Maximum Number of Clients

[Kaye]

Recently, I updated a Windows 98 peer-to-peer network to
Windows 2000 Professional. Although this a peer-to-peer
network, one "workstation" is beefed up with RAID, Hot-
Swap power supllies and Daily Backups and is set aside as
a "server" with all data files stored on it and no user
using it as a workstation during normal operation. Here
are my questions:

1. While these 14 computers running under Win98SE didn't
encounter and "Maximum Number of Clients Exceeded"
problems; Windows 2000 balks at allowing 13 computers
connect to one. I am running a DOS program that requires
drive mapping. Is there a way to modify the Registry so
one can exceed the 10 connections limit or is it hard
coded?

2. Each of the workstations may have 4 to 5 different
users during the day. How can I setup "Drive Mapping" for
one user and replicate it to the other users instead of
having to enter it for each user?

 

[Pegasus \(MVP\)]

See below.

Recently, I updated a Windows 98 peer-to-peer network to
Windows 2000 Professional. Although this a peer-to-peer
network, one "workstation" is beefed up with RAID, Hot-
Swap power supllies and Daily Backups and is set aside as
a "server" with all data files stored on it and no user
using it as a workstation during normal operation. Here
are my questions:

1. While these 14 computers running under Win98SE didn't
encounter and "Maximum Number of Clients Exceeded"
problems; Windows 2000 balks at allowing 13 computers
connect to one. I am running a DOS program that requires
drive mapping. Is there a way to modify the Registry so
one can exceed the 10 connections limit or is it hard
coded?

It's hard coded. You need to buy a Server product (which
you should anyway, given the number of workstations you
have).

2. Each of the workstations may have 4 to 5 different
users during the day. How can I setup "Drive Mapping" for
one user and replicate it to the other users instead of
having to enter it for each user?

Use a logon script. Place it into a universally accessible
folder on your "server", then use a batch file on each
workstation to execute the central batch file. On
the workstations, the batch file must reside in the
Startup folder.

On "real" servers, you perform this task centrally via
the domain logon script.

 

[no one]

You ought to put the server software on that machine. 14
boxes constitutes a client/server environment. You might
as well get the benefits that "server" will give you in
that network over "pro".

 

[Kaye]

NoOne:

You all must have rich clients. Mine are not so wealthy.
It was like pulling teeth getting him to go to Windows
2000 now that Microsoft is sunsetting Win98SE. Win98SE was
doing fine for him with plenty of speed on 14 boxes. He
asks me: "Why Win98SE didn't have any problem with 14
boxes and Win2K does?" Is the answer: Planned 0bsolescense
by Microsoft?

 

[Phillip Windell]

The old NT40 Workstation was the same way had you attempted it with that,
and it came out *before* Win98 while everyone was still using Win95 and
Win31, so Planned 0bsolescense has nothing to do with it.

Win9x used "share level access", so you didn't have to deal with user
accounts on all the machines and have to worry about keeping them in sync.
Win98 didn't have the same "concept" of user accounts and "connections" and
so it wasn't effected by how many "users" there were beyond just getting
slower the more people that used it. Yes, Win9x had a form of user
accounts, but there is just no comparison between that and what a user
account constitutes in Win2k.

Win2k Pro is not designed to be a "server", and yes, there is a 10 user
limit and cannot be changed. The same was true with NT4.0 Workstation.

If they could spend the money on hardware with RAID and Hot-swap Power
Supplies, then buying one copy of Server2000 instead of Win2k Pro would not
have been a big deal.

"The right tool for the right job" is a fundmental rule.

 

[Pegasus \(MVP\)]

I have often heard this concept about "rich clients". The
strange thing is this: Your client uses his desks and
his chairs all day long while performing his work. He will
not hesitate one second in paying for this furniture. He
also uses his computers all day long, yet he feels that
the cost of buying the hardware and software is cannot
be justified.

On the other hand, if he feels that the cost of MS software
excessive then he should use a competing product. There
are some very competitive flavours of Unix around, and
OpenOffice (free!) will meet all his basic requirements for
word processing and spreadsheeting. In other words, it's
not that Microsoft has him over a barrel - it is his free
choice.

 

[J Houston]

Recently, I updated a Windows 98 peer-to-peer network to
Windows 2000 Professional. Although this a peer-to-peer
network, one "workstation" is beefed up with RAID, Hot-
Swap power supllies and Daily Backups and is set aside as
a "server" with all data files stored on it and no user
using it as a workstation during normal operation. Here
are my questions:

Could you indulge me and explain more about RAID, Hot-Swap
PSU's and your daily backups? We recently upgraded to Windows
Server 2003, as we needed more than 10 concurrent users, but the
'server' PC is a farily bog-standard no-frills PC. I want to persuade
my boss to upgrade it.



James H