From: "Robert Comer" 

> Hell, I've got a file server running Windows for Workgroups.  Still
> does its job quite nicely as long as we stick to 8.3 filenames.

I don't blame you -- I go by the motto "if it works, don't touch it,
you'll break it."

- Bob Comer


"Gary Wiltshire"  wrote in message
news:k5k89vgmn3kbk8hojulos3mr1tb2mq32ic{at}4ax.com...
> Hell, I've got a file server running Windows for Workgroups.  Still
> does its job quite nicely as long as we stick to 8.3 filenames.
>
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2003 12:06:15 -0400, "Robert Comer"
>  wrote:
>
> >> I would look at Linux but I don't have time, especially for this
> >> satellite office which I'd prefer not to experiment with. Mainly it
> >> will act as a file and print server. It's connected to the main office
> >> via a private line.
> >
> >I don't think I would be comfortable at all in implementing the first
Linux
> >server in a remote office either.
> >
> >> At some point the NT servers will have to be upgraded, likely for that
> >> hardware issue. I really prefer to do this when I buy new hardware,
> >> not try to upgrade the box in place.
> >
> >That's pretty much the way I feel about things too. I've only upgraded
the
> >OS on 1 PC since I've been here, and no servers.  It might be nice if all
> >PC's were running the same thing, but the wide range of hardware kind of
> >precludes that and the cost of replacing all the hardware wouldn't be
enough
> >ROI to do a mass hw upgrade.
> >
> >The hardware that required W2K was something called an IXA and it's the
part
> >that connects the PC server with the AS/400's bus (for disk sharing), the
> >server itself still would support NT4.  And after having had to deal with
> >AD, I must say that I really don't like it for my sized shop, the NT4
> >domains were so much easier to deal with for what I need. W2K AD is just
way
> >to much overkill that it adds complexity that doesn't need to be there.
> >
> >- Bob Comer
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >"Richard B."  wrote in message
> >news:alf89v84dhnd83t8gdasuke2uqnlrqfalk{at}4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 9 Apr 2003 11:35:44 -0400, "Robert Comer"
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >> >p.s. that was clear as mud to me, so I can imagine it
probably doesn't
> >make
> >> >sense to anyone else.   So to answer your
question, no, no platform
> >> >changes though there are some backend sw changes hopefully.
> >>
> >> No, that was clear enough, we all have such different implementations
> >> that I understand the confusion better than I would like to. 
> >>
> >> I would look at Linux but I don't have time, especially for this
> >> satellite office which I'd prefer not to experiment with. Mainly it
> >> will act as a file and print server. It's connected to the main office
> >> via a private line.
> >>
> >> At some point the NT servers will have to be upgraded, likely for that
> >> hardware issue. I really prefer to do this when I buy new hardware,
> >> not try to upgrade the box in place.
> >>
> >> - Richard
> >
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4