windows 2000 pro

Status
Not open for further replies.

Seloce

In Runtime
Messages
338
Okay, this is a surprisingly stupid question.

Assuming there are no other variables in the situation, is there a limit to the number of machines that could be in a Peer to Peer network if all the machines are running Windows 2000?
 

Ecniv

<a href="http://www.tech-forums.net/pc/f109/foldin
Messages
1,765
Nope. only limited by your theoretical maximum Router/switch apacity, which is somthing like 65000 computers.
 

Seloce

In Runtime
Messages
338
Can anyone else verify that? not saying I don't believe you...I'd just like to hear it from more than one person.

see, that's what I thought as well. but this vp I'm working with swears up and down that you can only have 10 users max without having a server running win2k server....which makes utterly no sense. but I figured I'd post here and get a few more collaborating answers before I call him on it.
 

Ecniv

<a href="http://www.tech-forums.net/pc/f109/foldin
Messages
1,765
lol, thats funny as hell, I know first had that you can have many many computers on a router with hubs or switches attached as long as they all have unique internal IP address. I have had 25 on a network like that.
 

Shakie

Fully Optimized
Messages
3,313
Location
US
Welcome to the "Microsoft" age.
Seloce, the Offical Microsoft Curriculum (sp?) teaches that it is not advisable to have a network of more than 10 computers without a server. That is where your vp is getting that "fact", in reality, listen to Ecniv, he is correct.
 

Seloce

In Runtime
Messages
338
this just gets to be too rich.

I just got off the phone with my corporate office. they are now insisting that any information requests sent by a computer running Windows 2000 Server have a higher priority than those sent by Windows 2000 Pro.

Me: "..........."

I really hope that someone can back me up on this. That really isn't true, is it?

Remember...we're still talking about a Peer to Peer network.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top