Hi experts:

We are setting up a small business network which would have shared
resources. We are currently looking at peer to peer but will consider
client/server in the future.

Some of our PCs have Windows XP Home and we were told to upgrade them to
Windows XP Professional. If we left some with Windows XP Home, what
potential problems could occur? Does anyone know of articles comparing
Windows XP Home vs Windows XP Professional in terms of peer to peer
networking? The Windows XP Home does have SP2.

I would appreciate any advice.

Thanks for all your help.

Ann

Ann wrote:

> Hi experts:
>
> We are setting up a small business network which would have shared
> resources. We are currently looking at peer to peer but will consider
> client/server in the future.
>
> Some of our PCs have Windows XP Home and we were told to upgrade them
> to
> Windows XP Professional. If we left some with Windows XP Home, what
> potential problems could occur? Does anyone know of articles
> comparing Windows XP Home vs Windows XP Professional in terms of peer
> to peer
> networking? The Windows XP Home does have SP2.

Why Windows XP Professional is Best for Domain-Based Networks
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/h...oindommore.asp

Windows XP Home : Accessing data on a Domain Server -
http://www.wown.com/j_helmig/wxphdoms.htm

Windows XP in a Domain Environment -
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/h...xpindomain.asp

Malke
--
Elephant Boy Computers
www.elephantboycomputers.com
"Don't Panic!"
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

Ann wrote:
> Hi experts:
>
> We are setting up a small business network which would have shared
> resources. We are currently looking at peer to peer but will consider
> client/server in the future.
>
> Some of our PCs have Windows XP Home and we were told to upgrade them
> to Windows XP Professional. If we left some with Windows XP Home,
> what potential problems could occur? Does anyone know of articles
> comparing Windows XP Home vs Windows XP Professional in terms of peer
> to peer networking? The Windows XP Home does have SP2.
>
> I would appreciate any advice.
>
> Thanks for all your help.
>
> Ann

How many computers do you have? Is each computer sharing files and/or
printers? XP Home is limited to 5 incoming connections. XP Pro is limited to
ten incoming connections. This means if you share a resource on a computer
then it will be limited to the first 5 or 10 people who connect to that
resource. XP Home also only uses simple file sharing so there are some
security concerns if you need to restrict access for some people and not
others. P2P rapidly becomes unmanagable after 5 or 6 computers unless you
have a very static setup. If you need to backup data, add new users, change
passwords, install new programs, or change things on a regular basis you are
much better off with a dedicated server. Linux and Windows Small Business
Server could both be implemented for not much more than the cost of a high
end workstation.

Kerry

Yep, the main limitations of Home are:

~ Not so suitable for sharing files/printers from (5 connenctions max, poor
security)

~ Not able to join a domain.

HST, if your setup consists of workstations which each belong to one
unchanging user, then there is no real need for a domain. (well, unless of
course you're a control-freak, that is.. ;-) Neither is the sharing aspect a
problem, provided that files are stored on a server, and printers are
networked directly. (Both of which should be the case for the sake of smooth
running, anyway)

Your call, but if the network is on a budget then IMHO the money could be
spent on something more beneficial, like additional hardware/software.

Ian wrote:
> Yep, the main limitations of Home are:
>
> ~ Not so suitable for sharing files/printers from (5 connenctions
> max, poor security)
>
> ~ Not able to join a domain.
>
> HST, if your setup consists of workstations which each belong to one
> unchanging user, then there is no real need for a domain. (well,
> unless of course you're a control-freak, that is.. ;-) Neither is the
> sharing aspect a problem, provided that files are stored on a server,
> and printers are networked directly. (Both of which should be the
> case for the sake of smooth running, anyway)
>
> Your call, but if the network is on a budget then IMHO the money
> could be spent on something more beneficial, like additional
> hardware/software.

There is no real need for computers either. After all we functioned for
several hundred thousand years without them :-)

Windows active directory (domain) gives you control if you want it. That is
not the main advantage. The main advantage is less time to manage things
like backups, users, shares, printers, etc. It can be done from one computer
rather than visiting each computer in turn whenever you make a change. The
initial cost of setting up a network properly at the start is more than
offset by the time saved in management and time and money saved when
expanding. P2P or a workgroup even if a "server" is included in the mix is
only suitable for a very small or or very static networks. If you are
opposed to Microsoft on principle then there are Linux alternatives.

You also missed the other main disadvantage of XP Home on a network. You are
limited to simple file sharing on the XP Home machines. You cannot restrict
access to a share on a XP Home machine by security groups or users.

Kerry

"Kerry Brown" wrote:

> There is no real need for computers either. After all we functioned for
> several hundred thousand years without them :-)

There is no real need for facetiousness either. :-(

> ... The main advantage is less time to manage things
> like backups, users, shares, printers, etc. It can be done from one computer
> rather than visiting each computer in turn whenever you make a change.

Although if resources are properly centralised on servers, this shouldn't be
necessary. It's only necessary because of the distributed, ad-hoc nature of
the whole thing. If people aren't sharing files or printers on an ad-hoc
basis then I don't need a tool to control that. If people are storing files
on the server where they should be, then I can control the backup situation
right from there.

The effort involved in managing centralised resources on a server is a tiny
fraction of the effort involved in tracking-down company documents that have
erroneously been put into one of numerous "My Documents" folders spread all
around the building.

Likewise the cost/effort involved in putting-in a Cat5 cable and printserver
for a proper IP-networked printer is a fraction of a the cost of the unending
headaches that peer-shared printers give throughout their service-life.

As you say, computers aren't essential, and before computers, if you had a
group of users who habitually squirreled-away paper documents in all manner
of silly places, the result would be chaos. Putting-in spy cameras, or
sending daily search-squads to rifle-through everyone's desks wouldn't solve
that either. The answer in those days was a centralised filing-cabinet. Today
it's a server, and a ban on ad-hoc sharing.

> You also missed the other main disadvantage of XP Home on a network.

No, I didn't.

Ian wrote:
> "Kerry Brown" wrote:
>
>> There is no real need for computers either. After all we functioned
>> for several hundred thousand years without them :-)
>
> There is no real need for facetiousness either. :-(
>
>> ... The main advantage is less time to manage things
>> like backups, users, shares, printers, etc. It can be done from one
>> computer rather than visiting each computer in turn whenever you
>> make a change.
>
> Although if resources are properly centralised on servers, this
> shouldn't be necessary. It's only necessary because of the
> distributed, ad-hoc nature of the whole thing. If people aren't
> sharing files or printers on an ad-hoc basis then I don't need a tool
> to control that. If people are storing files on the server where they
> should be, then I can control the backup situation right from there.
>
> The effort involved in managing centralised resources on a server is
> a tiny fraction of the effort involved in tracking-down company
> documents that have erroneously been put into one of numerous "My
> Documents" folders spread all around the building.
>
> Likewise the cost/effort involved in putting-in a Cat5 cable and
> printserver for a proper IP-networked printer is a fraction of a the
> cost of the unending headaches that peer-shared printers give
> throughout their service-life.
>
> As you say, computers aren't essential, and before computers, if you
> had a group of users who habitually squirreled-away paper documents
> in all manner of silly places, the result would be chaos. Putting-in
> spy cameras, or sending daily search-squads to rifle-through
> everyone's desks wouldn't solve that either. The answer in those days
> was a centralised filing-cabinet. Today it's a server, and a ban on
> ad-hoc sharing.
>
>> You also missed the other main disadvantage of XP Home on a network.
>
> No, I didn't.

It's funny but control through group policy and active directory would make
all this very easy. In one breath you say you don't need the control active
directory gives you. In the next breath you come up with all sorts of
reasons why this control may be needed.

Yes, a server in a workgroup is better than no server. You would still have
to synchronise passwords every time a user changes it, implement company
policies rather than use active directory, etc. etc.

We are getting off topic here anyway. The OP was asking if a mixture of Home
and Pro was OK. For many reasons, including the fact that they mentioned
going to a client/server structure in the future, Home is not recommended.
My personal recommendation is if there are more than 5 or 6 computers on a
network and there may be future expansion then install a server now. It will
be cheaper in the long run.

Kerry

Ann,

Although XP Home has limitations, for practical purposes I don't think
it matters an iota. The limitations only apply temporarily when all the
PCs are trying to access the resources simultaneously. The chances of
this happening is virtually nil.

What is the size of the network so that we can calculate the
probabilities of events at any point in time.

hth




Ann wrote:
>
> Hi experts:
>
> We are setting up a small business network which would have shared
> resources. We are currently looking at peer to peer but will consider
> client/server in the future.
>
> Some of our PCs have Windows XP Home and we were told to upgrade them to
> Windows XP Professional. If we left some with Windows XP Home, what
> potential problems could occur? Does anyone know of articles comparing
> Windows XP Home vs Windows XP Professional in terms of peer to peer
> networking? The Windows XP Home does have SP2.
>
> I would appreciate any advice.
>
> Thanks for all your help.
>
> Ann

"Kerry Brown" wrote:

> We are getting off topic here anyway.

This is indeed true, and perhaps I shouldn't have replied to your 'Ad
Hominem' attack, which I cannot see the justification for anyway, my original
post was neither assertive nor onbnoxios in any way, it merely stated an
observation based on real-world experince.

Ann, the question of upgrading to Pro can be deferred if you wish, this is
one case where an in-place upgrade generally works OK, so it is not essential
to decide straightaway.

The thing I would advise is to think in terms of central data-storage, this
will make your life a lot simpler. I've had to sort-out enough peer-shared
offices to know that.

If you have less than ten users an XP Pro or Win2000 machine could act as a
basic server. If you have, or are likely to expand to more than then users,
then a proper server would be advised. A change from a desktop OS acting as a
server to a geniune server OS will involve a reinstall, so if the 10-user
limit is likely to be reached soon, possibly better to go the full server
route now.

Ian wrote:
> "Kerry Brown" wrote:
>
>> We are getting off topic here anyway.
>
> This is indeed true, and perhaps I shouldn't have replied to your 'Ad
> Hominem' attack, which I cannot see the justification for anyway, my
> original post was neither assertive nor onbnoxios in any way, it
> merely stated an observation based on real-world experince.

Sorry if you took it as an attack. It was an attempt at sarcasm or humour
which obviously didn't come across right. I do believe that Ann should be
planning for active directory now if considering a Microsoft server in the
future. SBS is the cheapest way to get Microsoft server and SBS requires AD.
If the future holds a Linux server then Home would be adequate.

Kerry

>
> Ann, the question of upgrading to Pro can be deferred if you wish,
> this is one case where an in-place upgrade generally works OK, so it
> is not essential to decide straightaway.
>
> The thing I would advise is to think in terms of central
> data-storage, this will make your life a lot simpler. I've had to
> sort-out enough peer-shared offices to know that.
>
> If you have less than ten users an XP Pro or Win2000 machine could
> act as a basic server. If you have, or are likely to expand to more
> than then users, then a proper server would be advised. A change from
> a desktop OS acting as a server to a geniune server OS will involve a
> reinstall, so if the 10-user limit is likely to be reached soon,
> possibly better to go the full server route now.