Windows XP? Linux Fedora?
Jul 22, 2004 at 6:20 AM Thread Starter Post #1 of 16

zcx

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 1, 2003
Posts
155
Likes
1
Just want to create a server for a small business which only has about 7 computers.
But I have to make a choice between Win XP and Fedora?

Anyone know which is better for me.

Here are some information should be consider before choose them:
1: the price of them
2: Win XP has Office XP , What about Fedora? Any software can be used on Fedora system for doing the same thing as Office does?
3: advantage and disadvantage for both of them?
4: Which is more easier to learn and use?


Please let me know if you can give any help for choosing or any info about making choice!

Thanks a lot.
 
Jul 22, 2004 at 6:26 AM Post #2 of 16

k.ODOMA

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
May 11, 2004
Posts
384
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally Posted by zcx
Just want to create a server for a small business which only has about 7 computers.
But I have to make a choice between Win XP and Fedora?

Anyone know which is better for me.

Here are some information should be consider before choose them:
1: the price of them
2: Win XP has Office XP , What about Fedora? Any software can be used on Fedora system for doing the same thing as Office does?
3: advantage and disadvantage for both of them?
4: Which is more easier to learn and use?


Please let me know if you can give any help for choosing or any info about making choice!

Thanks a lot.




Well Fedora has OpenOffice (or you can download it) which is free and has most but not all of the functionality of MS Office, or you can buy StarOffice (don't know the price but you can look it up on Google).

Do you have any experience running Linux?
 
Jul 22, 2004 at 7:27 AM Post #3 of 16

zcx

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 1, 2003
Posts
155
Likes
1
Thanks for your info.
I have never use Linux before, That why I feel confuse about using Linux.
But, the most important are the questions I ask, Because that is a business, and my friend ask me to give some advice about these two systems, therefor he can save some money on creating the small server systems.

Thanks.
 
Jul 22, 2004 at 8:22 AM Post #4 of 16

NPoet

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Posts
221
Likes
0
XP is definantly has less of a learning curve, but if you really sit down and look at Fedora for a little bit, it will click and you will get it

oh and price and stability wise, linux is definantly the way to go, and it has many free programs compatible with all word editing formats. Staroffice is an incredible office tool, but being a programmer myself, I am just at odds with paying for linux software.... it's just not supposed to be...

damn corporate america...
 
Jul 22, 2004 at 8:23 AM Post #5 of 16

Pierre Lambion

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 10, 2001
Posts
203
Likes
10
I'm a bit confused here. You said you want to setup a server. If so, you should not bother about office/productivity suite, right?

If you only need the server functionality, I would love to recommend linux. However, as you have no previous experience of it, I have to advice staying away. It will take time and error to get used to it and get the needed functionality. You probably cannot afford this time and risk in a business environment.

P.

EDIT: by the way, what kind of server do you need: filesystem (samba), print, web, ... ?
 
Jul 22, 2004 at 11:45 AM Post #7 of 16

Velda

New Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 18, 2004
Posts
37
Likes
0
If you must manage it after its set up i wouldnt go with anything you dont already know. Linux takes some time to learn if you want to do it right, even if some of these n00b friendly distros do alot for you, you still are not learning the OS, just how to use their little helper programs, which might not be there some day. Its just a real bad idea to install linux in a professional environment when you yourself are not a master at it yet.

Ive used Open Office for quite a while now, and the only problems i ever have are easily rectified with a minute or two of layout corrections. It has surprisingly high microsoft compatibility, its just that word doesnt force people to do things the right way, so you will come across a document thats a little disfigured every once and a while.

Build your self a little linux box on the side and start learning it now so next time you can use it. Linux makes a much better print server than Win.

Oh, and on that note, Win2k would probably be a better bet for a print server than XP Pro
 
Jul 22, 2004 at 3:39 PM Post #8 of 16

wallijonn

Throwin' tantra.
Joined
Oct 15, 2002
Posts
7,242
Likes
14
I have to ask why a company with 7 workstations need a dedicated print server? If you have a Jet Direct card you connect it to a router, give it an address or set to DHCP (it's easier if you give dedicated addresses to printers, routers, gateways and servers), give permissions to certain users (to be able to bump priority, reschedule jobs, pause, delete, restart, change paper, resume). By the same token a local printer can be made into a server printer because each workstation is a server and a client. The problem is that the user machine has to always be powered up. It's much easier just going with a Jet Direct card.
 
Jul 22, 2004 at 4:07 PM Post #9 of 16

Welly Wu

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
May 16, 2003
Posts
5,165
Likes
12
Quote:

Originally Posted by wallijonn
I have to ask why a company with 7 workstations need a dedicated print server? If you have a Jet Direct card you connect it to a router, give it an address or set to DHCP (it's easier if you give dedicated addresses to printers, routers, gateways and servers), give permissions to certain users (to be able to bump priority, reschedule jobs, pause, delete, restart, change paper, reume). By the same token a local printer can be made into a server printer because each workstation is a server and a client. The problem is that the user machine has to always be powered up. It's much easier just going with a Jet Direct card.


Seriously! I think that the original poster is asking the wrong questions given his or her needs and goals. Going to Linux in an enterprise scenario, especially with little or no working knowledge of Linux, is going to be a massive IT headache. It's doing things the very hard way and it may effect the bottom line.

It's much faster and easier to set one computer on 24/7 with little other functions such as Internet, e-mail, etc. and connect a printer to it. Leave both machines on 24/7 and set the permissions for accessing the printer on that single machine. It's much faster and easier. This is the best recommendation.
 
Jul 22, 2004 at 4:35 PM Post #10 of 16

Skipinder

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Posts
291
Likes
10
Location
USA
Quote:

Originally Posted by wallijonn
I have to ask why a company with 7 workstations need a dedicated print server? If you have a Jet Direct card you connect it to a router, give it an address or set to DHCP (it's easier if you give dedicated addresses to printers, routers, gateways and servers), give permissions to certain users (to be able to bump priority, reschedule jobs, pause, delete, restart, change paper, reume). By the same token a local printer can be made into a server printer because each workstation is a server and a client. The problem is that the user machine has to always be powered up. It's much easier just going with a Jet Direct card.


That is probably the best solution for you. However, if you must have a server I say use Fedora (the most reliable), or if you must use windows get win 2K of 2K3 (2K would be cheaper), XP is not designed to be a server OS. IMO the very best OS is FreeBSD (UNIX), however I would not recommend this to you if you do not have a while to learn it.
 
Jul 22, 2004 at 5:37 PM Post #11 of 16

NPoet

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Posts
221
Likes
0
Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipinder
IMO the very best OS is FreeBSD (UNIX)


mmm... once you work with BSD... you just have to love it
biggrin.gif
 
Jul 22, 2004 at 6:10 PM Post #13 of 16

Zanth

SHAman who knew of Head-Fi ten years prior to its existence
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Posts
9,570
Likes
41
FreeBSD is definitely the way to go when running a gateway or a router/firewall; however, as a server I would go with Debian before a BSD flavour. That said, I am using WinXP right now with the last beta of SP2 before it hits the market and from a user's experience...WOW! Way to go MS! I NEVER say that ever. I feel Bill is the anti-christ or something like that
very_evil_smiley.gif


Anyhow, its locked down with a very robust firewall that is much easier to deal with from a newbie's pov than linux is at the moment.

that said, nothing will beat a streamlined *nix/bsd box and nothing beats Debian from a holistic point of view, but if one needs Office, there is no other way to go than...OS X!

Dual cpu G5's baby! All the love of BSD security with a user interace to die for and of course...it can serve up OO or MS Office. It is perfect...
 
Jul 23, 2004 at 5:01 AM Post #14 of 16

pedxing

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Posts
1,479
Likes
12
Go for a BSD or Linux distribution if you want an adventure with a UNIX-like OS.

Mac OS X is a good OS, but I never used it in a server environment.

I do not like to use Windows XP as a server - especially for web serving. I would rather use W2K or Windows 2003. Also, your server security will be at the mercy of Microsoft.
 
Jul 23, 2004 at 9:45 PM Post #15 of 16

Skipinder

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Posts
291
Likes
10
Location
USA
Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth
but if one needs Office, there is no other way to go than...OS X!
Dual cpu G5's baby! All the love of BSD security with a user interace to die for and of course...it can serve up OO or MS Office. It is perfect...



I agree that OS X is one of the best (if not the best) OS around, but apples cost a fortune (espically dual G5s). and I think zcx wants the cheapest thing around.

Therefore, the best thing to go with is Linux of Unix because almost all of them are free (they also kick windows' ass in every way possible or at least IMO)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top