Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

olePigeon · Mar 2, 2007, 11:49 AM

Just as the title says. I guess I just don't get it. So people buy another copy of Windows that lets you save backups on it? What's it do that OS X can't?

Tomchu · Mar 2, 2007, 01:19 PM

It's sold as hardware bundled with the WHS software, much like Windows Media Center was before it.

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/whs_preview.asp

::maroma:: · Mar 2, 2007, 01:29 PM

Its basically a network server for home users. From what I've heard it can be used as a web server and/or network file server, etc. You can access it from anywhere on the web, which means all of your files at home. And its Windows and Mac compatible.

This is just what I've heard around my office. We are working on the retail program for this thing with Microsoft. I'm not personally working on it, so I'm hearing this second hand.

Sounds pretty cool. You could do things like run an entire website from your home, serve all of your files to your local network and access all of those files remotely. All kinds of stuff. And it seems pretty cheap.

olePigeon · Mar 2, 2007, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by ::maroma::

Its basically a network server for home users. From what I've heard it can be used as a web server and/or network file server, etc. You can access it from anywhere on the web, which means all of your files at home. And its Windows and Mac compatible.

You mean like OS X?

Originally Posted by ::maroma::

Sounds pretty cool. You could do things like run an entire website from your home, serve all of your files to your local network and access all of those files remotely. All kinds of stuff. And it seems pretty cheap.

You mean like OS X?

I'm being cynical, but you can already do all those things out of the box with OS X. Is this like Halo where it's big because it's a first time on their respective platform, even if it's been done to death elsewhere?

olePigeon · Mar 2, 2007, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by Tomchu

It's sold as hardware bundled with the WHS software, much like Windows Media Center was before it.

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/whs_preview.asp

I read that, that's what brought up my question. Just trying to figure out why it's so special.

Tomchu · Mar 2, 2007, 02:14 PM

There's some overhead with setting it up on OS X, and a certain amount of understanding.

I'm guessing Microsoft is aiming for a "plug it in, turn it on, and start throwing files on it" kind of thing.

olePigeon · Mar 2, 2007, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by Tomchu

There's some overhead with setting it up on OS X, and a certain amount of understanding.

I'm guessing Microsoft is aiming for a "plug it in, turn it on, and start throwing files on it" kind of thing.

I guess I'll just point and laugh when the first exploit is released and people have 3 or 4 computers taken over, instead of just 1.

Tomchu · Mar 2, 2007, 02:21 PM

Yeahhh ...

Except that this product is based around Windows Server 2003 R2, the first edition of which has been proven to be quite secure. R2 only improves on that.

I like OS X too, but I'm not going to ignore security flaws in OS X while making another product out to be worse than it is.

olePigeon · Mar 2, 2007, 02:34 PM

I guess we'll see. Oh well.

mitchell_pgh · Mar 2, 2007, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by Tomchu

Yeahhh ...

Except that this product is based around Windows Server 2003 R2, the first edition of which has been proven to be quite secure. R2 only improves on that.

I like OS X too, but I'm not going to ignore security flaws in OS X while making another product out to be worse than it is.

In interested in what security flaws you are referencing.

The TCP/IP stack of OS X is an absolute rock. AFP hasn't had a security issue in a LONG time (and it's so obscure that nobody even bothers it [not that security through obscurity is good, but it works]). Apache is also VERY secure.

All of the security issues I've seen for OS X require a unique situation compounded by a novice user.

indigoimac · Mar 2, 2007, 05:14 PM

Yikes, looks like a gaping security hole to me, and for once I don't think it's MS's fault. While Windows 2003 may be secure it's the user who sets it up that will cause the problem, you can make Linux and OSX just as open and vulnerable if you want to, and adding a pretty interface to it just makes it worse.

Just think, everyone who doesn't secure their routers might now have this, w/o a good password, or possibly even w/o one.

Tomchu · Mar 2, 2007, 06:38 PM

mitchell_pgh: Have a look -- Apple Macintosh OS X - Vulnerability Report - Secunia

hayesk · Mar 3, 2007, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by Tomchu

There's some overhead with setting it up on OS X, and a certain amount of understanding.

Uhm... Go to Sharing Panel. Check "Personal File Sharing"

hayesk · Mar 3, 2007, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by Tomchu

mitchell_pgh: Have a look -- Apple Macintosh OS X - Vulnerability Report - Secunia

Theoretical exploits published by a company that wants to promote itself mean little. Actual accounts of security breaches in the wild mean much more.

Chuckit · Mar 3, 2007, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by hayesk

Theoretical exploits published by a company that wants to promote itself mean little. Actual accounts of security breaches in the wild mean much more.

Precisely right. Vulnerability in theory means even less than security through obscurity.