I'm thinking way ahead here, and future possibilities.

Hyperthetically, let's say I started up a small web design business (8x workers, 2x managers - so 10 people altogether). The workers machines will be Windows XP Home/SP2 (no need for Pro to program or use Photoshop). Now the main servers are the question here when it comes to managing the network:
- PC 1: Login Authentication (to be honest, this seems pointless)
- PC 2: File Server
- PC 3: Web Server - Apache/PHP/Website Hosting
- PC 4: MySQL
- PC's 5-14: Workers Workstations

Now the above works just fine on my current XP-Pro setup - so is it worth bothering with Win2003 Server/SP1, and if so - then why fork out the extra money on 3x PC's? I'm slowly reading through 2003's features - but will I really need it all (Standard 32-bit Edition)? (obviously if money permits then 64-bit setups, but that's not the point here).

P.S.
I'm not a total noob in networks, but I'm not very experienced with Server O/S's.

Thanks in advance.

If it works fine, don't waste money ... for just 10 ppl... but you can use 1 Server for some of your things at the same time. You would need less PCs ...

I see what you mean, at first I do intend to have the 1 server (Apache / MySQL Database / Websites) but my point is, is it worth getting Windows Server 2003 for that task (or stick with XP-Pro)?

Also, is there much point in an authentication server when users login - or is that overkill?

PC 1, Hmm this wont be needed.. Just be sure to "lock" you network from the outsite with a good router etc.

PC 2, you could go for windows 2000 server (Or Server 2003 SBS or Standard..) or linux with samba.

PC 3 and 4, i would go for linux.

PC 5 - PC 14, Windows XP Home/SP2 as you say.

Answer: Yes, go for SBS or Standard 2003...

If the number of workers or managers increase, you MUST have a server operating system or they'll start getting locked out of the network.

Okay, let's say 75 people (very unlikely), but when you say "Locked out of the network" I'm somewhat confused. Is there a maximum number of PC's that can connect to a single XP-Pro computer? if so, what's this number?

XP can have 10 connections maximum. Home version is 5.

I would say that for your intended setup a nix server may better suite your needs.
XP on the clients.
Create a Workgroup.
Share files off the nix server.

I'm against Linux file servers because of the complexity - twice in 4 years I've tried to get into it, but it's really not for me at all (tried Ubuntu, Gentoo, FC, Mandrake, SuSe etc.). I'll be using Gentoo for (Apache/MySQL & PHP) but as for file servers it'll have to be Windows only.

So the main difference between XP-Pro and Win2003 is the higher number of concurrent connections, and obviously some of that other technical stuff they stick in there (that I'll never use).

XP-Home = 5 concurrent connections
XP-Pro = 10 concurrent connections
2003 = ??

And will I need licensing of some sort to connect to the server?

P.S.
As for actual file storage I've looked into Mac OS X Server (Unlimited Connections), but then again there's the file system format...so much to research into (and so little time due to University).

The benfits may be worth the upgrade to windows 2003 in some cases for example the domain support makes it much easier to handle the logins and restrict users and with Windows 2003 it will set you up for later if your going to use things like ISA2k4 or Exchange or anythign that requires active directory, also you could look into Windows Server 2003 Small Buissness Edition, you can get a trial of that off of microsofts site as well as windows 2003 enterprise both which last 180 days

W2k3 has unlimited connections.
Licensing is handled via the server and are known as CAL's (client access licenses)
There are 2 types of CAL's - per seat (dynamic) and per user (static). Must people use the latter.
Server normally comes with 5 CAL's as standard, you then purchase blocks of CAL's.

There is a SB Ed of Server that includes 5 CAL's and Exchange. I think it is limited to 10 CAL's altogether.

Scan Computers - Microsoft Small Business Server Standard 2003 (5 CAL) OEM £283 incl VAT

Exactly - Microsoft are charging even more money to actually connect to ones own server. In my opinion thats pathetic marketing, £283 is hefty enough, let alone the requirements of more CAL's to actually do any work.

I guess I'll look more into Mac OS X Server (no CAL's required). But thanks guys, you've all given me more to think about and I remember in the past trying to understand 'per seat' / 'per user', and to be honest even that eludes me on the basic understanding of the differences - never mind ey'.

actually there is a crack on the internet the makes xp unlimited connnections but that does violate ur eula.

2 mods this post is telling u theres a crack but im not giving a link

Um, I've never heard of such a thing. You may be thinking of the SP2 concurrent half-connection patch?

Oh I'm well aware of that specific crack, and other warez information. However, to run a legitamate business I want to do everything legal and right - for my own personal use I'm no angel, but in the legal world I have to be (why risk a business - I'm not one for gambling).

SBS is probably the original poster's best bet. It's cheap, easy to deploy, and rock solid.

SBS supports up to 75 concurrent user licenses. Unlike traditional Server 2003 CALs (which are Device or User CALs), SBS uses Concurrent Users CALs. This means that you can have 5 CALs and 10 users, so long as no more than 5 are connected at the same time.

SBS CALs are not terribly expensive. And they count toward both Windows and Exchange (optionally SQL Server as well, with the Premium Edition).

Microsoft also offers a "transition pack" that converts SBS licenses to standard licenses (for Windows, Exchange, and SQL) at an affordable price, if you ever grow past the SBS limitations.

2 threedaysdwn there is a crack for the conncurrent connetions to a computer (anti*** hint hint)
and 2 DjmUK using linux has gotten easier and remember there is the services 4 unix in windows and there is samba but sbs is probably da best as other have said

Samba > Linux/Windows does NOT like me at all...too complicated for me.

Gentoo 2005.0 will be used for the webserver, and I might go for an Xserve/Mac OS X Server (Unlimited) for the actual file server...but we'll see

SMB really is a fantastic package! I pretty much always recommend/use it when setting a small company up (unless their needs dictate otherwise).

Networking Differences Between XP Pro and XP Home

1.XP Pro systems can join a domain; XP Home systems can't, which limits its use to home and SOHO environments because it can't use any corporate-specific features such as IntelliMirror.


2.Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) 5.1 and Personal Web Server (PWS) are found only in XP Pro.


3.Direct access to the Administrator account is available only in XP Pro. XP Home users must log on using Safe mode to access the Administrator account.


4.XP Pro supports Remote Desktop, which is basically a single-user version of Windows 2000 Server Terminal Services. XP Home supports only Remote Assistance.


5.Networking-related Group Policy Objects (GPO) are available only in XP Pro. XP Home supports no group policies.


6.Microsoft Remote Installation Services (RIS) and Sysprep are supported only in XP Pro.


7.The Network Monitor application is available only in XP Pro.


8.The UI for IP Security (IPSec) is available only in XP Pro.


9.SNMP support, Simple TCP/IP Services, the service access point (SAP) and Client Services for NetWare (CSNW) are available only in XP Pro.


10.XP Home supports only simple file sharing. Detailed file-level security permissions such as those found in Win2K are available only in XP Pro, which also supports the simple file-sharing model that XP Home uses.


11.XP Pro lets users limit the number of connections to shared folders and control user access by account. XP Home users access shared folders through the Guest account, which is disabled by default in XP Pro.

12. You can upgrade Windows NT 4.0 Workstation and Win2K Professional only to XP Pro. You can upgrade Windows 9x versions since Windows 98 only to XP Home. Neither version supports upgrades from Windows 95.

Hope this helps!

Oh and by the way XP Pro doesn't have a limitation on the amount of PC's that you can have in a workgroup!

SMB is a good solution for small business. It includes Exchange and Server and it comes with 5 CAL. You are limited to 50 connection and one DC, but by the time your companies gets that big you will have different needs. Note that you are also limited to two TS connections. The major reason I would get server over XP is that the Server supports Raid. You need Raid in your server to protect your data. PS make sure you get a good backup system. XP Pro is also limited to 10 connections.....

Have fun !!!

toejam: Thanks for that breakdown (just saved it to a text file), I thought the only difference was IIS & Networking, I didn't realise the extent...XP-Pro it is
Eversurf: Ah, I totally forgot about RAID. Of course I'll look for hot-swappable servers

Heh...where to start here...

I would go with XP Pro no matter what in the situation that your in. The only reason I would go with home is when your either going to be using Linux as your server and you will NEVER excede 5 connections to a computer at a time...which one with that many computers might happen. If you plan on growing (as a normal business I should think does) then plan for the future and get XP Pro.

As for the server...taking a look at the prices of an Apple server, I can only see (read...my opinion here) an Apple purest with an all Apple network would be interested. It looks like for your situation, you might want to look into Small Business Server 2003. It comes in either Standard Edition or Premium Edition, with Premium Edition having SQL 2000 and ISA 2004 included as well as 2 licences of Frontpage 2003. Small Business Server 2003 comes standard with Windows Server 2003 Standard, Exchange 2003, Windows Sharepoint Services 2003, and Office Outlook 2003 for all your client PCs. That right there for $599 retail cost is a slamming deal and think would work best for you. Since you would be using MySQL for a database, you prolly don't want the Premium Edition unless you want ISA 2004.

Prolly the most compelling reason though is that you install the software and it just works. A Linux server can do most, if not all of this, but it will take a whole lot longer to do. So depending on how you value your time and frustration, that is your choice.

Post back for more questions!

is there a big difference between 2000 sever and 2003 sever? cause 2000 sever is a bit cheaper right? so you might want to go with that.

support for that is ending, it's not really worth it.

If you want an out of the box solution that works, does email, local or remote via any web browser, gives you a remote workspace or allows your admin remote control. Distrubute software to any of your client PCs or backup your installation every night or whatever schedule you set up.

There is not a single open source solution that comes remotely close to what SBS 2003 does out of the box.

I get emails every day in my Inbox describing the health of my SBS 2003 server, allerting me to any issues in the last 24 hours.

njlouch and eversurf:

SMB = Server Message Block (aka Windows File Sharing - In the Unix world, it's "Samba")

SBS = Small Business Server