>
>If you are using a lower end machine as the file server, then Linux might be able to handle the load better. Otherwise, I agree with Al that the performance is about the same. I think NetWare is probably still the king for raw file server performance.
>
>Up front configuration may take longer than an MS machine, mostly because of unfamiliarity with the system. However, the tools to help do this are significantly better than they used to be and are evolving every day. In the past, I found that once set up, the Linux server required less maintenance than a Windows machine, at least as a file server. One problem I had was remembering how to do things on it since I wouldn't interact with the machine for months at a time.
>
>Anyway, if you are wanting to give Linux a test drive, things are a lot easier than they were a couple of years ago.

I think I'm leaning towards trying a Win2000 PC with a good, fast HD to see if that improves preformance. Thanks for your input.