>>>I am writing a small multi-user app (VFP) - starting with 2 workstations - then moving to 3 or 4 (max). I was planning on running this app on a peer-to-peer network - at least until I thumbed through some threads here on the UT.
>>>
>>>Some of these threads go back a while. Does anyone have any recent
>>>experience with peer-to-peer (Win98 2nd Edition or NT Workstation 4.0?).
>>>
>>>My major concern here is data corruption. I plan to battery backup
>>>all of the peers and am willing to put NT (W2K?) on each if necessary.
>>>Each client will run its own copy of the app, write its work files
>>>locally ... The "server" peer will be a new one (PIII-500 or better)
>>>and will only share the data files. What I'd like to avoid is
>>>(at least initially) maintaining a dedicated server box for 2 clients.
>>>I don't ever see this app expanding beyond 3-4 clients (this is
>>>my wife's business and we don't want it to get any bigger than that).
>>>
>>>NT Workstation would obviously be more stable and I presume would provide some protection against killing the network if, for instance, VFP or Word locks up. Is its peer networking also more robust than Win98?
>>>
>>>Appreciate any insight. I'd like to proceed with this project, but want to pin down some costs first.
>>
>>The cost difference in NT Server and workstation shouldn't be that great for NT Server and 5 licenses. It's the only way to go.
>
>I disagree. From a technology standpoint, NTWS is the same as NTServer. Unless you need to run an app that is Server-specific (Exchange Server, etc.) there's no reason to install NTServer on a small LAN.
>
>Running NTWS on all 3 or 4 LAN PCs will give you a more robust and stable network than running NTServer on one and W9x on the others, at less cost.

I agree with you. Workstation is essentially the same kernal as Server. It is very stable and I think you can be confident that there will rarely (if ever) be problems with data corruption. Data corruption can occur when the client machine that is running Windows 9x barfs. And Windows 9x does barf a lot more than NT WS.

I would also like to address the point about running IIS: This is a question to ask (will you possibly some day in the near future (2-3 years) be hosting a Web site?), but certainly not something that we should assume is even a remote possibility. We are talking about a business that will be running 2 machines. This is a small business. Businesses of this size probably won't have a pipeline into the Internet and probably won't have the resources to maintain a Web site properly. Maybe a somewhat static Web page hosted by an ISP, but a Web server?

Also, spending a few thousand dollars on a dedicated server might not sound like a lot of money. Well, to some businesses it is a lot of money. I think the benefits and disadvantages should be discussed. I think we should leave the budgeting to the business owner.

How about this: Go with the two machines running NT WS. You will want to run NT (or 2000) over 9x anyways even if you do go to a dedicated server. If you have problems, go ahead and look at a dedicated server. If you don't have problems, you've saved some money.

Joe