Windows 3.11 As a file server

[Net]

Let's say you want to use a machine that only has a purpose of serving holding/serving files to your other computers in your network.

then it seems the most logical choice would be windows 3.11, small footprint low resources. what functionality would you be missing (functionality pertaining to serving files).

 

[smb]

I didn't think 3.11 had file sharing built in. I thought that was left to NT versions. I could be wrong though. I think that's why novell was so popular and successful in those days.

I hate to say it, but if resouces are your problem, i'm sure there are super slim up to date linux distro's that would probably do better.

 

[MedicBob]

X2 on *nix for file servers. There are even NAS/SAN OSes now.

Why would you even try 3.11? I do not believe you could even start to find drivers for network, video, etc.

 

[Bateluer]

Windows 3.11? Dude, just go with a *nix OS.

 

[RichUK]

lol

 

[Net]

i would like to see if i can get it working as a file server.

i have some strange interest for windows 3.11 since that was the first operating system i started on.

from what this site says it can act as a file server http://toastytech.com/guis/win311.html

i heard amd k6-2 is compatible with it. i just wonder if my ethernet port on my mobo will be compatible.

 

[htne]

Item 1: You will need Windows for Workgroups 3.11, not just Windows 3.11. Big difference there.

Item 2: Only supports Fat32 file systems. This could be a real problem.

Item 3: Does not support Long File Names. This is the killer.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: net


from what this site says it can act as a file server http://toastytech.com/guis/win311.html

That is not windows 3.11

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: htne
Item 1: You will need Windows for Workgroups 3.11, not just Windows 3.11. Big difference there.

It's been so long, I almost forgot there was a "straight" version of 3.11. I purchased WFW when it first came out, Nov. 1993 as it turns out. I think it was pretty rare. I used it at home and bought some copies for my office.

Ha. I like that photo "the best part of Windows 3.1", "This will end your Windows session". I remember agreeing at the time.

I remember the built-in Mail server and multi-player Hearts game.

The Wikipedia article on Windows 3.x says that there was SMB file sharing using NetBIOS/NetBEUI, but no built-in TCP support. It wasn't until Windows 95 that TCP/IP support became generally available.

 

[Net]

Ha. I like that photo "the best part of Windows 3.1", "This will end your Windows session". I remember agreeing at the time.

thanks for that picture. it brings back good memories.

i like the 386 processor icon that says, "Enhanced"

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: net
i would like to see if i can get it working as a file server.

i have some strange interest for windows 3.11 since that was the first operating system i started on.

IIRC, there was some marketing hype about improved performance in WFW 3.x., but pre-NT, Windows wasn't a real OS.

Originally posted by: net
i heard amd k6-2 is compatible with it. i just wonder if my ethernet port on my mobo will be compatible.

W2K would probably run on it, and would make a much better file server.

MS has also improved the performance of its OSs for file serving over the years, so in general terms, a more recent OS performs better, handle more recent hardware, and supports larger drive and file system sizes.

Modern file servers also run gigabit, even the very cheap ones which belong in the "fakegigabit" class -- devices which have gigabit, but don't really perform at that level. It is at this level that the vintage of the OS and hardware matters. It is true that when you're bottlenecked by 100 Mb/s or worse networking that the file server hardware and OS, etc., doesn't really matter in terms of performance, but this is no longer the general case now that gigabit is nearly ubiquitous in modern hardware.

 

[Jeff7181]

If I'm not mistaken even Windows 3.11 for Workgroups was never intended to be host to any network shares. Windows for Workgroups was designed to be a guest on a Windows NT network. Even if you could make it happen, it wouldn't be useful due to the file size and partition size limitations unless you're just looking to share some pictures or Word documents.

I'll echo what most others have said... get a light weight Linux distro.

You also have to consider the power requirements... if you MUST use a file server and not just NAS, a half way decent option is a laptop with some external drives. (I implemented something like this for a friend to use in his dorm and it works quite nicely)

 

[Nothinman]

Let's say you want to use a machine that only has a purpose of serving holding/serving files to your other computers in your network.

then it seems the most logical choice would be windows 3.11, small footprint low resources. what functionality would you be missing (functionality pertaining to serving files).

Security and scalability being the primary two.

You're stuck with FAT so you can't have very large filesystems, you need DOS7 for 32-bit FAT so with DOS6.22 and earlier you're stuck with 2G volumes max. Even if you wedge in 32-bit FAT support you're stuck with 4G files as the max so no DVD or VM images.

FAT has no security so you're stuck with whatever share security WFW provides.

Win95 had problems when you gave it a lot of memory so I'd bet that WFW would be even worse. You could tweak some file to limit the filesystem cache but the main point of a fileserver is to share files so you want them cached as much as possible.

WFW doesn't do SMP at all so if you have more than one CPU or core only 1 will ever get used.

There's no SSH daemon that I know of for DOS so you'll be stuck using a local keyboard/mouse for administration.

If you want to play with WFW again put it in VMWare, nostalgia is the only thing that WFW does well these days.

 

[Smilin]

WFW uses NTLM version 1 which has been cracked.

Netbios name resolution only (no DNS)

FAT32 filesystem


etc. etc.

bad idea.

 

[George P Burdell]

FreeNAS

 

[RaiderJ]

I think my router running DD-WRT with a mod to use a SD Card would make a better file server. Or my eeePC. Or my Xbox.

 

[VinDSL]

Originally posted by: net

(I)t seems the most logical choice would be windows 3.11...

My biggest problem with Win 3.11 was memory leaks!

Simply put:

In the old days, I had to reboot Win 3.11 SEVERAL times a day - usually at the most inopportune times - when you needed it the most. No kidding! I wouldn't run it again if you put a gun in my mouth and beat me with a rubber hose! OS/2 was my weapon of choice in those dark days (on clones)... still have it installed on one of my orphaned PS/2 computers around here somewhere!

Win 95/95 was good for a day or two, depending on how well-behaved the apps were. I still maintain a doorstop Win 98SE box (Cyrix CPU) as a proxy server - works good enough if you don't use any energy-saving features - from which it doesn't usually recover.

WinNT, was good for about a week between reboots - rarely going over a week...

Most of my machines are W2K now/still (good for a week or so between reboots) - along with a modern Vista HP lappy and an ancient XP Pro model.

My equally ancient Slackware web server - still running on a 386 as I type - went 3+ years without a reboot. An extended power outage popped its cherry last summer (over a year ago)!

Your choice... depends on how reboot tolerant you are!

 

[Bradtechonline]

There are no reasons to run 3.11 anymore.. I love MS-DOS, and 3x but I would never give up the security features that NTFS gives. If this is an internal file server for your home then why the hell not if you really want to. But if this is at work, or on a customer etc etc bad idea! I like playing with old stuff too from time to time..

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: VinDSL

Originally posted by: net

(I)t seems the most logical choice would be windows 3.11...

My biggest problem with Win 3.11 was memory leaks!

Simply put:

In the old days, I had to reboot Win 3.11 SEVERAL times a day - usually at the most inopportune times - when you needed it the most. No kidding! I wouldn't run it again if you put a gun in my mouth and beat me with a rubber hose! OS/2 was my weapon of choice in those dark days (on clones)... still have it installed on one of my orphaned PS/2 computers around here somewhere!

Win 95/95 was good for a day or two, depending on how well-behaved the apps were. I still maintain a doorstop Win 98SE box (Cyrix CPU) as a proxy server - works good enough if you don't use any energy-saving features - from which it doesn't usually recover.

WinNT, was good for about a week between reboots - rarely going over a week...

Most of my machines are W2K now/still (good for a week or so between reboots) - along with a modern Vista HP lappy and an ancient XP Pro model.

My equally ancient Slackware web server - still running on a 386 as I type - went 3+ years without a reboot. An extended power outage popped its cherry last summer (over a year ago)!

Your choice... depends on how reboot tolerant you are!

Holy crap dude. You crash NT, W2k, XP and Vista weekly?? You should definately stick to *nix cuz you suck at Windows. Oh but wait...you haven't patched your *nix webserver in 3 years either. :roll:

 

[Genx87]

Heh i am going to run Windows 3.1 in a VM just for fun

 

[VinDSL]

Originally posted by: Smilin
Holy crap dude. You crash NT, W2k, XP and Vista weekly??

Where did you read that?

LoL!

You need to practice your reading comprehension, mang...