Member limitation for Vista Workgroup

[chris]

Hi

I started my MCITP training. Our trainer told us, that there is a limit of
maximum 25 Vista clients in a Vista workgroup. Is this correct? From my point
of knowledge, there is only a limitation of 10 concurrent incomming
connections. There is no limitation on the number of members in a workgroup.
I know, a workgroup with above 20 clients for file- and printsharing makes
no sence, but is there a limitation?

Special thanks for your feedback.
chris

 

[Malke]

Hi

I started my MCITP training. Our trainer told us, that there is a limit of
maximum 25 Vista clients in a Vista workgroup. Is this correct? From my
point of knowledge, there is only a limitation of 10 concurrent incomming
connections. There is no limitation on the number of members in a
workgroup. I know, a workgroup with above 20 clients for file- and
printsharing makes no sence, but is there a limitation?

You are correct and your trainer is wrong. It would be foolish to have a
workgroup with 25 workstations - you would really want a server and a
domain - but that isn't because of any limitation on the number of machines
that can be on a network. And there are no "clients" in a Workgroup. By its
nature, a Workgroup consists of peer workstations. "Client" means a server
is involved.

Malke

 

[Gordon]

Hi

I started my MCITP training. Our trainer told us, that there is a limit of
maximum 25 Vista clients in a Vista workgroup. Is this correct? From my
point
of knowledge, there is only a limitation of 10 concurrent incomming
connections. There is no limitation on the number of members in a
workgroup.
I know, a workgroup with above 20 clients for file- and printsharing makes
no sence, but is there a limitation?

Special thanks for your feedback.
chris

To add to what Malke said - in a peer-to-peer workgroup, all security (i.e.
log-on credentials) information is held on each local machine. Therefore if
you have a workgroup of 25, you would need to create (and administer) 25
Users with 25 passwords on EACH of the 25 machines, assuming all 25 need
access to all the other machines.
Hence a server is far more practical over about 4 or 5 machines...

 

[chris]

Thanks for your immediate answers. Now, I'm reassured.

regards
chris