Windows network for small office

May 3rd, 2004, 5:10 pm

At my previous job, we hired someone to set-up a small office network with a server and 5 workstations. 3 of the workstations were XP home edition and 2 were ME. The network person decided that Windows 2000 Professional was best suited for the server. Anyone know why?
I'll be setting up a similar network at my new job. All the computers are running XP (pro, I think) including the server. Although the server is not set-up as such yet. Any reason why an all XP network wouldn't work just fine???
BTW, this is a great site! Fast response. Much better than Master Geeks.
I've yet to see a reply from my post there. Maybe there's a Revenge Of The Nerds convention someplace.

May 3rd, 2004, 5:52 pm

For the size of network you're setting up, I would just go with a peer-to-peer network, unless you have a specific reason for a server. Generally, a network with 10 or less workstations is recommended to simply be part of a workgroup and set the permissions you need for filesharing on the individual machines. that way, some people could have their own control over what is shared. A server in this size enviroment is pretty much just going to serve as a fileserver anyway, especially if all you are running is XP. This is probably why win2k was sufficient in your other office, becuase there really isn't a need for a "server."

[ATNO/TW]

May 3rd, 2004, 6:40 pm

Well, Win2K is pretty stable. That may be the answer to your question about why. But what I can read from your post, it's a bit unclear if the prior network was peer-to-peer with a Win2K machine being the "master browser" or if you actually had a Windows 2000 server on the network. For all intents and purposes, usually the first machine that is turned on in a peer-to-peer network is going to be the designated master browser (i.e. not necessarily a server)

In contrast to what UNFLUX recommended on the small network / peer-to-peer thing, if I recall correctly, Windows 2000 or 2003 server comes with 5 user licences and one server license, but will cost you close to a grand. The Small Business Version will get you up to 50 licenses if needed.

XP should work just fine with either flavor, but theoretically XP Home supposedly is not designed to work with corporate network intalls , whereas XP pro is. However, I have instances, where XP Home works, not only with a Win2K server, but also a Novell server...and they're not even supposed to...so *shrugs on that one.

I'm hoping that doesn't confuse you, but I think if you can provide some more details about your setup and exactly what you want to do we can get closer to an answer. I know UNFLUX is rather experienced with Windows servers -- probably even more-so than me.

May 3rd, 2004, 7:54 pm

The Win2K at my old work we created a workgroup and users were set-up with different access levels. We'll be using Quickbooks Wholesale 5-user, at the new job, so the 'server' will be a fileserver at least.

[ATNO/TW]

May 3rd, 2004, 8:20 pm

You're still a little unclear, but going back to what UNFLUX said, it looks like a simple peer-to-peer Network is probably your best route. All XP machines should see each other and access each other if all are part of the same workgroup (no matter what you call it as long as all are the same). You can set up whichever one seems to have the most horsepower in terms of RAM, Hardrive capacity, CPU speed, etc as the so-called "fileserver". Might not be a bad idea if you can to partition a drive on that machine and set it aside for data and just share that drive with the other machines.

May 4th, 2004, 2:57 am

Sorry to interfer but, i thought that XP home edition was not made to be controlled by servers...
Or it can be? and how?
Tx

May 4th, 2004, 12:35 pm

As far as i'm aware, the main difference between XP Home & Pro is, with home edition you can't join a Windows domain (I.E NT4/W2k/W2003 server in domain mode) but a Windows workgroup should be fine. Even if your designating one machine as a server and accessing the files its not a domain, the server is still a peer to all the other machines (it is equal in network status to them).

S

May 4th, 2004, 2:04 pm

so what do you consider a Domain in a server enviorment?

May 4th, 2004, 2:07 pm

a domain or DNS service running on a server that maintains logins, access, etc. A windows domain is a local domain, and is not the same as an internet domain, but works similarly in terms of namespace.

[ATNO/TW]

May 4th, 2004, 3:01 pm

DuckIT wrote:

As far as i'm aware, the main difference between XP Home & Pro is, with home edition you can't join a Windows domain (I.E NT4/W2k/W2003 server in domain mode) but a Windows workgroup should be fine.

Crap! I knew I was forgetting something. (excuse this slightly unrelated reply). Just wanted to thank you for mentioning that. I'm going to be migrating my network at work from Novell to Windows 2003 server. Something in the back of my mind kept bugging me about the one XP Home computer one of our patners uses. That was it. At least it didn't take to the last minute to suddenly realise it. Thanks for that.

May 4th, 2004, 3:30 pm

UNFLUX wrote:

a domain or DNS service running on a server that maintains logins, access, etc. A windows domain is a local domain, and is not the same as an internet domain, but works similarly in terms of namespace.

But isnt that what a server is supposed to do? control the accesses or is the small server in this topic about just joining all the PC together for a normal network?

[ATNO/TW]

May 4th, 2004, 3:39 pm

As best I can tell from the wording of the original post, there is no "actual" server involved here - just a normal client machine designated as the "server" on which all the files are centrally stored.

May 4th, 2004, 6:48 pm

Ragnar78 wrote:

UNFLUX wrote:

a domain or DNS service running on a server that maintains logins, access, etc. A windows domain is a local domain, and is not the same as an internet domain, but works similarly in terms of namespace.

But isnt that what a server is supposed to do? control the accesses or is the small server in this topic about just joining all the PC together for a normal network?

I did mention that at my old job we set-up users with different access levels (user, power user, admin). We'll be doing the same at the new job.
So is it a client/server network?
Also, I've heard that mapping a network drive makes for a faster network. True?

[ATNO/TW]

May 4th, 2004, 7:10 pm

I think it's your use of the word "server" that's in question. You can do exactly what you're asking on peer-to-peer network, providing all machines are Win2K, XP, or NT, providing they have one of those three OS's where you can set security "access" permissions on the drives and files you want allowd to be accessable and they are all part of the same workgroup. You just keep using the term "server"...but you don't seem to actually have a Server Operating System on any of your computers as best I can tell from your posts. A server Operating system would be that one of the machines would have either NT Server, Windows 2000 server or Windows 2003 server softwar installed on it. If you do actually have a server, is it NT, Win2k or Win2k3? If the two latter are you using Active Directory?

And re: your question about mapped drives, not necessarily faster, but easier for sure.

May 4th, 2004, 7:34 pm

So I don't have an actual server. Got it! As long as I can do everything with peer to peer set-up.
But one more question. Win2K Pro has a Server Service that can be enabled. Does that make the computer an actual server?