Re: why need a server version?
- From: "Manny Borges" <manny_borges@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:56:37 -0400
--
Manny Borges
MCSE NT4-2003 (+ Security)
MCT, Certified Cheese Master
The pen is mightier than the sword, and considerably easier to write with.
-- Marty Feldman
"Jason Gurtz" <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23R6GVPOpFHA.708@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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 :)
I didn't know Apache ran SharePoint.
And thats built into XP right? Easy to install and configure?
We are talking "out of the box" here. Try and keep that in mind as we go
down the list.
>
>> FTP - same as above, except who honestly uses ftp for anything other than
>> public access anonymous files?
>
> Hmm, any number of third party daemons
I have no idea what you are talking about here. daemons = unix.
My personal opinion is that FTP should be wiped out and replaced with SSH. I
just have no use for the service, so perhaps my personal feelings have
colored my answer.
>
>> 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
I am not going to argue with that. But what is your point? The question was
about the differences.
Ok let me take that back, I will argue with that. Software mirror sets are
quick , easy and cheap. They provide fault tolerance and are perfect for low
disk activity servers, such as DNS and DC's with a low amount of objects.
>
>> 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) :)
And all those are built into XP? Come on, you must realize how much time
would be involved in setting up an XP machine to do all that. You would be
better served at that point with using a Linux box since you are always
going to come back to the issue of 10 concurrent sessions.
>
> 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
Of course it is. Should MS not charge more for something they spent a whole
lot more time developing and that has a load of built in tools and services
just because its base is similar to its client side OS?
>
> --
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: why need a server version?
- From: Jason Gurtz
- Re: why need a server version?
- References:
- why need a server version?
- From: router9
- Re: why need a server version?
- From: Manny Borges
- Re: why need a server version?
- From: Jason Gurtz
- why need a server version?
- Prev by Date: Windows Server 2003 Terminal Server
- Next by Date: Re: AD User Import
- Previous by thread: Re: why need a server version?
- Next by thread: Re: why need a server version?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
