will this server work for me and OS?

Could I copy my exisitng Windows NT Server format on to this? Or do you totally recommend Small Bus 2003? We have a small domain of 9 WS on win2K & XP. Basically use excel db QuickBooks Pro.

PowerEdge SC430  
Intel® Pentium® D Processor 820 at 2.8GHz/2X1MB Cache, 800MHz FSB, No Operating System, Other
Who is Participating?

[Product update] Infrastructure Analysis Tool is now available with Business Accounts.Learn More

I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

Hi tninj,

i would highly reccomend moving to SBS 2003

it has so much functionality for small business that if you have the funds to do it, then you would be mad not to

there tools that will help you migrate your old users accross and minimalise config

let me know if thats the path you choose and ill send you some links to tools

What's the purpose of a server here?  Doesn't sound like you even need one to me.
why would he not need one? he is working in a domain environment and is obviously not going to fall back to a workgroup setup and lose security and functionality

i dont mean to sound rude but why would you say that?? (just out of curiosity)
SolarWinds® Network Configuration Manager (NCM)

SolarWinds® Network Configuration Manager brings structure and peace of mind to configuration management. Bulk config deployment, automatic backups, change detection, vulnerability assessments, and config change templates reduce the time needed for repetitive tasks.

SBS 2003. NT 4.0 is outdated and unsupported, so you might as well upgrade. But that's also assuming your budget will allow for it. You should have some room for some expansiion while also staying relatively up to date.. not necessarily at the bleeding edge of technology.

@Jay - i can understand why jhance wouild question the need for a server/domain considering the size of the network... and from what's described, we wouldn't understand why there is one. however, i agree with your point that if it's already in place, why go back?
tninjAuthor Commented:
We are also running a Paradox based Landscape & nursery software that is pretty unstable. Crystal Reports takes forever to browse to open a file over the network since we upgraded from win98 to 2k & xp. Exisitng server is P4 with NT server4 and 512 ram.
make sure that the software is compatible with 2003 server before you make a decision, there is no way you will regret in any way moving to SBS 2003 and it provides plenty of room for expansion :)

masnrock, i can understand i guess, i just have a sever dislike of WG's, i reckon more than 2 computers....big fat server and domain! LOL none of this P2P rubbish!! bring it on! cheers mate :)
dbruntonQuid, Me Anxius Sum?  Illegitimi non carborundum.Commented:
There may not be NT drivers for the Dell server.  You'd have to ask them.  If there weren't any drivers I'd forget the idea of putting NT on it.

Other options are to make a Samba server with Linux.  That OS is free although you'd need a techy person to set it up for you.  Linux and Samba aren't resource hungry.

If you go the SBS way make sure it has plenty of memory.  There is no such thing as enough memory for a SBS server.
My point was that based on the information provided there is little or no indication that a server is needed here.  So asking "is this a good server for me" doesn't make much sense and a recommendation is impossible.

To make a recommendation about a server, a server TASK needs to be understood.
to a point, but if their is already a server in place then there would have to be good reasoning for it to be there - dont know many people who would have a server just for the sake of having one.....

anyway thats not the point - i didnt mean to offend and if i have then i apologise   working on little sleep and am a grumpy sod :) I will agree with you on the need for RAM and lots of it
dbruntonQuid, Me Anxius Sum?  Illegitimi non carborundum.Commented:
Without upsetting people, there's a Paradox application being used.  

If it's multi-user then there is definitely a need for a server.
Again the point is, how can any recommendation about a server be made unless the purpose and function of that server is understood?  If all the thing is used for is as a DOMAIN controller, then I see no compelling reason to change from the existing setup.  I serously doubt that your slow file browsing is being caused by an underperforming server as the server load for that is quite small.  I suspect you have other issues going on that are unlikely to be solved by changing server and/or server OS.  For all we know you have a bad network card or cable that is causing network errors and slowing things down...

Understand the problem first, then devise a solution to address that problem.  Unfortunately you have devised a solution first and are looking for a confirmation that it's a good plan.  In my opinion it's not a good plan.  If you just want to get a new server because of some other reason, then go for it.
Indeed the fact that Paradox is being used (but is it really being used on the server??) has come out.  But is this the problem with performance?  Is the server CPU bound?  Is is network bound?  Is it disk I/O bound?  Don't know the answer to any of these questions.
tninjAuthor Commented:
First of all the Paradox based software does not support P2P. We still have a few Win98 old staions that are used for lookup only or internet access. They browse the network files in lightening speed. ONLY the win2K and XP computers have that daggone flashlight come up when trying to browse files located on the server.

i will counter that by saying that a good enough reason for a server in my opinion, would be the security and management aspect that comes from a domain controller    

this isnt achievable to the extend in a WG environment

i also cannt see a benefit at any stage in taking a backwards step when you have resources available although you are correct in assuming there are other problems residing there

i dont need a confirmation of it being a good plan, i wasnt seeking that confirmation, was merely providing an opinion and a solution on the question asked, it was no more or less valid than your comments and is a perfectly decent option to go with
tninjAuthor Commented:
Yes the db files for all of our programs are located on the server.
more info on the XP and 2k Clients.... netbios settings etc
tninjAuthor Commented:
not at work but will get back to you on that. what should they be set at?
for browsing ny network places they will need netbios enabled but i would say the fact you can get to it and its just slow means it is enabled - check the NIC settings and the speed (duplex) of the NICS etc

are your xp and 2k machines connected the same way as the 98 machines?
as far as nt networking goes i have had no experience, Jhance will have a lot better idea with NT i work with 2k upwards hence my probably over strong push towards a new OS :)
tninjAuthor Commented:
yes same as win98 all assigned tcpip addresses sharing the first string of numbers and assigning the last.
tninjAuthor Commented:
all network cards are operating at 100.
hmmm ill leave this for people with the NT know how!! all the best tninj  let me know you decide in the end :)
David WallCommented:
From there I would ask are all the machines connected via a common switch, are all the clients domain clients (including w98) do the none W98 generally respond well to local apps?

tninjAuthor Commented:
all are domain clients and local apps are fine actually all apps are fine it is just waiting for the list of files in explorer to appear on the server for you to open from thats so time consuming.
dbruntonQuid, Me Anxius Sum?  Illegitimi non carborundum.Commented:
Is it specifically the XP and 2000 machines that are slow or just the XP machines?
tninjAuthor Commented:
XP & 2000, 98 IS FAST
dbruntonQuid, Me Anxius Sum?  Illegitimi non carborundum.Commented:
There's a number of possibilities for the slow networking.

One possibility is that the computer browsing may be part of the problem where the XP and 2000 machines and the NT server are fighting over which machine is the master browser and stores the information.

Another is that the XP machines are expecting there to be a local DNS system somewhere to send their requests.  I've had that problem with XP machines (and your symptoms are very similar) with a 2000 server and had to enable DNS on the 2000 server to speed it up.

Unfortunately I can't find the link that discusses that problem.

Now I run Samba/Linux for my network OSes and that has fixed the problem for me on the networks I run.

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
Unix OS

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.