All Windows NT OSs have 10 concurrent connection limits, so you will be capped to 10 regardless of version (NT4, Win2K Pro, WinXP Pro). I would not suggest that you use it as a server because hitting that cap can get really annoying (I had to do it in an emergency, and it's very easy to run up 10 connections).

Especially since the "connection" does not end for quite some time even if the file copy is finished.
 
ALso you mention that your clients are using 98? Are you running a peer-to-peer network? If so your clients are just running around using anonymous access. In a 9x environment using 2k as your file server and with no PDC to authenticate your users would have to "log on" using a username/password that you would have to set for all 20 users.
 
It would be far easier to pick up 1 copy of NT4/2K server, although it hurts me deeply to say this you can then make your file server a PDC/file server (Bleh!) I recommend 2k. You could then even start using AD and install the AD client on your 9x desktops....or go the cheap route and pick up NT4.

You will not save any $$ buy using Pro.
Maybe upfront cost, but after a few month and many extra hours spent you will realize that Server was a cheaper/easier way to go.
Not to mention 10 user connection limit.
 
Just think off all time you can save by automating software rollouts, upgrades patches....

I am running a peer to peer network.
 
If I get the 2K server, do you think that it will meet my needs as far as the individual security issues go?
 
We have an 'old' copy of NT4 Server with 4 licenses that was used on our accounting server before we brought in an entirely new system. Can I use this or would it be better to get 2K Server? Or XP for that matter?
 
I don't want to have to replace the OS again in the next year or so because I have read that NT4 support is being shelved in the next year.
 
Thanks.....

NT4 still is a great OS, but remember that you can't do what you want (legaly) with only 4 licenses. you will have to purchase extra CALs to use your machines. Just look at all the places running anchient Novell 3 and 4 servers. Just because something is old does not mean it is useless.
 
If you have to invest in purchasing additional Client Access Licenses, then perhaps you should look into 2000 server. Get all your purchases out of the way and you will be set for some time.

"increase security at a minimal cost"
 
can anybody say *NIX?

Why does everyone assume Unix and Linux are so much more secure than windows? Yes MS has had an abundant amount of security flaws recently, however when I first started out in the IT industry, the words Hacker and Network Security immediately brought images of Unix machines being comprimised.
 
Lets face it, right now there are more systems running windows than any other OS. For a hacker, it makes sence to go after the largest install base, especially in the age of ddos and mass mail attacks. If Unix or Linux were on all the desktops we would be saying the same thing about them, as that would be where all the applications hackers and script kiddies would be targeting. How many problems were found and ultimately patched in the sendmail daemon alone?
 
Long story short, all vendors have security flaws.... even the 'unbreakable oracle' was comprimised. MS just got the most bad press from it. Please excuse the rant, but I hate it when people bash microsoft security and miss all the other security flaws out there. Now if you will excuse me, I must write my new password down on a post it note and attach it to the bottom of my keyboard.
 
-RY

Agreed! If Linux were the desktop standard distributed by the mfg's and OEMs, we would still be in the boat we're in now. Also, as popularity for Linux grows, it will be noticed and more widely available to be hacked <even more than it is today>.
 
Well...there was my two cents worth