leew is correct. The 10 connection limit is for licensing reasons so you will have to upgrade to sbs or another version of windows server, or unix.

Yes, I didn't mean to suggest Linux was your only other option - Linux is A option, but a Windows server will also work just fine.

Leew has it.  10 and no more.  After that it's server bound.

There are workarounds for W2k on the web is there a patch for XP Pro?

Event ID 4226 Patcher v2.11 - A patching program for removing or changing the limit imposed on connection attempts in SP2. The patcher has the ability to restore tcpip.sys back to the original... Still, you might want to back up tcpip.sys, use it at your own risk. The author of this patch can be reached @ http://www.lvllord.de/

Worked for me, good luck!

No that is one of the changes that Microsoft made in XP~I concur w/ leew

any attempts to get around the 10 connection limit would be a licensing hack and thus against the user agreement of this site  :)  sorry.

In that case we can go around the hack Mike and here is the answer the 10 limit connection only appeared after service pack 2 and it makes no sense. So if you really need to go more than 10 or actually unlimited connections than you simply go back to  Service Pack 1.

The forward thinking of Microsoft developers here is that you can only infect 10 new systems per second via TCP/IP ?!?... Keep in mind that would still make 10^60 in a single minute, (that's 10 with 60 trailing zeros...) if everyone already infected also infects 10 new computers per second. In other words, even though it is not going to stop worm spreading, it's going to delay it a few seconds, limit possible network congestion a bit, and limit the use of your PC to 10 connection attempts per second in the process ! I have no problem with the new default setting limiting outbound connection attempts. Still, users should have the option to easily disable or change this setting. I might be going out on a limb here, but ever since the introduction of Windows XP I can't help thinking that I dislike all the bult-in Windows "wisardry" in a sense that the system also limits user access. That irritating trend to ease the mental load on end users is somewhat insulting, considering that Windows is to make the more "intelligent" choice instead of the end user, as well as limit their access to tuning such settings.

I appreciate that this is a marketing ploy by Microsoft to force an upgrade to SBS or sometihnig else they can use to get more money out of us but as I do not need the functionality of MS server products and merely want a file server where more  than 10 clients can connect I wondered if there was another simple solution that was easy to implement.

> I do not need the functionality of MS server products and merely want a
> file server where more  than 10 clients can connect

Yes, you do - the server products are the only MS products legally allowed to have more than 10 connections.

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it's wrong.

As I mentioned earlier, if you don't like it, use Linux - MANY people who don't like MS have switched to Linux because they don't have to deal with MS BS.  Linux is free (download and learning time excluded) and you have LOTS of options with it.  Check out www.linuxiso.org

i agree with leew again.  I hate when people get mad when they don't like what the correct answer is and refuse to accept it on this website. Just b/c you don't like what the correct answer is doesnt mean it isn't the right answer.  If you ask what is 2 + 2 is and are really hoping to get the answer of 5 it doesn't matter.  The correct answer is still 4, and you should accept 4 as the correct answer.

the LEGAL connection limit on XP home is 5
the LEGAL connection limit on XP Pro is 10 (regardless of SP level)

Kolian--- SP2 patched a whole in which allowed more than 10 connections in some cases. It is/was  illegal to connect more than 10 in ANY service pack level.  Again, any talk of going over the 10 connection limit on XP Pro is breaking your user agreement.

Microsoft = Nazi more and more every year with their limitations and unbelivable profits!
What is legal? Can you define something that can change in an instance? SP3 for example? Longhorn?

Win98 doesn't have any limit I am aware of. If all you need to do is share
files, it works quite well. You can easily password protect shares if you need to
restrict access to data.

Install with minimum requierements (video and network drivers) and it works very well.

Good Luck!

Kolian, windows 98 uses fat32 not NTFS so it has NO file level security at all. Try to allow user1 read access and user2 full access to a fat32 folder, you can't since fat32 doesn't have file level security.  


 paulcronin I propose that you close this question and award points as you see fit since this question has been answered.  

All I will say is FEDORA!

Thanks for all your advice. It is true we were working OK with W98. We are going to move to Small Buisiness server and hopefully benefirt from the other services that SBS offers. A busy weekend ahead for me. I will award point to leew beacuse he was first to repsond and tell me I had hit the limit for XP PRO. Thanks again.

Just some more cold water on your face (or fuel for the anti-Microsoft fire), you do need to buy appropriate Client Access Licenses for the server be able to handle all your users, otherwise, you'll likely have a similar error.  Benefit of Linux - no CALs required.

We are using the opportunity to buy a new server with RAID that comes with 5 licences and buying 15 more.

Good, just wanted to make sure you knew that catch - Server can have MANY connections, but only as many as you license.  Also, SBS is limited to 75 clients - FULL server can have essentially unlimited clients if the hardware/networking supported it (once again, assuming appropriate CALs)

Beware of Terminal Services on Small Business Server 2003 its nothing like SBS2000, and yes you will be confused with all the Client, Device and TS Licenses!

Good Luck!

try net share command with /unlimited option

Get away from M$, go Linux and sleep better than M$ does.

On a more serious not, just buy a NAS device and get away from any platform issues.  NAS devices are cheap and work better than M$ servers if all you want is to share files.  And oh, no extortion CALS required there either :)

net share DataShare=e:\test \unlimited

I am using this on an xp pro sp3 computer with 15 connections to one share.