Time to spend some cash... SERVER or NoT?

Tsaico

Platinum Member
Oct 21, 2000
2,669
0
0
A friend of mine is asking me to help with their small network for their medical billing office. They will have light file traffic, but need a secure and alwys on file server. Their budget is 2k for the server comp. I check ed out prices and think I can get it running on a 1.2k machine then another 600 for th os. But do they need server? Or can pro be enough? Or is XP pro what they want. Thanks guys! PS. they will be serving 8 comps at any given moment, no outside connections, (no internet or remote access).
 

neuralfx

Golden Member
Feb 19, 2001
1,636
0
0
what are the functions the server will provide? Does Active Directory look like something you will want to use? if so 2k Server is the way to go .. more info and we'll try to help .. also you may be able to shave your budget by skimping on the hardware a little, a 1.2 may not be needed .. just my thoughts ..
-neural
 

Tsaico

Platinum Member
Oct 21, 2000
2,669
0
0
They will need the server to run a program and have it rolled out over the network, rightnow they have it working on a win98 box, and it crashes all the time. I just don't think it win98 is what they should have started with. And less then 1.2k for a server? Man, what kind of comp do want them to run? They will need it to be a littl eheaveir duty then a computer they turn on and off when they come to work. That is why they are having so many problems with it now... HD's are clicking, win98 is unstable to begin with, and just need to be replaced.
 

Scarpozzi

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
26,391
1,780
126
They could probably use professional, but there might be some licesing issues because Microsoft expects only 10 connections to be made to a professional box at a time...I'm just saying, they need to plan a little scalability into the setup. With server, if they could run the server 'per seat' and only buy the licenses they need. It would still be a little more expensive, but at least they would have a more powerful operating system and know that they're legit. I would check Dell, Compaq and Gateway's website and see if you can get a sales number....I would try to setup a bid from each of those three and try to get some competition going on... Keep in mind, most of the time they're prices are negotiable... :)

Also, I learned that you need a CAL for every non-win2k and xp box that authenticates from Active Directory so you probably don't want to use that unless you have funding for it.
 

Hector13

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2000
1,694
0
0


<< They will need the server to run a program and have it rolled out over the network, rightnow they have it working on a win98 box, and it crashes all the time. >>



What exactly is this program they need the server to run? Is it a windows only program?

In any case, I don't think you will have any need for Active Directory at all (at least for your friends sake, I hope not).
 

SaigonK

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2001
7,482
3
0
www.robertrivas.com
For your server, I wouldnt worry about going all high end if you are only planning to serve around 8 people at a maximum.
Going to high would be a waste of money.

Go buy yourself a Tully mobo with a PIII-800 or something similar and load it up with the max amount of ram.
Get yourself some good drives and you are all set to go.
Go with Win2k if you plan to only server those 8 people for years to come, but as was said earlier, you need to think about scalability.
Windows 2000 Server would be overkill in my opinion, unless you want to do published apps via Terminal Server....
 

J.Zorg

Member
Feb 20, 2000
47
0
0
Why not go for Linux server. Samba works great an is even faster than MS File Sharing. Would save you the 600 for the OS. Since you don´t have inet acccess security is not that critical (don`t know how iportant this isfo you) . But Win2k itself is not really secure if you don´t install about 20 bugfixes and security patches. Linux should be pretty safe if you get the latest distro (but there can still be some exploits). And you also have a lot of security features included in linux you would have to buy for windows (firewall, crypto filesystem...) I don´t know what you mean with secure but since they had a win98 running ist can´t be a big issue.
You might wanna spend more mony for the Server and less for the OS. Maybe get Hot Swappable SCSI Drives, Raid1 or redundant power supplies. Because this is the critical point if the whole work depends on one machine. For Filesharing only Win2k Server or Win2k is just to expensive.
 

Hector13

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2000
1,694
0
0


<< Why not go for Linux server. >>



Thats why I asked about this "program" that needs to be run on the server. Linux/BSD might be the best solution, in theory. But I think that most small network places will be reluctant to go with something other that MS (espcially if they are not all that techie).
 

neuralfx

Golden Member
Feb 19, 2001
1,636
0
0
the reason I suggested that you may be able to save a little by not getting a 1.2ghz is a lot of times that type of power isn't needed for many server functions .. I worked at a IT cert factory school and we had a single P3 733 running Win2k Sercer with AD serving 2 classes at once .. all authentication, blah blah, even many programs were run directly off the server like testing software and courseware .. it wasn't blazing fast, but it worked .. just my thoughts ..
-neural
 

Bremen

Senior member
Mar 22, 2001
658
0
0
Heck, if all you are doing is file sharing, a PII 266 running linux/samba would be more than adequate for 8 connections. Just need a decent HDD setup (probably a RAID 1).