Re: why need a server version?
- From: Jason Gurtz <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:31:26 -0400
On 8/19/2005 07:15, Manny Borges wrote:
> Webserver - on XP Pro = 1 web site.
> Webserver - on Server = many seperate web sites. Also provides native
> support for web based applications that XP pro does not like Sharepiont.
Apache :)
> FTP - same as above, except who honestly uses ftp for anything other than
> public access anonymous files?
Hmm, any number of third party daemons
> Now lets talk about a few of the things that serve does that XP pro does not
> do at all:
>
> Fault tolerant software RAID.
When it matters, only hardware raid will do and now-a-days it's even cheap
> Distributed file system creation.
> DNS, WINS, NAT, VPN, and whole host of other core services that make a
> network function.
>
> Support for bigger and better hardware. The lowest version(i am not counting
> web version) of Server 2003 supports 4 Proccessors and goes up from there.
> XP supports 2 .
And here we getting to actual reasons (well, you could run BIND for DNS
and there's tons of third party proxies for NAT replacement) :)
There's also the tuning that's built into the server versions (though much
of that can be added to workstation versions). I'm sure it's progressed
since, but there's a paper at sysinternals that has details on the
differences between NT workstation and NT server.
Bottom line is that server licensing is a $ making exercise. There's
really not too much difference other than a few odd bits.
~Jason
--
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: why need a server version?
- From: Manny Borges
- Re: why need a server version?
- References:
- why need a server version?
- From: router9
- Re: why need a server version?
- From: Manny Borges
- why need a server version?
- Prev by Date: RE: 2 very anoying problems
- Next by Date: Net Logon Missing
- Previous by thread: Re: why need a server version?
- Next by thread: Re: why need a server version?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|