A few days ago I was trying to buy a copy of WHS 2011 for a customer, but I couldn't find anyone online that is selling the product anymore in the US. (Other than used copies on Ebay.) I see that someone else has run into a similar problem in
Sweden.
http://social.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/75436ee5-ae69-4e70-abe6-588abaec6981/buy-licence-keys-for-whs-2011?forum=whs2011
Some time ago I read that Micrsoft would discontinue WHS, that WHS 2011 was the end of the line for Microsoft home servers, but I'm surprised to see it happen so soon. Some people are saying that Microsoft Windows Server 2012 Essentials is the "replacement,"
but that sells for about $400 while WHS 2011 was about $50-$100. $400 for software puts Essentials out of the reach of most home or small office customers. I have never seen Essentials myself so I have no idea if it even has the easy
to use backup capabilities that WHS 2011 had? That may or may not be a problem in suggesting Essentials as an alternative to WHS?
I'm wondering what other people have found as a replacement for WHS 2011?
Here are the features that are most important to me. Ideally I would like to all, or most, of these in a replacement product and more.
a) WHS 2011 could be installed on the home PC via a webpage. Other backup tools often required multiple liscensed copies of their software that would have to be individually managed on each home PC. There was no coordination by the software
for backups from multiple PCs to a common target. Also being able to backup up to 10 PCs was more than enough for most home or small office users, but a nuisance to have to buy and install 10 copies of some other backup software on each individual PC.
b) WHS 2011 did deduplication of files. This helped conserve space when backing up multiple computers to a common target.
c) It would be helpful to have a backup solution that could handle both Windows (Windows 8, Windows 7, Windows XP) and Mac OS. WHS originally advertised it could do this, but in my experience Mac backups were never a sure thing. At times
it seemed to work and then an upgrade to the Mac OS would break the backup process.
I don't personally have a need for Linux backups, but a backup target that could handle Windows, Max OS, and Linux would be even better due to the flexibility.
And with the advent of all the mobile computing, cell phones, tablets, etc, if a tool could also help with backup of those devices to a common, secure, location that would be fantastic.
d) WHS would automatically backup the computers. In the past I tried adding a backup Hard Drive to my children's PCs, but it was nearly impossible to get them to use it. Or to find any software that would easily backup to this secondary
drive without my involvement. Having WHS automatically take care of backups was a huge load off my home IT administration.
e) WHS 2011 just worked. I can't recall ever having a problem which caused the system to crash. I did occasionally run into some issues in which a particular backup seemed to take an abnormally long time to complete, but by leaving the
computer on overnight that got around this problem.
f) WHS 2011 also had the benefit of having shared folders on the home network. Making the sharing of pictures, music, and videos very convenient.
g) Restoring files from WHS 2011 was very easy. I didn't have to do this often, but those times I did it didn't take long to get this done. With online backup tools I can often be hung up for an usually long time waiting for something to
happen before my one file starts to download. I certainly would hate to see what happened if I had multiple files I needed to restore.
Here are some alternatives I've considered, but some deficiences that make them undesirable. Typically they lack one or more of the above listed desirable qualities for a home or small office to use for their backups.
a) Online (or remote off site backup) would be ideal. There are a lot of companies that offer such a service. In addition to having a backup you'd have the added advantage that a local disaster wouldn't cause you to lose all your data. But for most people in the US you can't get an Internet connection with an upload speed greater than 5 Mbps. In some testing I've done I'd estimate a home user would need a mininimum of 50 Mbps upload speed to try and keep a home (with several
computers) continuously backed up offsite. Unfortunately there are very few places in the US where you could get a connection this fast.
At the moment these online backup options would work okay for documents, but for many home users they'll have a lot of pictures and videos they want to save (and more being added each month). These files take up so much space it is currently impractical
to try and keep them backed up online (when you've only got 5 Mbps to work with).
Another disadvantage is that WHS backed up the whole hard drive. Other tools typically have a select set of files they'll backup. Backing up other files can be very cumbersome (if it can be done at all). With their default tools you'll
usually miss some files that are really important to you or you'll have backups of garbage files that you don't really care about (but they're chewing up your available online space). For a home user I believe even if the online tool allowed them to
backup "non-standard" files the home user may not be sophisticated enough to realize this needs to be done nor to realize how to get it done with the online tools?
The best alternative would be to have both a local (onsite) backup and remote (offsite) backup. WHS 2011 provided a good onsite backup and other tools made it possible to replicate this offsite.
b) I know that Windows 8 has File History and I could make an external drive (or another computer) the target for backups, but due to the significant GUI changes in Windows 8 some customers won't upgrade thei home PCs (at least not now). So trying
to offer File History as a replacement to WHS 2011 is not really feasible. Not to mention that for those customers who have Windows 7 (or possibly even Windows XP) File History is not an option.
In addition WHS 2011 backed up the complete hard drive (minus anything you purposefully excluded). By default File History seems to only backup documents and media. For most people that might be enough, but it could leave you exposed to a failure
and loss of some data you didn't realize was critical and no way to recover that data until it's too late (and you realize what youve lost)?
I did not personally try this myself, but I believe it should have been possible to restore the whole computer software from WHS 2011 by using a USB stick and booting that on new home PC hardware? If that worked it would have been a helpful feature
to a home user.
c) Some have suggested that Windows 8 has all of the important functions (such as media sharing and storage spaces) that WHS 2011 had and for the most part I agree. But how can I easily backup from Windows (8, 7, XP) and Mac OS to a Windows 8
backup target? Seems like I have my original problems of manging software on multiple PCs, no deduplication, etc?
Using Windows 8 would give home users, for the most part, the familiar Windows look and feel. It also would have the other benefits that using Windows tools, applications, and products together offers. If there was some simple "client"
software that would run on all the home PCs (and even on Mac OS) then this might be an alternative for me. But at the moment I haven't been able to locate anything like this.
I know that CrashPlan does allow their software to be used for free for local backups. But I'm not sure that has the flexibility I'd want in managing which files get backed up and which are exluded? And how easy it is to recover a group of files?
d) I know there are various Linux NAS products. One advantage of WHS 2011 was that it had a familiar Windows look and feel that was beneficial to a home user. Plus using Windows meant they could install other software on the WHS 2011 server
that they might find useful or use WHS 2011 in conjunction with other Microsoft software products or tools.
My belief is that most home or small office users would find using Linux a daunting task? So unless there were some very simple way to manage the Linux NAS from a webpage this doesn't seem like a reasonable alternative to WHS 2011? Plus the Linux
NAS would need a simple way to determine what got backed up, regularly schedule backups, easily restore files, etc. In addition using Microsoft WHS 2011 allows the possibility of BitLocker encryption (by using other Microsoft products or tools). Linux
does have some encryption alternatives. But again my feeling is that they're more daunting for a home user than the familiar Windows look and feel. Although certain Linux features, such as ZFS, do look appealing from the perspective of a home user.
I would appreciate hearing from others as to what they're using to solve these type of backup needs.
Theokrat