How many users...?

How many users can simultaneously connect to a Windows 98 box??

Thanks,
Tom

Tom wrote:
> How many users can simultaneously connect to a Windows 98 box??
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
>
For at least some definition of "simultaneously" ... one. ;-)

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

Huh?? Windows 2000/XP allow up to 10 users to connect to a single box
concurrently. Is it the same for 98?




"CJT" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Tom wrote:
>> How many users can simultaneously connect to a Windows 98 box??
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tom
> For at least some definition of "simultaneously" ... one. ;-)
>
> --
> The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
> minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 18:06:32 -0400, "Tom" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Huh?? Windows 2000/XP allow up to 10 users to connect to a single box
>concurrently. Is it the same for 98?

Yes 10 for win9x
down to 5 for xp home
and back up to 10 for xp pro

Upgrade to xp home and reduce your scope. lol.
Typical ms


Jim.

Tom wrote:
> Huh?? Windows 2000/XP allow up to 10 users to connect to a single box
> concurrently. Is it the same for 98?

98 as a server? Bad idea, IMHO.
>
>
>
>
> "CJT" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>>Tom wrote:
>>
>>>How many users can simultaneously connect to a Windows 98 box??
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Tom
>>
>>For at least some definition of "simultaneously" ... one. ;-)
>>
>>--
>>The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
>>minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
>
>
>


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

REALLY bad idea. For something simple like a print server, fine. As a file
server, it's a disaster looking for a place to happen. If you need a server
then you need a server. Period.

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] (E-Mail Removed)
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"CJT" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Tom wrote:
>> Huh?? Windows 2000/XP allow up to 10 users to connect to a single box
>> concurrently. Is it the same for 98?
>
> 98 as a server? Bad idea, IMHO.

Does single box mean per shared folder ?

"Tom" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Huh?? Windows 2000/XP allow up to 10 users to connect to a single box
> concurrently. Is it the same for 98?
>
>
>
>
> "CJT" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Tom wrote:
> >> How many users can simultaneously connect to a Windows 98 box??
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Tom
> > For at least some definition of "simultaneously" ... one. ;-)
> >
> > --
> > The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
> > minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
>
>

Fully agree.

I'm working with a client and am trying to put in a 2003 server but needed
some info on 98. I've never used it a network share resource and never
would.

Thanks everyone.

"CJT" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Tom wrote:
>> Huh?? Windows 2000/XP allow up to 10 users to connect to a single box
>> concurrently. Is it the same for 98?
>
> 98 as a server? Bad idea, IMHO.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "CJT" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>>Tom wrote:
>>>
>>>>How many users can simultaneously connect to a Windows 98 box??
>>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>Tom
>>>
>>>For at least some definition of "simultaneously" ... one. ;-)
>>>
>>>--
>>>The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
>>>minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
> minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.