After being
introduced to the world late last month, we've heard little else about HP's lower-end MediaSmart Server LX195... until now, obviously. This little media streamer made its way into the
HotHardware labs for a little Q&A, and it managed to escape with lots of praise, a mild amount of criticism and a price tag that'll likely be too steep for most to swallow. As for performance and features, the LX195 was found to shine; the Media Collector, iTunes server and Time Machine backup functionality all worked great. Unfortunately, the "endless loop of updates" seen during the initial setup and the lack of an
April update -- which was sent out to the EX series
last month -- left somewhat of a bitter taste in reviewers mouths. Overall, the system delivered and worked as advertised, but the $360 to $400 street price is apt to turn all but the hardest of hardcore HP fans away, not to mention that the aforesaid EX update (which will hit the LX195 this fall) will require users to completely wipe their HDD and start over from scratch. Check the read link for the full writeup.
posted May 26th 2009 9:51AM
Nothing beats a standard NAS with some mapped drives. Simple, affordable, and most of all, controllable. When you just have a backup drive show up as a simple disk, you can handle the software on your own terms.
How about those who want to run UPnP / iTunes server without a PC running 24/7? Personally, I use an old PPC mac mini for the task, but had that not been to hand, I may well have considered something such as this.
NAS doesn't have automatic incremental backup of vista computers or visual remote offsite management. NAS can't run a DLNA server or do media center/itunes sharing.
My NAS offers remote differential backups, a DLNA server, and sharing to iTunes clients. Plus tons of other features. No idea about auto backups of Vista machines, since I don't store any critical data on Windows anyhow.
@Ben
There are most certainly a handful of NAS devices that run both UPNP/iTunes servers as well as aome/all other functions such as automated backup, torrents, ftp server and more. Please sir, do some research. Newegg.com or buffalotech.com will get you started.
What Marc said.
And on top of that, you could even buy a totally shit NAS and just put all your MP3s on it. Then, point your favorite media player (which sure as shit isn't iTunes) to the NAS for it's library and you're up and running.
Windows Home Server is a whole lot more than just a NAS. Go read about the product before spewing.
Yes, a lot of the functionality that it provides CAN be provided by a NAS and a good router with custom firmware. But the average user doesn't have the knowledge to make all that work. And you know what? A lot of us just don't have the time or desire to bother with hacking a bunch of crap together to make it do what something like this does.
I think it's a failed product because it's single drive, which takes away a lot of what WHS does. But as for WHS versus NAS, they're really two different beasts. Go do your research.
"But the average user doesn't have the knowledge to make all that work."
But they are going to set this thing up and use it properly? Give me a fuckin' break, man.
"Time Machine backup functionality all worked great."
Really?
http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2009-04/hp-mediasmart-server-time-machine-fine-print/
@Richard Glitter
WHS is a NAS, and nothing more. It's got some unique features, but really, it's just a NAS. You chuck a few drives in, connect it to the network, and bam, you have Network Attached Storage.
And by "hacking together with custom firmware" you mean throw some drives into a normal NAS, check some boxes on a web interface and call it a day.
Sure, WHS makes backing up windows machines a little easier, but honestly Microsoft should build decent backup capacity into the OS and not some extra product. Time Machine works with all sorts of hard drives, be it USB, Firewire, or NAS. Microsoft wants users to fork out for a complete product to get the same type of ease of use for disaster recovery.
Deeper down, I know WHS does things like file level redundancy instead of block level, but that is nothing new either. The Drobo with the NAS attachment gets you the same type of non RAID redundancy.
Oh, and lets not forget the random data corruption issue and how long it took MS to address it. Shipping a bug like that in the first version is one thing, but expecting customers to sit by and deal with it for 6+ months is just absurd. Bad enough that even the biggest MS Fanboy gave MS flack about it.
http://community.winsupersite.com/blogs/paul/archive/2008/03/21/more-on-the-windows-home-server-data-corruption-issue.aspx
If they cut the prize in half I would be the first one buying
Heck, I would but almost anything that had its price cut in half.
What better way to judge a Windows Home Server than by how well it deals with Apple hardware. Gimme a break. Time Machine is a joke compared to WHS.
Fanboy fight in 3...2....
Are you kidding?
It works with Time Machine, it's missing several important features, and it's seriously overpriced.
This thing has Apple written all over it.;)
The problem is that HP advertises the system as being compatible with Time Machine, however they never reveal that it's not fully functional. All HP is doing is using the same published config change to allow Time Machine to backup to an SMB share. This works fine for allowing the user to restore from within Leopard, however it won't work for complete disaster recovery.
And as others have pointed out, Time Machine isn't something directly comparable to Windows Home Server. Time Machine is backup software built into Leopard, Windows Home Server is a complete OS and hardware. For future troll attempts, compare WHS to a Time Capsule.
Yeah, it's completely reasonable to compare a backup application to a server operating system. Apple loses forever.
And its also completely reasonable to expect someone being sold this as a backup solution to be disappointed when their G-band wireless network doesn't quite cut it. Seriously, they're both solid products.
Is this thing (or EX485) can stream uncompressed HD videos via dual-band router?
(for Macs and PCs, i have 2 Windows laptops and 2 Mac laptops)
Heck, I'd go $299 if it came with an extra drive bay or two. A non-expandable WHS (or expandable only into a spaghetti bowl of USB dirves, cables, and wallwarts) kind of misses the point, I'd say.