For a file server, do I need to use Windows 2000 Server?

[Satyrist]

As the subject question asks, would I need to use Windows 2000 Server for setting up a file server, or is it possible to do with Windows 2000 Professional instead?

I'm just beginning to look into Windows 2000 (I'll be upgrading from 98se) and was wondering which version would be better for me to look at; I'm not interested in XP, and not sure that Server 2003 is really necessary...It would be for serving files across a network that has up to 7 machines connected to it, all would be going through a broadband router. (Netgear 311) I don't believe there would be that much more that I'd need from an OS other than filesharing. (at the moment, anyway)

Any other considerations I might take into account while I'm researching further? Thanks.

 

[blizz]

Any other considerations

One I can think of...we ran W2K Professional as a file server for a group of 8 and it ran fine. However, when that number increased above 10, we ran into problems as Professional only allows a maximum of 10 concurrent connections. With everyone in the office, it became a problem...had to go to W2K server. You have only 7 now but down the road...how many?

Just a thought. Good luck.

 

[Satyrist]

As a fileserver under 2000 Pro, is it simply a drive/directory that's shared, or is it a specific service?

There's no long/short term plans to move past 7 machines, it's in my home.

 

[spyordie007]

As a fileserver under 2000 Pro, is it simply a drive/directory that's shared, or is it a specific service?

I'm not sure what kind of answer you're looking for here, could you clarify?

There's no long/short term plans to move past 7 machines, it's in my home.

Than 2K pro would probably work just fine for you.

-Spy

 

[dawks]

Originally posted by: spyordie007

As a fileserver under 2000 Pro, is it simply a drive/directory that's shared, or is it a specific service?

I'm not sure what kind of answer you're looking for here, could you clarify?

There's no long/short term plans to move past 7 machines, it's in my home.

Than 2K pro would probably work just fine for you.

-Spy

All you really have to do is make the computer a part of the same workgroup, then right click the folder you want to share, and setup its options. Then on remote computers, just navigate to the share ie. (start>run> "\\computer-name\share-name")

XP would also be fine in this case. (just depends on what liscenses you already own I guess)

 

[Satyrist]

Originally posted by: spyordie007

As a fileserver under 2000 Pro, is it simply a drive/directory that's shared, or is it a specific service?

I'm not sure what kind of answer you're looking for here, could you clarify?

There's no long/short term plans to move past 7 machines, it's in my home.

Than 2K pro would probably work just fine for you.

-Spy

Sorry, I meant if I'm looking to share a drive or a directory, is this accomplished through simply turning file sharing on, and then manually sharing it? (sort of similar to what's available in Win98)

2 machines on the network are Macs, I know that attempting to get them to see a shared directory/drive on the network involved getting some variety of third-party software; Windows 2000 apparently can...Sorry that wasn't asked earlier.

 

[spyordie007]

Sorry, I meant if I'm looking to share a drive or a directory, is this accomplished through simply turning file sharing on, and then manually sharing it? (sort of similar to what's available in Win98)

Basically, yes. You add the file/print sharing service (installed by default) and than set the folder to share under its properties.

2 machines on the network are Macs, I know that attempting to get them to see a shared directory/drive on the network involved getting some variety of third-party software; Windows 2000 apparently can...Sorry that wasn't asked earlier.

You have a couple of options here, windows 2000 server has the ability to share the folders as "mac file shares" built in, or if you have OS X running on those macs you could access the regular windows file shares.

-Spy

 

[thornc]

Did you ever thought about using linux+samba??

Shouldn't be very hard to configure, and you also use the built-in RAID features if you don't have them on the motherboard....

 

[drag]

Linux rocks, use that, it's the king of file sharing. Suppose to be faster/more stable at SMB(windows file sharing protocol) then W2k is. But that's not what you asked.

If I had a choice between w2k pro I would use w2k server every time. That is unless, of course, I had to pay for it. Then I'd use pro.

Otherwise for those Mac's if they are running OS X, you may have to install a Microsoft program called Microsoft UAM. That is microsoft user authentification module.

It allows the user to authentificate himself onto the file share.

Otherwise OS X can use SMB shares just fine.

edit: If you use OS 9, I am not sure if it supports SMB shares, but both Linux and w2k server support Apple file sharing. It will add overhead to your network, but with only a couple clients, it won't be to bad.

 

[Satyrist]

Originally posted by: thornc
Did you ever thought about using linux+samba??

Shouldn't be very hard to configure, and you also use the built-in RAID features if you don't have them on the motherboard....

One variety of Linux that I have heard about is Clarkconnect; A stripped down variety with a http web interface, and fairly modest system requirements...And I know that ClarkConnect uses Samba for the filesharing portion of its package...The other features look good as well, if I ever decided to make a machine a router as well.

Only thing keeping me from going with that, is that I do occasionally use the one machine I'm looking to move to w2k pro/server, as a game server as well...mainly being Diablo2 and recently Halo...which don't have Linux server counterparts AFAIK.

The macs on the network are at OS 8.6; Too slow to really take advantage of the features/bloat of OS 9.X and later, DEFINITELY not quick enough (if even feasible) to run OS X.