Windows XP Pro as Client/Server Help

[Kingslayer]

Second question. Do I set-up the server with XP Pro and use it like a file share...OR...do I suggest to them that they need to spend an additional $600-$1000 for Windows 2000 Server in order to benefit from Terminal Server?

The more I read what you guys write, the more I think about it and the more specific this is getting...I think if I can get those 2 questions answered that you guys will have saved me (I hope)...Thanks again everyone. I REALLY do appreciate all this.

~jeff~

XP can handle everything either way you go. You won't have Active Directory to handle the accounts, but everything else is similiar. If they do choose to do a website in the future, XP can handle one site.

Terminal Server isn't the way to go. You don't want your client computers to be dumb terminals, which they essentially are if you go that route. Your biggest question to ask them is how far this company is going to grow. If they have plans on growth, go 2000 Server from the start. You can get away with XP if they want to be cheap.

You do need to get specific. A good networking isn't something that you just throw together and patch up the holes with software. Everything that you do and purchase should be well thought out to make sure that it gets the job done, doesn't impede traffic, and doesn't impede growth.

 

[64026402]

The server will then be able to filter internet connections to the 3 workstations...but now I need to know how to do this, and if i manually configure the IP of the NIC connected to the LAN, which IP and subnet will I use, since the other NIC will also have its own internal IP because it's behind the router?

So thats the first question there.


Second question. Do I set-up the server with XP Pro and use it like a file share...OR...do I suggest to them that they need to spend an additional $600-$1000 for Windows 2000 Server in order to benefit from Terminal Server?

The more I read what you guys write, the more I think about it and the more specific this is getting...I think if I can get those 2 questions answered that you guys will have saved me (I hope)...Thanks again everyone. I REALLY do appreciate all this.

~jeff~

The answer to your first question is to use the network wizard to setup your 2 NICs. Choose the NIC to the internet when asked and do not manually configure the addresses. The server will use DHCP to configure the network. Then run the wizard on the other computers. You'll have controlled access to the net from all the computers without exposing any of them directly. XP makes it easy and secure.
The built in firewall will automatically be set. Leave it or use Zone alarm.
The firewall in the router you specifed is not very strong but if you wish to leave it in it won't bother the network as long as you leave it between the DSL and the server.
Also your router might not be compatable with the DSL service.
Just configure the PPOe and login. Sometimes yes. Sometimes no.

Your second question, while I like the domain setup for server/client networks the cost of deployment and maitenance is high for a small network and it is likely you will need outside help to satisfy you clients. It does take more expertise to run.
So. No is the answer. Do not sell them a server OS.

What you have described is a well laid out network with plenty of expandability for the forseeable future without bankrupting a small business. You listen to the people paying the bill and that is the proffessional thing to do. Your additional computer skills will come with time but the people skill can't be taught.

I would make only one change. I would add a second bare bones server for a low cost that can handle the internet and firewall duties seperately and could backup the server if there was a problem. In a small business this can be important. But it is only a sugestion. That would also help insulate the main server from the internet.

 

[64026402]

Every decent business in the world runs their own website.

Software filewalls are worthless.

I have plenty of experience with the network wizard.

There is only one reason why people use peer to peer in this type of situaton. They haven't a clue as to how to adminisitor a domain type network.

Administrative tools such as this are as equally useful on 3 computers as it is 300.

This network is a model for other agencies in my area.

So many wrongs to right, so little time.
Pointing out the problems with your logic AGAIN is pointless.
I hope you enjoy working on the model for all networks.

 

[ucfswimmer]

Well I didn't mean to start a fight, but I am glad for the input. Thank you Kingslayer for all the professional advice, and thank you 64026402 for the different perspective and the advice on setting up a seperate server for internet traffic. I have to call them tomorrow and let them know when I'm going to come in to finish the rest of the setup, and now I believe I'm informed enough to help them make a decision and put it into deployment. Thank you all once again for the input. I'll let you know how it turns out.

~jeff~

 

[64026402]

Well I didn't mean to start a fight, but I am glad for the input. Thank you for all the professional advice, and thank you 64026402 for the different perspective and the advice on setting up a seperate server for internet traffic. I have to call them tomorrow and let them know when I'm going to come in to finish the rest of the setup, and now I believe I'm informed enough to help them make a decision and put it into deployment. Thank you all once again for the input. I'll let you know how it turns out.

~jeff~

You didn't start a fight. We are both opinionated know it alls from opposite sides of the tracks. I deal with small businesses due to time constraints. So my perspective is different. He has some valid points that i'm to stubborn to concede.

At least we didn't have an AMD vs Intel fight.

 

[Kingslayer]

You didn't start a fight. We are both opinionated know it alls from opposite sides of the tracks. I deal with small businesses due to time constraints. So my perspective is different. He has some valid points that i'm to stubborn to concede.

At least we didn't have an AMD vs Intel fight.

Same goes for me. I used to big LANs and WANs. Doing stuff the small way is pointless to me.

The big thing is that you got full coverage from a broadspectrum. The arguing benefits you. Take what information you can from both sides and built your network.

 

[ucfswimmer]

Phew.

Well they haven't gotten their cable/dsl yet and probably won't for a while. So I didn't have to worry about any of that, but I do have their server setup with the 2 NICs so that when they do, it'll be easy to put in place.

As far Corel and the database program. I installed Corel on each computer, and installed their database program Abacus on the server..the instructions said that in order to use it on a peer-to-peer network (which is what they have) you have to install it onto the server and then map that share as a drive on each of the other computers to run it.

So right now it is only installed on the server, and yet each computer can run it at the same time and log on as their own user name to manage the database...I thought this is what terminal server allowed? So now I'm a little confused, but yet it IS up and working.

Their forms are setup in a shared folder on the server that they all have access to and as far as the internet goes, they are fine with their dial-up access for now.

I gotta say, this is a GREAT learning experience. I'm learning more by actually setting all this up than I would if I had read 2 books cover-to-cover.

Thanks for the input guys, but can you explain how I installed and got their database program, Abacus, up and running?

~jeff~

 

[64026402]

Most multi user programs can be used on a peer to peer network.
The program is what allows multiple users.
A lot of business apps can be purchased for one or many.

 

[Jon]

If they've got the money and want to spend it, you could look into Citrix as an application server. It will run on top of XP (at least I see no reason why it wouldn't) and is designed for exactly what you're looking for.

It's not exactly an easy solution though.

Serverwatch.com also has about any type of server platform you could imagine listed...just check under application servers and there may be something there that will fit your needs, not be too difficult to setup and will not bust the bank.

 

[Kingslayer]

Yeah, 99% of multiuser applications don't care if their on a peer to peer or a hybrid network. As long as it can talk to the other computer it doesn't matter.

To clarify terminal server....

You run ALL applications on the server. The only thing installed on the client machines is a cut down version of the OS. The nice (tongue in cheek) thing is that you can run seriously low dollar hardware on the client machines. A 233Mhz CPU, 64 meg of ram with a 2 gig harddrive is overpowered for a client machine. However the server needs to be a powerhouse, as all processing is done on the server. Windows 2000 Server recommends at least 64 meg of ram PER client as a BASE. That's how hard it is on the server.

Some of the benefits of terminal server is a low TCO (total cost of ownership) as the client machines are cheap. It's quick and easy to restore a buggered client machine.

Some of the drawbacks are if that server goes down, all your employees are down. The server is usually stupid expensive as it has to be a power house. You clients are limited at their desk, by what software you put in the server. Another drawback is lets say user1 wants Photoshop, but user 2 needs Corel Draw instead. Well you have to install BOTH on the server, instead of just installing it on their local machines. Wear and tear on the server is another draw back. The server gets worked to death using this. And it's easier and cheaper to replace hardware on a client machine than it is a server.

Remember the days of dumb terminals that did nothing? Terminal server is the 21st century dumb terminal.

Terminal Server has it's place. I just haven't found it yet in my life...