From: Gary Wiltshire 

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