Re: Connecting Macintosh to SBS 2003
- From: William Smith <mecklists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 12:55:45 -0500
In article <92B30C95-784F-4D94-8504-F4BB4AF21A46@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Richard Young <RichardYoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Chace,
Does joining the Macintosh computer to the domain make the resource sharing
any more difficult? I would think that this would make it easier for the
Macintosh smb client? What does joining a Macintosh to the Domain do for the
Macintosh user?
Second question.
I installed File services for Macintosh on the SBS server. I downloaded the
UAM for Macintosh to the Mac, but when I click on the downloaded file UAM for
OS X 10.1 or later it will not install and prompts for a program to use to
open the file. How can I install this on the Mac running OS X 10.4?
Hi Richard!
Based on your initial post, I take it that you're only trying to get one
or very Macs connected to your Windows server. If this is correct then
I'd like to suggest you look at using a product called "Dave" from
Thursby <http://www.thursby.com> instead of trying to solve your problem
from the server side.
These are my reasons.
1. It's not worth you trying to reconfigure your server to allow one or
a handful of Macs to connect. You may be lessening security and/or
adding additional server processing, which means more administrative
overheard.
2. You should not use File Services for Macintosh, which is built into
Windows Server. It uses an older version of the AFP protocol (version
2.2), which is the Macintosh's native file sharing protocol. Your Mac OS
X 10.4.7 uses AFP 3.2.
AFP 2.2 does not support file names longer than 31 characters. AFP 3.2
supports file names up to about 255 characters as well as Access Control
Lists (ACLs).
You could look at using ExtremeZ-IP from Group Logic
<http://www.grouplogic.com>, which is a better and up-to-date AFP server
for Windows Server but for one or a handful of Macs the cost may be
prohibitive.
3. The Microsoft UAM works only with Microsoft's built-in File Services
for Macintosh and does NOT work on Intel Macs.
4. For regular file sharing, you should not use Mac OS X's built-in SMB
client. It's fine for the occasional file that needs to be put on the
server but with more extensive use it's also prone to sporadic
permissions problems, especially when exchanging the same files back and
forth between Mac and Windows users. It will also scatter multiple files
named "._filename" everywhere a Mac saves a file. (This is normal to the
Mac.) These are hidden by default but many Windows users turn on their
ability to view hidden objects and get frustrated seeing these confusing
files.
5. A better SMB client is Dave, the one I mentioned above. It allows
your Mac to participate in your domain as if it were a Windows computer.
It uses the same Windows file shares, etc.
6. And for $110.00 for a single user license, it's worth the cost. You
won't be adding software to your server or making server changes, which
could lessen its stability. It's well supported by one company that has
been in existence with this product for several years. And you can
invest your time elsewhere.
Hope this helps! bill
--
William M. Smith
(Microsoft Interop MVP - Mac/Windows)
.
- References:
- Re: Connecting Macintosh to SBS 2003
- From: Cris Hanna \(SBS-MVP\)
- Re: Connecting Macintosh to SBS 2003
- From: chace zhang
- Re: Connecting Macintosh to SBS 2003
- From: Richard Young
- Re: Connecting Macintosh to SBS 2003
- Prev by Date: Re: DHCP or Static- Clients cannot connect
- Next by Date: Re: Receiving ldap error -17709 in Entourage on a Mac / SBS 2003
- Previous by thread: Re: Connecting Macintosh to SBS 2003
- Next by thread: Re: Connecting Macintosh to SBS 2003
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
