Power Pack 1 and HP's add-ons make Windows Home Server a real grouch - Engadget
Skip to Content
Win a free GPS from Gadling!
AOL Tech
Europe ↓
Polska
Deutschland
Asia ↓
繁體中文
简体中文
日本版
한국어판
Español
HD
Mobile
Engadget
Engadget
Engadget
RSS Feed
Contact us
Tip us on news!
Power Pack 1 and HP's add-ons make Windows Home Server a real grouch
by Darren Murph, posted Jul 28th 2008 at 3:04AM
If you've experienced some shockingly slow results from your Windows Home Server-based unit, we've one question for you: do you have Power Pack 1 and the HP add-ons installed? If so, you may not be alone in your frustrations. Apparently a number of users have seen dramatic slowdowns that have rendered their WHS devices nearly unusable. It seems that all the "bloatware" really takes a toll, as the hard drives are constantly pounded and console menus take ages (minutes, to be more precise) to appear. According to Within Windows,
download sql server enterprise manager
the only real solutions are to install more RAM and / or tweak your pagefile slim server configurations afterwards. Anyone else raging mad about the performance issues? What are you going to do about web based file server it?
[Thanks, Bryant]
Read
Permalink
Email this
65 Comments
Filed under: Home Entertainment, Storage
Tags: add-on, hp, performance, power pack 1, PowerPack1, whs, windows, windows home server, WindowsHomeServer
Relevant Posts
Microsoft issues beta internet ad server ad broker fix, enhancements for Windows Home Server (49 days ago - 23 Comments)
Windows Home Server Power Pack 1 goes live (8 days ago - 47 Comments)
The Bill Day giveaway (part 4) - Windows Vista Ultimate (32 days ago - 5147 Comments)
Ask Engadget: What's the best home media server? (33 days ago - 119 Comments)
Windows Home Server data corruption fix on the way (67 days ago - 31 Comments)
Subscribe to these comments
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Highly Ranked
dial0g @ Jul 28th 2008 3:11AM
The problem is the McAfee add-in, disable it and everything is back up to speed.
Reply
Highly Ranked
Bryant @ Jul 28th 2008 3:28AM
Disable one or the other. Check TFA for information on just how you can uninstall it if you've already done the misdeed of loading them both onto your system.
Highest Ranked
JohnFrum @ Jul 28th 2008 3:41AM
Same. I stopped running McAfee years ago on my main system because of poor performance. I decided to give sofa server table it a try and should have known better.
Once I removed it my server was happy once more.
Highest Ranked
Brad @ Jul 28th 2008 3:44AM
McAfee is freewow fun server easily the worst major piece of anti-virus software out there. System intensive, ineffectual, paid-subscription-based, and filled with its own critical security holes.
Sometimes you just have to hate shitty software.
Highest Ranked
Zorque @ Jul 28th 2008 4:37AM
I'd argue that Norton's worse, but the fact remains that for some reason, most consumer anti-viruses are terrible software, which sucks because they're so essential. They really need to step apache server it up and find a new way of doing things, because it just doesn't work as is.
Highest Ranked
BobTurbo @ Jul 28th 2008 6:30AM
It is not 1995, antivirus is not essential for many, many people. Their bank doesn't let them transfer externally without some non-computer related authentication, they back up their files, and Windows is relatively secure so they don't need to constantly format from virus attacks.
Low Ranked
bifbib @ Jul 28th 2008 8:20AM
the problem is HP and their inability to make any PC that isn't deficient...they should stick to printers. If you want a decent Windows server, roll your freenode irc server own and keep away from the AV stuff...buy a hw firewall.
Neutral
atbnet @ Jul 28th 2008 8:53AM
Hopefully people are smart enough not to infect their server with wow to make wow server McAfee. Really though you shouldn't even need an anti-virus for your home server unless you are completely incompetent. You shouldn't be downloading and running shady programs on it in the first place.
Neutral
loosely_coupled @ Jul 29th 2008 2:07AM
Who uses Windows home server anyways? If you don't want to run Ubuntu or similar, why not just use Server 2003?
Low Ranked
Alex @ Jul 28th 2008 4:15AM
Now, I'm not usually one to be a linux fanboi, but this seems like a case where Linux is the obvious solution. I'm willing to admit that, in many cases, linux is not ready for the desktop, but this sort of home file server is exactly what linux is great at. Looking at the list of features on the official Windows Home Server website, there doesn't look like a single thing that windows could possibly be better at.
Case in point: At this very moment, I have a linux box next to me acting as a file server, media center (right now it's piping internet radio through my stereo), freenet and TOR node, and BOINC cruncher. How much did the software cost? $0.
I just don't understand why anyone would buy Windows Home Server (or any MS server product for that matter).
Reply
Neutral
Intrepid @ Jul 28th 2008 4:21AM
I respectfully disagree.
This version of Windows is very well designed, and as pointed out above - it's bloatware that's the issue.
All major issues with Windows are driver or bloatware related. Stop ragging on MS because it's the cool thing to do. And as world of warcraft server for media centers, Windows Media Center was revolutionary and still is probably the best solution out there... Microsoft's only mistake was letting those stupid OEMs produce the machines.
Neutral
Alex @ Jul 28th 2008 4:34AM
@Intrepid:
"Stop ragging on MS because it's the cool thing to do."
Huh? How on earth did I come off as 'ragging on MS because it's the cool thing to do'? I even provided an example of me putting my money where my mouth is (my linux solution). Also, notice that I'm willing to concede that Windows has its advantages when it comes to the desktop. Hell, I'm even posting this from XP Media Center. What I can't understand is why one would choose MS over Linux as a home server solution.
"And as for media centers, Windows Media Center was revolutionary and still is probably the best solution out there..."
As I posted above, I'm using XP media center on my laptop right now (it came bundled) and I'm not nearly as impressed as you. I uninstalled the media features the same week I got it. Without the one media center program (bloated program to view photos, use a tuner card, and play music) it's basically just XP pro.
Neutral
Zorque @ Jul 28th 2008 4:38AM
I don't think Microsoft's ever said that MCE is anything but XP Pro with a few media features built-in, it's not like it's a secret or anything.
Neutral
iofthestorm @ Jul 28th 2008 4:43AM
You should see Vista Media Center then, it seems a lot better than the XP version. Haven't really sql server synonyms tried MythTV or any other Linux media centers to be honest though, but I doubt they could achieve the same level of polish and ease of use.
Also I think you're mostly right that Linux is a much better server OS than Windows, except for one little thing that is probably more important to most home users, whom this is targeted at: ease of use. Sure, you and I can download an ISO free nntp server and burn it and install Linux, but ask most people what an ISO is and they'd probably either give blank stares or mention something about their camera having ISO800 or something. I think HP had a version of this server with Linux that
netframe server
cost about half as much and was a bit smaller, so that's bridging the gap but for the average user Linux is too much hassle (read: it takes some effort and education).
Neutral
Alex @ Jul 28th 2008 4:44AM
@Zorque:
Oh I agree. I didn't mean to imply that. I was just trying to show why I don't believe XP Media Center to be quite as revolutionary as Intrepid would have sample server resumes you think.
Neutral
Chris R @ Jul 28th 2008 5:54AM
Now, while I understand what you are saying Alex, you have also shown the exact reasons why HOME Server is better than Linux for a HOME user - while I know Linux can do these things its hardly a case of popping to the shop, plugging it in the network and power - job done. That is the WHS experience for the target audience, its sold as a "white goods" solution IMO hence the hardware tie-in when it was initially released.
Linux solution (while it is free, its a lot of hours work to get it right) = find distribution that does everything you want out
gmail server settings
the box, find the distribution that NEARLY does what you want, download ISO, wonder how you install it for a while, buy hardware to install it on, burn the ISO, connect monitor/keyboard/mouse to install it, read countless geeky posts about how to set up processes to serve the UPNP streams to your Media centre extender (Xbox 360 etc), XBMC, configure folder duplication across disks, configure the remote access to the server from the internet, write special bit of script how to configure exchange server (or a canned one) for automated backup from the Windows clients to the Linux server...
You understand what I mean? Its not a plug and play solution or even approaching one.
I buy a WHS machine it does the above out the box, with very little configuration to be done.
The target audience for the WHS product is by and large not massively techy IMO.
Neutral
RCook @ Jul 28th 2008 10:12AM
I'll concur that Linux is the better solution for this situation. I was in on the WHS beta program and I used WHS for quite awhile, 6 months or more. But when it got right down to it, when the beta was over, I chose to use Linux -- CentOS specifically -- instead.
I am able microsoft small business server os to do everything that a WHS box can do and more without the headaches that seem to plague this product. I really wanted WHS to work simply because I didn't want the hassle of admining a Linux box at home as well as at work, I wanted brain-dead-easy. I got it, using Linux.
Once you do have it setup and kodak server email port configured, and don't respond with how hard Linux is to configure -- Windows has just as many quirks, there just happens to be a GUI to use instead of the command line -- my CentOS "home server" works great.
TorrentFlux, SlimServer, File/Print, Remote Access, starting webclient service crashes server Web, Ventrillo, Caching DNS, Snort proxy+Dans Guardian=no pron for kids. It's the superior solution.
Neutral
Aaron @ Jul 28th 2008 10:51AM
Linux is not free windows proxy server a better solution for a home full of Windows PC's. Until you can show me a Linux app that performs automatic nightly backups of Windows clients that are:
* adding print server oracle 10g ias Clustered (no identical file across clients is duplicated in the DB)
* Imaged (can automatically restore entire PC to exact same state after failure)
* Incremental (only changes are backed up after a full backup)
....Then Linux can't compete with WHS in the area of Windows client backups.
Neutral
Andir3.0 @ Jul 28th 2008 12:26PM
@Aaron: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/info.html
Everything you described, some additional stuff, no client software needed, and it's open source.
Oh, and it took me a whole 30 seconds with the help of ubuntu server hard disk power management Google to find it.
Neutral
ds @ Jul 28th 2008 12:56PM
@Andir3.0
Your last post was nothing short of linux propaganda. The app you claimed could do image backups of Windows drives says flat out on the damn page you linked that it does not. Read some of the limitations -- It does not play that well with Windows drives.
"The conclusion from the last few items is that BackupPC is not intended to allow a complete WinXX disk to be re-imaged from the backup. Our approach to system restore in the event of catastrophic failure is to re-image a new disk from a generic master, and then use the BackupPC archive to restore user files."
Highly Ranked
Aaron @ Jul 28th 2008 1:00PM
Backuppc won't back up any locked files on Windows OS (registry, database files, etc etc). Sorry, not imaged, not even close.
Neutral
Andir3.0 @ Jul 28th 2008 1:54PM
So how exactly is that different from the Microsoft solution? How would you re-image a Windows PC with Windows Server? You still need to have the PC up and running to restore from Win File Server whether you do it with a system restore disc or an imaged base of windows... the same way BackupPC works.
Highly Ranked
Aaron @ Jul 28th 2008 2:09PM
Nope, with WHS your failed client PC does not even need to boot into an OS.
WHS comes with a bootable CD whose sole purpose is to load the network drivers, and then find and connect to WHS over the network to perform a completely automatic network-based mysql server commands list restore of the entire disk. Takes only as long city of heroes free server as the files take to copy over the network. Backuppc cannot do this, at least not with Windows clients.
Neutral
ds server security @ Jul 28th 2008 2:27PM
I get that you don't understand how WHS works, but if that's the case why not educate yourself instead of assuming you understand it. nt server error All you are nod32 server error doing is spreading your own ignorance here.
WHS will allow you to restore a PC from an image stored on the server. You do not need to install Windows on the target machine before restoring your backup. You boot with a restore CD that finds your server on the network and restores from there. Similar to every other network image app. I'm not sure how you possibly think this is the same as the Linux solution. The Linux solution requires you to reinstall your OS, apps, drivers and will then restore some files (pictures and such). The WHS solution restores your entire OS, apps, drivers, and files with a few clicks and in about ~15 minutes TOTAL. This is an image based backup.
Neutral
SchmuckyTheCat @ Jul 28th 2008 4:04PM
Lunix doesn't offer a Remote Desktop Proxy either.
Low Ranked
Andir3.0 @ Jul 28th 2008 3:34PM
So, let me get this straight... Microsoft uses a setup server proprietary interface (probably undocumented) to back up locked files and create backups without hacks. They most likely disallow access to these docs to third party backup solutions that have to reverse engineer the methods to do this... and somehow it's Linux's fault that it doesn't perform the EXACT same methods (but damn close)?
So you stick to the double standard. Just like hardware support. Lack of hardware support in Linux = Linux's fault. Lack of hardware support in Windows = hardware companies fault. Something along those lines, eh?
You blame Linux for not supporting what Microsoft doesn't publish openly. Makes total sense...
Neutral
ds @
server firewall
Jul 28th 2008 3:44PM
It is actually not undocumented. I know how it is done, and so do a lot of people. You just do not know because you are very uninformed. And no one is blaming anything on Linux. The point is WHS offers an incredibly useful feature that Linux does not. If a PC connected to a WHS network needs to be reimaged for any reason, it can be done in a few minutes. If a PC on a newtork with a Linux server is in the same situation, the wi-fi mp3 server best Linux can do is store the files while you rebuild the OS, drivers and apps manually.
The irony of course is this is a HUGE difference, and one of the main reasons anyone would consider a home server.
Neutral
SchmuckyTheCat @ Jul 28th 2008 4:32PM
Andir, you're an idiot, and every response makes you look worse.
First you throw out a "solution" that proclaims itself not to do exactly what you proposed it for as a solution. Then you scream that Microsoft is doing secret. undocumented nefarious things, but sorry