lot of time reading books and websites trying to do whatever it is that you want, or you will call that friend of yours that works with IT to help you out. Then again, if all you need is to share your files, you won't need new hardware for that, or a different product. By the way, Microsoft provides an article on how to build a home server for a Windows XP. :D
So, what I'm trying to say is that this "Windows Home Server" will be a solution nobody will need, much like the Windows XP Media Center. I also don't believe very much in cheap and packed hardware+software solutions like this. Microsoft has been trying to get these "under-500-dollars-PC" solutions to the market for a long time, together with several hardware manufacturers, but tell me if you were really able to get good PC for that price? Again, don't get me wrong, I do think that having a home server is something needed by the average user, especially now that broadband internet connection is getting cheaper and cheaper and the number of PCs per household is increasing a lot.
There is something cool about this, though. Liking it or not, Microsoft's decisions influence a bunch of other industries, and the Windows Home Server is a step to Bill Gates' plan to automate people's houses, with automated kitchen appliances and stuff like that. That is nice, and if the industry catches that part of the deal, that would be really cool. Unfortunately, I don't really think it is gonna happen that fast.
Oh, and also, before I finish, I would like to say this: I believe that Google has much more of a chance to achieve the goal of making your files accessible wherever you are (which is one of the goals of the Windows Home Server), for instance. Some people speculate that Google might be creating a new operating system for home users, and if they are (some fear, some hope), that's where my bet will be, for a home server. Right now, I think a regular (and truly good, not some Celeron powered) computer with a regular Windows XP or Vista is already good and easy enough to be a home server.
Here are some links about Bill Gates' presentation at CES, if you'd like to read more: