Prince

I finally got my Linksys router today, and am planning my modest home network setup. I've this Dell plus two low-end PIII machines that I intend to network.

But I've some questions. Basically, the easiest way probably would be to just go with a WinXP peer-to-peer network, and it may be pretty much the only option I have anyway. But considering that the two other machines may perform better with either Win2k or W98se, here's the question: how well does Win2k Pro or Win98 SE behave in a p2p network with XP? Furthermore, I am not running XP on the Dell, I'm currently running Server 2003, as I find it to be more efficient even as a workstation OS. Could I use it as a server right out of the box, or would I need to purchase licenses, I am not too familiar with the whole CAL (or something like that) licensing system.

I kind of like the idea of running a dedicated server based network, with one machine acting as a file server, for added security, over a peer to peer network, but I dunno what my options are. Pretty much the OS's I can choose from are WinXP Pro, Windows Server 2003, Windows 2000 Pro, Windows 2000 Server, Windows 2000 Advanced Server, Windows 98 SE, and then some harmless Linux distros.

I'm more of a Windows guy, though.

__________________
Who is John Galt?

Cynthetiq

I run a server at home for centralized storage. It started out as a Win2k machine, then upgraded to Win2k server, just because I was able to bring a copy home from work. You can just use "sharing" to have a central storage area. I've done that for many small 2-4 machine/user networks. It's easy and simple. Win98 will need some adjustments from Win2k/WinXP using the home networking disk, but that's very easy to complete with the floppy that gets created.

I did find that when I turned on Active Directory in my home network that it slowed it down considerably so I disabled it. Good luck!

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

bendsley

If you're using Win98 in the network, you would want to install NetBEUI for WinXP. It comes on the cd, but does not get installed by default. They do this because only older legacy OS's are using NetBEUI. That will let your Win9x machines see your XP machine. For Win2k, I do believe NetBEUI is installed, but cannot remember. Windows 2003 server is just that, a server OS, and yes, you can use it as a server right out of the box. They expect for legal usage you will have CALs (Client Access Licenses) on paper, or something to show that you have paid for them. I wouldn't worry about it too much about it.

The only thing that I would tell you is that you do not need to use Win2003 Server as a desktop OS. Many software programs out there will not allow you to install their software because you are using a "server-based" OS. One example I can think of is Symantec. You would not be able to install Norton AntiVirus 2004 on the Win2003 machine. Why? Well, what good administrator would? NAV2004 is a home-user program, not an enterprise program. For and enterprise OS, you use enterprise software. Much harder to find, and a bit much for a home network. I

If you use Win2003 as your server, it will ask you what you want the machine to do, be it a file server, DNS, AD server....whatever. If you make it an AD machine, you will have to install DNS. It really all just depends on what you want this "server" machine to do. If all you want it a file server, Win2003 is a bit much, but it will work just fine none the less.

Have you thought about running linux on the server machine and using samba to see shares and move files?

__________________
"You hear the one about the fella who died, went to the pearly gates? St. Peter let him in. Sees a guy in a suit making a closing argument. Says, "Who's that?" St. Peter says, "Oh, that's God. Thinks he's Denny Crane."

Cynthetiq

IMO there's no need for installing netbuei seperately. I only had to install netbios when playing Diablo, but that was a specialty application.

TCP/IP is enough, the networking disk will take care of the additional services "file and print sharing" with little issue.

neekap

NetBEUI really only had its use when people didn't mess around with IP addressing and getting the machines on a common subnet if I remember right? And the router handing out DHCP will take care of that.

Server 03 seems a bit overkill. I'd be nervous running that as my main desktop OS simply for the compatibility reasons stated above.

Dav

NetBEUI (Network BIOS Extended User Interface) is an Extension of NetBIOS (Network Basic Input Output System) ann is a seperate Network Protocol in its own right, like TCP/IP IPX/SPX and is really only suitable for small networks (it is approximatley faster than TCP/IP with 2-15 computers). If you want web-serving, then you must use TCP/IP. And you don't need 2003 Server for a File Server, do it on the 2k Box by creating a share and then you can create a mapped drive (Network Drive) on the others pointing to the network share.

You'll only need extra CAL's if your running Microsoft Terminal Services, a CAL for every client connection.

Do you want to use Windows Server? I can't see how unless you want DNS\DHCP\IIS or RAS (note: never gotten this to work )? If your after a simple network just install XP on all of them, connect them and let the wizards do the rest.

j8ear

This is because AD requires DNS servers (for the AD domain)...even for your small home network. Turn on the DNS service on the w2kserver and speed will return to normal, I bet.

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

Dav

If your not using DNS, theres no point in using Active Directory, you can use most things without it.

Prince

The reason why I've been using Server 2003 as a desktop OS is simply because, for me, it has been considerably faster than the run-of-the-mill XP. Part of the reason is, I suspect, that many unnecessary services are disabled by default. Also, I could never find a really good way to get rid of Windows Messenger on XP, which was a huge resource hog. Even when I did manage to rid myself of it, it would somehow find itself back on my system, and I'd always have to forcefully shut it down from Task Manager on every logon session.

I switched back to Server 03 from XP a couple of months ago, installed the typical software, and lo and behold, within less than two months it had become unbearably slow. At least by my standards. There is just way too much clutter in XP for my taste, I don't need/want any of the eye candy. And there's always some of it there, even when you switch off the candy GUI.

I also found it easier to set up an ftp server and a web server on Server 2003 than to run separate server apps for both on XP. I like this because I live half a world away from my family, and it's easier for me to use Windows Media Services to allow them to stream home videos directly from my machine as opposed to trying to cram them into small enough files to be downloaded the old fashioned way.

I've a couple of questions about setting up a simple network with just XPs, as I am still considering this an option... One thing I like about having an actual server is that you have great control over data security. Let me put it this way: I can easily hide my vast porno collection on the server from my nosy wife, simply by editing her access privileges. Can I do the same effectively with XP? I could never get XP to hide my porno folders from my wife's user account on a stand-alone setup, would it be possible over a network connection though?

__________________
Who is John Galt?

bendsley

I don't think Active Directory will install without installing DNS service as well. Just setup your small network with dns.xxxxx.local.

__________________
"You hear the one about the fella who died, went to the pearly gates? St. Peter let him in. Sees a guy in a suit making a closing argument. Says, "Who's that?" St. Peter says, "Oh, that's God. Thinks he's Denny Crane."

Dav

Have you tried stopping it from starting up? Start -> Run -> "msconfig" -> Startup and Removed it from there?

Yes you most certainly can, if you are running Windows XP Professional, set up what you want to share by right clicking the folder, -> Sharing and Security and then tick "Share this Computer on the network". Next, click the permissions button, remove "Everyone", click add -> advanced -> find now -> select your user name -> ok -> ok -> apply -> ok

Then you can map that drive from every other machine, so on the other machine My Computer -> Tools -> Map Network Drive -> Select the Drive and the folder its in in the format "\\computer\share"

You can also forget about mapping it and hide the share instead, if you like, then you partner won't be all like, "now why cant I get into this?". To do this,
follow all the instructions for creating the share, but this time name the share with a dollar sign at the end "$" this hides the share. You can do many interesting things, and I dont have time to tell you all of them, but dont ever nest an insecure folder within a secure one, the can bypass the permissions for the top folder and go straight to the insecure one.

I hope this helps.