server?

hey is it worth it for me to buy a server for just 3 or 4 computers...if i do where can i get a very inexpemsicve one?

 

It depends. I you ask a hardware vendor they will say sure...got a great one for $5000 ;-)

Kidding aside, I wouldn't get one for just that many computers.

XP Pro, Windows2000 Pro will allow 10 connections

Win98 has no limit and also works quite well if all you need is a basic place to store files.

 

Sure is, if you ever plan on adding more the infrastructure is already there. You can get a very good workgroup server for under 2K easily.

 

Heck, I just installed a W2K Pro computer for under $700.

2.4 GHz
512 Megs RAM
80 gig drive
etc.

What operating system and hardware is on your most powerful computer. Not point in spending money unless you really want to.

 

If all you want to do is share files without compromising the security of the existing PCs, you could use a NAS (network attached storage) device.

SnapServer is dependable for around $600. Tritton has one for about $300 that works pretty well with basic security.

 

I guess I don't like spending other people's money if it is not necessary. Certainly try and find out what they currently have and what their requirements are before making any recommendations.

If he already has a few computers, one may be more than enough for such limited network requirements. Hopefully there will be a response with more details so more informed suggestions can be made.

 

my specs are on my signature

 

If you are experienced enough or have staff that is experienced in server administration then I would definitely recommend going with a dedicated server as a client/server model. If you don't have alot of know how when dealing with servers and things like domains, DNS, DHCP, groups, security permissions, etc. then a peer-peer network may be the way to go and just buy a standard work station.

Even with only four PC's, I personally find a client-server model much more easier to administer and control access to files and services (such as printer) versus peer-peer. And not to mention you can shut down any of the workstations and not have to worry about files, drives, or printers being unavailable. With a dedicated server all resources are always available regardless of who turns off their PC.

I run a dedicated server that I built on my home network which runs Win2000 Server and love it! I will never go back to a peer-peer model. With having over 10GB of MP3's and music videos it makes it really nice to block songs with obscenities from my kid's access. And not to mention limit their access to the laser printer when it seems their finger is glued to the print button. Sure I could do the same with P2P but with the server it just seems easier and I don't have to screw with adding the same user accounts to all computers and stuff like that. All administration is centralized.

Just my opinion... I'm sure other's will disagree since your only networking four computer. By principle you only need a P2P model but for added efficiency and management, a client-server model is the way to go. So buying a server would be a good thing. Plus as someone else had mentioned you will already have the infrastructure if you ever decide to add more computers or place an additional load on your network.

 

When most small business customers are deciding "is it worth it " regarding the expense and time for full blown server, it is really their requirements that drive the decision making. What may be good for one business or person with his kids, might not always be the best or economical for another.

I love bidding against some techie guru who without any discussion or understanding of the financial burden, decided what was best for a small 5 computer business, with only the most basic file sharing and printing needs, was to set up a full domain controller costing around $2000, expensive tape backup software and SCSI tape drives, and a separate Exchange server (again around $2000). This happens more that I would have believed. It's real easy to get their confidence when you tell them that, based on their currently installed hardware, they don't need to purchase anything and can get their simple network running in less than an hour. And they won't need to keep coming back for my support time. I lose money in the short run but would rather make and keep a satisifed customer.

But it all depends on their needs. Kinda like telling everyone the best car to get is a Porche. Great car but just depends on what you want and whether it is worth it.

 

Yeah I have to agree with you Bob. That does make perfect sense and I definitely see your point. I am just a hardcore computer guru on the hobbiest level (although do have formal schooling in computers) and always like to have the fastest and the best computer components. I built my own server for next to nothing. Granted it would'nt be considered a high-performance server but would definitely run a small business without any trouble (550mhz PIII, 256 RAM, W2K Server OS, Duel HDD's(120GB WD 7200RPM 8MB cache for data & 60GB WD 7200RPM strictly for OS). I know, IDE versus SCSI or Serial but work's rather well with low disk contention.

But still, I think a client-server model is the way to go for business but also agree with your approach as well.