winxp connection limit -- WHY ?

[mslinuz]

I'm just curious...
" Why windows xp ( both pro and home ) has limitation for
its connection ??? "

What I mean by 'connection' is ( I hope you guys already
understand ) that limited inbound connections ( 10 for Pro
and 5 for Home ).
I've browse the microsoft website, and I only can find is
just technical description about this...the reason why is
never told.
Some of my friends said ... "there's no different between
win 2003 server and winxp except that win 2003 server
brings some additional tools and no limited connection
such as xp."
Once again, why ? To force costumers purchase win based
server ?
Since I never find this limitation thing on other intel-
based machine OS, even for its desktop distribution ....


wallfare gates

 

[Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]]

I'm just curious...
" Why windows xp ( both pro and home ) has limitation for
its connection ??? "

What I mean by 'connection' is ( I hope you guys already
understand ) that limited inbound connections ( 10 for Pro
and 5 for Home ).
Yep.

I've browse the microsoft website, and I only can find is
just technical description about this...the reason why is
never told.
Some of my friends said ... "there's no different between
win 2003 server and winxp except that win 2003 server
brings some additional tools and no limited connection
such as xp."

Your friends are rather inclined to understatement - there's a very big
difference between a server OS and the workstation products.

Once again, why ? To force costumers purchase win based
server ?
Since I never find this limitation thing on other intel-
based machine OS, even for its desktop distribution ....

I'm not an MS developer (or even an employee), so I can't really answer
this. All I can say is that if you want more than ten connections and want
to use Windows, buy a server OS.

Further, if you have more than ten computers, you've probably outgrown a
workgroup setup to begin with and ought to consider a domain. Or look into
something else besides Windows.

 

[Daniel]

You know what I hate too? I made a MUD (online text
based video game) that I used to run from my computer.
It was very simple and didn't need a rediculously
expensive server os. Ran perfectly fine on Win95 and
Win98. The game wasn't making me any money or anything.
Then suddenly comes microsoft with's it arbitrary
decision to limit connections for XP. Now I can't have
very many people playing. This ultimately lead to nobody
playing it (as the multiplayerness of a MUD is the main
reason you play it).

 

[Star Fleet Admiral Q]

It wasn't arbitrary - if you'd done some research, you would have found out
it has always been this way for NT Desktop OS's - WinNT 4.0 Workstation,
Win2k Pro, WinXP Home/Pro all share this same characteristic. It's purpose
was to provide a more stable and reliable "Desktop" OS - more connections,
mean less resources, which compromises stability and reliability.

 

[mslinuz]

Now, I really do understand why so many people hate MS.
They're too f@!^&ng greedy...
Well, at least Microsoft costumers have proofed it when
they decided not to purchase that 'shishi' Win Me.
For some people, Win Me is no more than Win XP that has
not been ready yet or simply just half-made Win XP.
I think, Win 2003 is another story of half-made Win
future.
Damn ....

 

[Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]]

Now, I really do understand why so many people hate MS.
They're too f@!^&ng greedy...
Well, at least Microsoft costumers have proofed it when
they decided not to purchase that 'shishi' Win Me.
For some people, Win Me is no more than Win XP that has
not been ready yet or simply just half-made Win XP.
I think, Win 2003 is another story of half-made Win
future.

Windows ME is part of the Windows 9x family. Based on DOS.
Windows NT, 2000, XP, 2003 are entirely different operating systems - not
based on DOS. Originally geared towards corporate networks.
I agree that WinME was pretty awful - I'd rather use Win98, if I had to!

Perhaps you should look into learning some *nix if you want to avoid
Windows.

 

[Rob Schneider]

Microsoft publishes both specifications and prices.

You don't have to buy.

 

[Guest]

And how does those guys in Linux distributions such as
Debian, Redhat, SuSE, etc never have this problem while
they're nothing but just humbling Linux desktop users who
even don't know how to compile a kernel ?
Daa...

 

[Guest]

-----Original Message-----
Microsoft publishes both specifications and prices.

You don't have to buy.

A simple question in another words :
'Is this really a business thing or ms not capable to
make a reliable desktop OS with so many connections ?'
no hurt feelings ...

 

[Richard G. Harper]

A 'home' PC usually does not have the resources nor stability to allow many
network connections at once. Most of the programs you run every day and
take for granted are never run on a server, for example. Servers also
usually have more memory and higher capacity/speed hard drives.

 

[Richie85]

Buy an hardware-print-server, it's the best solution for situations like
yours, you don't need a pc or windows for sharing a printer with this.
There are some printer with network interface and print server integrated
or as hardware plug-in (HP LaserJet 2500 for instance)...

 

[Guest]

-----Original Message-----
A 'home' PC usually does not have the resources nor stability to allow many
network connections at once.

.........<laugh>....... We're using WinXP in our
workplace. In this condition, is winxp still considered
as OS for HOME PC ??? Did ms never think about it ???

Most of the programs you run every day and
take for granted are never run on a server, for example. Servers also
usually have more memory and higher capacity/speed hard
drives.

I'm not talking about the hardware here. I'm talking
about the OS. And I wasn't thinking about some big apps
server or db server or whaterever it is. READ BELOW :

This is my little annoying experience with xp. My company
got a warehouse outside the city. There are 14 PCs there
and for printing need, one printer is considered to be
enough. So, the printer is connected directly into one PC
as host and I made it shared.
And you know what happen....The host PC broke out.
So, what will you guys suggest me ????
Purchase win-based server lisence just to make all of my
users print nicely ? Or buy another printer ?
I tell you what...I brought back an old celeron and
installed it with DESKTOP linux distribution from out of
nowhwere and made it as printer host. Magic thing
happen....IT NEVER BREAK DOWN.

I'm not comparing windows with linux here. But I have
just discovered why some people hates ms so much.
I don't hate ms and I'm not linuxlover. I'm just a
humbling user that happy if my computer do whatever I
want, no matter what kind of OS I used.

And HOW ABOUT THIS :

Okay, winxp has such 'weakness' so if there's more than 5
( or 10 ) inbound connection at a time can cause of
instablity. The best thing for ms to do is set by default
the inbound connection allowed into 5 or 10 but still
provide access to the users to costumize it and tell them
if they're gone over limit it would become a problem. If
the users insist...let them take their own responsibility
there.
Sound nice, isn't it ?
Since I think, winxp in its "original state", actually
doesn't have this kind of limitation of capabilty.

Is this still make sense if I have these assumptions
about this matter :
1. WinXP is not good enough in networking technology .
( I think it's not the right one...)
2. MS, as usual, try to make some more money....

And untill now, still, MS NEVER TOLD THE WORLD WHY WINXP
HAS SUCH THAT STUPID LIMITATION.

And still, the only reason for this limitation is all
about the money. Proof me if I'm wrong ...

 

[Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]]

........<laugh>....... We're using WinXP in our
workplace. In this condition, is winxp still considered
as OS for HOME PC ??? Did ms never think about it ???


I'm not talking about the hardware here. I'm talking
about the OS.

Same thing.

And I wasn't thinking about some big apps
server or db server or whaterever it is. READ BELOW :

This is my little annoying experience with xp. My company
got a warehouse outside the city. There are 14 PCs there
and for printing need, one printer is considered to be
enough. So, the printer is connected directly into one PC
as host and I made it shared.
And you know what happen....The host PC broke out.
So, what will you guys suggest me ????
Purchase win-based server lisence just to make all of my
users print nicely ? Or buy another printer ?

As Richie suggested, buy a network-attached printer and be done with it.
Much better solution anyway, if you ask me.

I tell you what...I brought back an old celeron and
installed it with DESKTOP linux distribution from out of
nowhwere and made it as printer host. Magic thing
happen....IT NEVER BREAK DOWN.

OK, or do that. Personally, I prefer network printers, but if this works for
you, well and good.

I'm not comparing windows with linux here. But I have
just discovered why some people hates ms so much.
I don't hate ms and I'm not linuxlover. I'm just a
humbling user that happy if my computer do whatever I
want, no matter what kind of OS I used.

And HOW ABOUT THIS :

Okay, winxp has such 'weakness' so if there's more than 5
( or 10 ) inbound connection at a time can cause of
instablity. The best thing for ms to do is set by default
the inbound connection allowed into 5 or 10 but still
provide access to the users to costumize it and tell them
if they're gone over limit it would become a problem. If
the users insist...let them take their own responsibility
there.
Sound nice, isn't it ?
Since I think, winxp in its "original state", actually
doesn't have this kind of limitation of capabilty.

Is this still make sense if I have these assumptions
about this matter :
1. WinXP is not good enough in networking technology .
( I think it's not the right one...)
2. MS, as usual, try to make some more money....

Note: Windows XP is not a server OS. It can serve as one in a pinch on a
tiny network. But it isn't designed for it, neither is the hardware it's
generally run on.

And untill now, still, MS NEVER TOLD THE WORLD WHY WINXP
HAS SUCH THAT STUPID LIMITATION.

Well, it's pretty easily accessible information, even on their website. It
is what it is. Sure, I'm sure $ has something to do with it. But I repeat:
Windows XP is not a server operating system. It is a workstation. It is not
designed to handle a lot of network connections. Server OSes are.

And still, the only reason for this limitation is all
about the money. Proof me if I'm wrong ...

<sigh> I think you need to just pull back, and move on from this. It's the
limitation, live with it. Or use something else, and treat it as a learning
opportunity for Linux, and perhaps you'll be a happier person for it.
Ranting about the limitation is somewhat futile, you see.

Best of luck to you....

 

[mslinuz]

-----Original Message-----
Buy an hardware-print-server, it's the best solution for situations like
yours, you don't need a pc or windows for sharing a printer with this.
There are some printer with network interface and print server integrated
or as hardware plug-in (HP LaserJet 2500 for instance)...

Well...I'm thinking about another issue....
I believe most of you guys heard about 'Total Cost of
Ownership campaign' that issued by ms, comparing their
windows with linux. They said that windows is lower on
that at hugh agregate < i don't know the right words .. >
So, if buying network printer is the cheapest solution
for that in ms perspective, I'd rather choose my celeron-
linux.
I wonder if winxp doesn't have that limitation, my
celeron would already gone somewhere.
Well...At least I learn something. If the next windows
doesn't change its behaviour, I know I atill have another
alternatives.
Thanks for all of you guys, for your open mind dealing
with 'moaning me' ... ;-)
I guess...case's closed.