hosted by liquidweb

Go Back   Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Hosting Security and Technology : Is Windows 2003 necessary?

Forum Jump

Is Windows 2003 necessary?

Reply Post New Thread In Hosting Security and Technology Subscription
Send news tip View All Posts Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-05-2007, 02:18 PM
Web Hosting Master
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 758

Is Windows 2003 necessary?


I was contacted by a small company manager who want to setup an online common work place for his employees.

He needs a Windows server with the possibility for up to 10 users to connect remotly and share files and software.

Do you think that Windows 2003 is compulsory for such basic needs? I want to go with Windows XP because it is less expensive.

Thank you!

.:. Enterprise SAN Consultant .:.

Sponsored Links
Old 03-05-2007, 06:17 PM
fastdeploy fastdeploy is offline
Web Hosting Master
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 875
Originally Posted by edelweisshosting
He needs a Windows server with the possibility for up to 10 users to connect remotly and share files and software.

Do you think that Windows 2003 is compulsory for such basic needs? I want to go with Windows XP because it is less expensive.
If by "connect remotly" you mean over the Internet then I can't recommend running file sharing over the Internet, period. Given the routine vulnerabilities that are discovered in Windows it is an extremely bad idea to expose a Windows file server (2003 or XP) to the Internet. If the file "server" will be behind a firewall and each user will be accessing the server via a VPN, then it's a more palatable idea to expose an XP or 2003 box to the local network.

If you do not have a VPN you could potentially use XP's firewall and expose the file sharing ports to a specific network (assuming the users are on a fixed set of IPs). If XP's firewall doesn't do this maybe ZoneAlarm, Symantec firewall, etc. would?

In general I suspect XP could probably handle 10 or so users even though it's not really designed to serve files in substantial numbers.

If by "connect remotly" you mean connecting to an RDP/Remote Desktop session then XP is a bad choice as it permits only one user to logon. 2003 supports up to 2 remote users and a console user. If "up to 10 users" could be connected at any given time in this scenario then you'll need 2003 as you'd then have to have terminal server licenses and licensing server setup.

At a certain point I'd imagine you'll hit a user base where 2003 Server just makes more sense - common authentication, Active Directory, group policies, integrated RAS/VPN, etc., but in the interim, assuming you can resolve the security issues inherent with exposing Windows CIFS to the Internet, you should be all right running XP as a simple file server.

Old 03-05-2007, 09:25 PM
galacnet galacnet is offline
Web Hosting Master
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,032
I don't understand the software bit.
If its just sharing files, I suppose they are all in different locations, then maybe an FTP account is enough.

Set under their coms or laptops a shortcut to the FTP location and windows will prompt for their username and password. In the settings make sure all of them are pointed to the same directory so they can see each other's files.

-=- GQ Hong -=-
GalacNet WebMaster

Sponsored Links
Old 03-06-2007, 12:09 AM
TCP/IP Warrior TCP/IP Warrior is offline
Aspiring Evangelist
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 362
I want to go with Windows XP because it is less expensive.
With XP you will run into a couple of problems:

1) If all 10 users want to connect at the same time... they won't.

2) If you are charging them them you can't go to your local store, buy XP and HOST "something for them".

THink "SPLA" first.

Host, YES!
Reselling? Partner for profit instead!

Old 03-06-2007, 12:12 AM
plumsauce plumsauce is offline
******* Unleaded
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,806
C'mon, XP?

The client probably has Sharepoint services in mind. Just how you think this can be done in XP is beyond me. Check into Windows 2003/SBS. Or do yourself and them a favour and point them to a host specialising in Sharepoint services. Support for Windows Backoffice applications is not for the faint of heart or inexperienced.

As for the backhand to windows filesharing, no I wouldn't do it, but then neither would I run ftp.

And yes, XP has a hard coded connection limit that is well known.

managed dns global failover and load balance (gslb)
uptime report for


Related posts from
Title Type Date Posted
Microsoft Surpasses Amazon as Largest Windows Hosting Company: Netcraft Web Hosting News 2014-02-27 17:05:44
JaguarPC Listing 2014-04-24 11:29:25
Expired SSL Certificate Brings Down Windows Azure Cloud Web Hosting News 2013-02-25 10:38:00
Windows Azure Processes 4.7 Billion Authentication Requests Weekly Web Hosting News 2012-11-27 17:21:03
Web Host OrcsWeb Offers Support for Windows Server 2012 Web Hosting News 2012-08-24 11:08:35

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes
Postbit Selector

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump
Log in with your username and password

Forgot Password?
Web Hosting News:



Welcome to

Create your username to jump into the discussion! is the largest, most influentual web hosting community on the Internet. Join us by filling in the form below.

(4 digit year)

Already a member?