I have always taken the view that I am supplying a multi-user database
system therefore I must need a server.
However recent issues with a 3rd party maintenance group who want to
virtualise the Windows D3 on a Windows SBS server in an 8 user office
where 3 are active most of the time has made me think.
Do I need a server at all?
My home and office setup runs Windows 7 with D3 production on 1
Machine.
Windows Vista with D3 demo on a laptop.
Windows Vista on a desktop that until recently also ran D3 beta where
I often fired off 10 sessions with programs timed to go off
simultaneously accessing and updating million record files.
Windows XP on a desktop with a USB laser printer connected.
A network multi-function A3 printer.
All connected via a wired hardware router firewall to each other and
the internet plus a second router down in the office.
To which I add via the wireless connections on the main router a
wireless, several cameras and telephones and occasionally another
laptop.
Can anyone come up with a good reason as to why I should not just take
this approach at the client.
The client does not need SQL or Exchange so one would use Server 2008
but why when the current basic desktop is vastly more powerful than
the original server and Windows can file and print share with ease.
Peter McMurray

On 2011-11-25 17:34:08 -0500, Excalibur21 <pgmcmurray (AT) gmail (DOT) com> said:

Just be aware of the limitations MS has put into non-server OS
platforms that limit the number of incoming connections to 10 on XP
Pro, 5 on XP Home, and possibly 20 on W7. This includes all transports
and resource sharing protocols combined.

How a session/connection is counted is detailed in this KB article.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314882

You would want to carefully examine the intended use and usage pattern
for the box before deciding that a server level version of Windows is
or isn't required.

--
Kevin Powick

On Nov 26, 1:50*pm, Kevin Powick <nos... (AT) spamless (DOT) com> wrote:
Thanks Kevin
I have been hunting for info this link is for XP and promptly suggests
that I go and look at Windows 7 as that is what I am running. Clever
devils aren't they. As you suggested Windows 7 has 20.
The Windows 7/XP/Vista setup I have works fine with just a couple of
users and one enquirer has 11 PCs so it should work but I prefer to
stick with Server. To be quite honest I am having a problem getting my
head around when one does and does not need CALS with Windows Server.
In particular for the simple small site Windows Server 2008 R2
Foundation issue looks fine and at just over $300 makes a difference
where the pennies are counted tightly.
I am reducing the connection issue by moving to network Laser printers
from parallel Impact printers and switching to PDF copies instead of
printed hard copy which has always been a pain. Modern disks store so
much that we no longer need to offload archives and D3 barrels through
millions of records with ease.
It has long been a bugbear that items such as wire wheels for a car
are an "investment" whilst any computer expenditure is a "cost".
"plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose"
Thanks
Peter McMurray

On 12/5/11 1:20 PM, Albert D. Kallal wrote:
True dat. But I don't consider it strange.

--
frosty