I am trying to add a 6th PC to my 5 computer peer-to-peer office network all
running XP Home. We use two programs that require constant access to a shared
folder mapped with network drives to the main "server." I found that with XP
Home, only 5 computers can access the same network resource (in my case a
shared folder) at the same time. The Microsoft support documentation confirms
this limitation and says XP Pro can support 10 such concurrent users.

I figure that installing XP Pro on the main computer will solve this problem
and give up to 10 machines access to the same folder.

Am I right? Also, has anyone had problems with installing Pro on top of Home
SP2 as opposed to a clean install? (I know it's usually better to start
clean, but I'm looking at 4 or 5 hours to reinstall and configure everything).

Thanks for any expert help. JR

"JR" <JR@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>I am trying to add a 6th PC to my 5 computer peer-to-peer office network all
>running XP Home. We use two programs that require constant access to a shared
>folder mapped with network drives to the main "server." I found that with XP
>Home, only 5 computers can access the same network resource (in my case a
>shared folder) at the same time. The Microsoft support documentation confirms
>this limitation and says XP Pro can support 10 such concurrent users.
>
>I figure that installing XP Pro on the main computer will solve this problem
>and give up to 10 machines access to the same folder.
>
>Am I right? Also, has anyone had problems with installing Pro on top of Home
>SP2 as opposed to a clean install? (I know it's usually better to start
>clean, but I'm looking at 4 or 5 hours to reinstall and configure everything).
>
>Thanks for any expert help. JR

If you upgrade the machine that hosts the shared folder to XP Pro then
you will be able to have up to 10 machines accessing that folder. The
machines doing the access can be running XP Home or pretty much any
other version of Windows (2000, Me, 98SE, 98) and it should all work.

Upgrades from XP Home to XP Pro are pretty much the simplest of any of
the possible Windows version upgrades as so many of the files are
identical between the two versions. All that is really being done is
to add some additional utilities and functionality. That being said,
Murphy's Law still applies and so you do need to be prepared to do a
clean install just in case things do go "bloooeey".

Good luck

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 01:14:50 -0800, Ron Martell
<ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote:

>"JR" <JR@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>>I am trying to add a 6th PC to my 5 computer peer-to-peer office network all
>>running XP Home. We use two programs that require constant access to a shared
>>folder mapped with network drives to the main "server." I found that with XP
>>Home, only 5 computers can access the same network resource (in my case a
>>shared folder) at the same time. The Microsoft support documentation confirms
>>this limitation and says XP Pro can support 10 such concurrent users.
>>
snipped

>
>If you upgrade the machine that hosts the shared folder to XP Pro then
>you will be able to have up to 10 machines accessing that folder. The
>machines doing the access can be running XP Home or pretty much any
>other version of Windows (2000, Me, 98SE, 98) and it should all work.

>
>Good luck
>
>Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada

Excuse me for jumping in here - but you might be able to answer a
question for me..

Is one way round this 10 user (XP Pro) limit to use LAN storage? Can
the version of Windows used control access to a LAN storage device the
way it controls access to shares?

Saul

"Saul" <saul@aol.com> wrote in message
news:hfjrn152tgfd95rbqh8ageerjq61mhnd47@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 01:14:50 -0800, Ron Martell
> <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"JR" <JR@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I am trying to add a 6th PC to my 5 computer peer-to-peer office network
>>>all
>>>running XP Home. We use two programs that require constant access to a
>>>shared
>>>folder mapped with network drives to the main "server." I found that with
>>>XP
>>>Home, only 5 computers can access the same network resource (in my case a
>>>shared folder) at the same time. The Microsoft support documentation
>>>confirms
>>>this limitation and says XP Pro can support 10 such concurrent users.
>>>
> snipped
>
>>
>>If you upgrade the machine that hosts the shared folder to XP Pro then
>>you will be able to have up to 10 machines accessing that folder. The
>>machines doing the access can be running XP Home or pretty much any
>>other version of Windows (2000, Me, 98SE, 98) and it should all work.
>
>>
>>Good luck
>>
>>Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
>
> Excuse me for jumping in here - but you might be able to answer a
> question for me..
>
> Is one way round this 10 user (XP Pro) limit to use LAN storage? Can
> the version of Windows used control access to a LAN storage device the
> way it controls access to shares?
>

Is this a stand alone network storage device or are you talking about a
share on a XP pro pc? A stand alone device that connects directly to the LAN
will have it's own OS. Any limits on connections will be imposed by that OS
and have nothing to do with XP. Most of them use imbedded Linux and have no
limitations. If you are talking about a share on a XP Pro pc then there is
no way around the limit.

Kerry

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 08:27:08 -0800, "Kerry Brown"
<kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:

>>
>> Excuse me for jumping in here - but you might be able to answer a
>> question for me..
>>
>> Is one way round this 10 user (XP Pro) limit to use LAN storage? Can
>> the version of Windows used control access to a LAN storage device the
>> way it controls access to shares?
>>
>
>Is this a stand alone network storage device or are you talking about a
>share on a XP pro pc? A stand alone device that connects directly to the LAN
>will have it's own OS. Any limits on connections will be imposed by that OS
>and have nothing to do with XP. Most of them use imbedded Linux and have no
>limitations. If you are talking about a share on a XP Pro pc then there is
>no way around the limit.
>
>Kerry
>

Hi Kerry

This is a stand alone device being considered. I had hoped you would
support my theory that there would be no limitations!

I don't want to put in 2003 server just to share files to a handful of
PCs! I much prefer to plug a box into the router.

Many thanks

Saul

"Saul" <saul@aol.com> wrote in message
news:rg2sn1t29gu3av14620e34a8616gq63otd@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 08:27:08 -0800, "Kerry Brown"
> <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Excuse me for jumping in here - but you might be able to answer a
>>> question for me..
>>>
>>> Is one way round this 10 user (XP Pro) limit to use LAN storage? Can
>>> the version of Windows used control access to a LAN storage device the
>>> way it controls access to shares?
>>>
>>
>>Is this a stand alone network storage device or are you talking about a
>>share on a XP pro pc? A stand alone device that connects directly to the
>>LAN
>>will have it's own OS. Any limits on connections will be imposed by that
>>OS
>>and have nothing to do with XP. Most of them use imbedded Linux and have
>>no
>>limitations. If you are talking about a share on a XP Pro pc then there is
>>no way around the limit.
>>
>>Kerry
>>
>
> Hi Kerry
>
> This is a stand alone device being considered. I had hoped you would
> support my theory that there would be no limitations!
>
> I don't want to put in 2003 server just to share files to a handful of
> PCs! I much prefer to plug a box into the router.
>
> Many thanks
>

Your best bet would be to contact the manufacturer of the device and ask
them.

Kerry

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 09:22:35 -0800, "Kerry Brown"
<kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:


>>
>> Hi Kerry
>>
>> This is a stand alone device being considered. I had hoped you would
>> support my theory that there would be no limitations!
>>
>> I don't want to put in 2003 server just to share files to a handful of
>> PCs! I much prefer to plug a box into the router.
>>
>> Many thanks
>>
>
>Your best bet would be to contact the manufacturer of the device and ask
>them.
>
>Kerry
>

Kerry,

We are going to borrow one of these devices and plug it into a network
which we will enlarge to twelve PCs..... I think it will work.

Thanks again

Saul

In <hfjrn152tgfd95rbqh8ageerjq61mhnd47@4ax.com>, Saul <saul@aol.com> writes:
>On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 01:14:50 -0800, Ron Martell
><ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"JR" <JR@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I am trying to add a 6th PC to my 5 computer peer-to-peer office network all
>>>running XP Home. We use two programs that require constant access to a shared
>>>folder mapped with network drives to the main "server." I found that with XP
>>>Home, only 5 computers can access the same network resource (in my case a
>>>shared folder) at the same time. The Microsoft support documentation confirms
>>>this limitation and says XP Pro can support 10 such concurrent users.
>>>
>snipped
>
>>
>>If you upgrade the machine that hosts the shared folder to XP Pro then
>>you will be able to have up to 10 machines accessing that folder. The
>>machines doing the access can be running XP Home or pretty much any
>>other version of Windows (2000, Me, 98SE, 98) and it should all work.
>
>>
>>Good luck
>>
>>Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
>
>Excuse me for jumping in here - but you might be able to answer a
>question for me..
>
>Is one way round this 10 user (XP Pro) limit to use LAN storage? Can
>the version of Windows used control access to a LAN storage device the
>way it controls access to shares?
>
>Saul
>

I have not used these but I suggest it would need to run Samba or some other flavour of Netbios in order to be seen by Windows Explorer.

If it runs Unix NFS then your windows boxes will need a proprietary (paid for) NFS client.

Either way you will avoid the Microsoft limit of 10 shares.