Gregory K. Ruiz-Ade wrote:
On Dec 17, 2005, at 7:22 PM, DJA wrote:
In common terms, it is called a Common Internet File System (CIFS).
CIFS is an enhanced version of Microsoft's open, cross- platform
Server Message Block (SMB) protocol, the native file- sharing
protocol in the Windows 95, Windows NT®, and OS/2 operating systems
and the standard way that millions of PC users share files across
corporate intranets. CIFS is also widely available on Unix, VMS, and
other platforms.
That doesn't quite fully address my question regarding XP being able
to authenticate to an NT domain. See below.
While you may not be able to set up XP Home so as to require a domain
login to use the computer, you should be able to configure XP Home
(like '95 and '98 before) to be in the workgroup named for the domain.
This way, you should be able to still access shares (and have to
provide a username and password each time), if I understand Home's
restrictions correctly. You can still access file shares, but you
can't participate in full-fledged domain authentication.
The best way to find out is to test, though.
Gregory
It sounds like what you are saying is what my Windows admin friend
suggested: make box a peer server, with all other authenticating to it.
Which will work, providing the Mac is not a problem.
Right now the problem they are having is that the fifth computer cannot
log onto the network until another gets off. Of course, this doesn't
apply to the Mac - in can always get on, but its presence does count
against the XP Home boxes. As I understand it, this really applies more
to how many boxes are sharing, not strictly how many boxes on on the
network. That's why it was suggested to me that only the 2000 Server
share. That's a cheap and easy solution, providing the Mac can write to
W2K's NTFS without corrupting anything. Obviously, setting up a Samba
box is a more practical (albeit, more expensive) solution.
AFAIK, Windows 9x had no such sharing limitations. 9x could also attach
to an NT domain server. But XP Home is really a crippled XP Pro, in that
it has the P2P limitation above, plus it's not allowed to attach to an
NT domain in a client-server context. It looks like the latter
limitation is controlled by the server, with Samba not caring who's
running what. Which makes Samba a better Windows server than Windows.
--
Best Regards,
~DJA.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
