DavidTheAsian
Total posts: 51
10/4/2006 5:00 PM
windows 2000 server edition
or something comparable?
I'm lookin' to get a little file server goin' on in my parents' house and as far as I can see win2k is probably the easiest to set up (that is unless one of y'all has a simpler solution).
acelxix
Total posts: 2398
10/5/2006 7:09 PM
I might be able to hook you up i'll check in the morning when I'm not drousy from nyquil.
Oscar
Total posts: 1323
10/6/2006 12:59 AM
you know you get xp pro for free thru LSU right? why dont you just install that disable simple file shares then create a network drive?
DavidTheAsian
Total posts: 51
10/6/2006 7:15 PM
while xp pro is quite simple and i have a fair number of copies of it lying around i need something not so hardware intensive relatively speaking. it's just an ol' clunker of a computer and i'd like the o.s. to be as simplistic as possible.
mwinter
Total posts: 4328
10/6/2006 9:05 PM
i've got two DVD's with every version of windows from 1.0 through xpsp2 along with every version of interweb explorer and windows media player.. but alas no good way to get it to you. maybe i'll pop one of them in and grab an ISO of the applicable OS for you.
mike
Total posts: 2298
10/7/2006 4:00 AM
what's wrong with ubuntu server edition? I mean I'm a computard and even I could set up ubuntu.
DavidTheAsian
Total posts: 51
10/7/2006 8:51 PM
i mean all i really need is an os that will a) not blow up and b) work with some not-so-up-to-date hardware.
reliability is a plus
ubuntu is easy enough to grab off the internets so if you guys think it'll work i might give it a go.
mwinter
Total posts: 4328
10/8/2006 1:49 AM
absolutely. in fact all the big "windows" file servers (the ones that use the SMB protocol) are actually run under linux. There's plenty of reading material on how to do just about anything under ubuntu so i'd say go for it.