Arguments for Using / Not Using a Windows Server OS
Posted on 2012-09-05
I have long held the notion that a peer-to-peer network is fine; particularly in situations where Server OS support is hard to find and/or can't be well justified. So, I've been happy to deal with a Server OS installation only when some major software application *requires* it - and then it's only used as an application server.
I get a lot of flak for what seems to me to be a business-driven posture.
The question is limited to Windows office environments. You can assume that file sharing will be common.
This is not a question about hardware. Presumably any hardware can be configured with any OS within reason.
So, I decided to do a bit of a survey asking:
On the "prefers Server OS" side:
- Why should one *not* use a peer-to-peer system in favor of one based on a Server OS?
[Please avoid the buzz words in answering this question. Give concrete examples of what the user *must have* in order to maintain reasonable security, sanity, .. what?...]
What Server OS services do you view as essential and why in each case?
On the "prefers Workstation OS" side- What justifies using a peer-to-peer system? Success stories? Justificdation, etc?