If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
XP Home Edition Secure Shared Folders
Is there anyway that a non Local user on a particular computer, i.e. a
user set up on another computer, can be set up with permissions to a restricted shared folder? This is a small network with 4 computers on a workgroup - NO Domain. Main\User Laptop1\User1 Laptop2\User2 Laptop3\User3 User 1 needs to have full access of a shared folder on the 'Main' computer. User 2 needs to have NO access to the shared folder on the 'Main' computer. User 3 needs to have read only access of a shared folder on the 'Main' computer. Any solutions without installing XP Pro, or getting a server/domain controller? Thanks. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
XP Home Edition Secure Shared Folders
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
XP Home Edition Secure Shared Folders
You can set a password on the guest account with the commandline:
net user guest {password} This then becomes the sharing password. You cannot however give some users readonly access, others full. A user either has the password, or they don't. Lowest cost solution to provide a 'real' LAN for 10 users is a Windows 2000/XP Pro server and MyLogon. This will require users to auth at startup, and allow conrtol over permisisons. Disadvantage is that if you exceed ten users you then need to switch to a full server-product, so it pays to think whether this is likely. Or, you could go for the full Server 2003/2008 product. Or Linux, if you can get your head around it g I use Linux (Debian) servers here, and they are extremely stable, and cost me $0.00 in licensing, though they are definitely not as easy to manage. Opinions may vary, but I've never been a fan of SBS. Key issues are monumental bloat -Even a multiprocessor machine struggles to provide an adequate responsiveness on its desktop- and excessive interdependence of services, which makes problem-solving a difficult process. " wrote: Is there anyway that a non Local user on a particular computer, i.e. a user set up on another computer, can be set up with permissions to a restricted shared folder? This is a small network with 4 computers on a workgroup - NO Domain. Main\User Laptop1\User1 Laptop2\User2 Laptop3\User3 User 1 needs to have full access of a shared folder on the 'Main' computer. User 2 needs to have NO access to the shared folder on the 'Main' computer. User 3 needs to have read only access of a shared folder on the 'Main' computer. Any solutions without installing XP Pro, or getting a server/domain controller? Thanks. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
XP Home Edition Secure Shared Folders
Anteaus wrote:
snip Opinions may vary, but I've never been a fan of SBS. Key issues are monumental bloat -Even a multiprocessor machine struggles to provide an adequate responsiveness on its desktop- and excessive interdependence of services, which makes problem-solving a difficult process. Hmm. I've been supporting SBS for many years now and I haven't found that to be true at all. SBS 4.5 & 2000 were icky & I avoided the suite then, but 2003 has been great for my clients. Now, if you're running Premium with SQL and ISA (the latter is gone from SBS2008) you do need more firepower, but just for Exchange & AD & Sharepoint, a single processor & 2GB RAM has been plenty for most small companies. In a perfect world yes, I'd prefer to break out these roles to separate servers, but that isn't an option for a small shop and SBS is seriously good bang for the buck. Yes, the interdependencies can make troubleshooting more difficult, but most SBS problems are self-inflicted. Trust me - check the posts in the SBS groups. ;-) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
XP Home Edition Secure Shared Folders
Admittedly most of my negative experiences were with NT/2000 versions of SBS,
which were as you say, icky. I looked to other platforms around then. I have inherited a single SBS2003 site from another support-op which went out of business, and it works acceptably although remote admin is definitely on the slow side compared to the standard 2003 servers, even on a 3GHz dual Xeon. Since this site has all of three Windows users, it really is a ludicrously overcomplex setup. A simpler server and ISP-hosted email would do the job nicely, and without the onsite rocket-scientist needed to maintain SBS. I have had this box go down for a few hours due to hardware problems, and that was an embarrassing situation. There is so much dependency placed on the single server for just about anything users might do (even Web-access is lost with the server down) that a failure paralyses the shop. Plus, the server is so tightly knitted-into the LAN infrastructure that even having a spare server on-hand won't help you much, you would have to do too much reconfiguring to make the replacement work. "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote: Hmm. I've been supporting SBS for many years now and I haven't found that to be true at all. SBS 4.5 & 2000 were icky & I avoided the suite then, but 2003 has been great for my clients. Now, if you're running Premium with SQL and ISA (the latter is gone from SBS2008) you do need more firepower, but just for Exchange & AD & Sharepoint, a single processor & 2GB RAM has been plenty for most small companies. In a perfect world yes, I'd prefer to break out these roles to separate servers, but that isn't an option for a small shop and SBS is seriously good bang for the buck. Yes, the interdependencies can make troubleshooting more difficult, but most SBS problems are self-inflicted. Trust me - check the posts in the SBS groups. ;-) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
XP Home Edition Secure Shared Folders
Anteaus wrote:
Admittedly most of my negative experiences were with NT/2000 versions of SBS, which were as you say, icky. I looked to other platforms around then. Me too. I have inherited a single SBS2003 site from another support-op which went out of business, and it works acceptably although remote admin is definitely on the slow side compared to the standard 2003 servers, even on a 3GHz dual Xeon. Then it may not be configured properly! I support both SBS and non-SBS environments - I don't have many problems with either. Since this site has all of three Windows users, it really is a ludicrously overcomplex setup. A simpler server and ISP-hosted email would do the job nicely, and without the onsite rocket-scientist needed to maintain SBS. Well, that depends on the needs of the company. I have set up AD & local Exchange & Sharepoint for *two* person offices and they've made very heavy use of the servers. There's no one shoe for all feet. I have had this box go down for a few hours due to hardware problems, and that was an embarrassing situation. There is so much dependency placed on the single server for just about anything users might do (even Web-access is lost with the server down) If you use Premium with ISA, yes (but I don't do that). Otherwise you could if you needed have everyone use another DNS server. This is no different from AD in general. that a failure paralyses the shop. Plus, the server is so tightly knitted-into the LAN infrastructure that even having a spare server on-hand won't help you much, you would have to do too much reconfiguring to make the replacement work. Servers do go down sometimes. It shouldn't be frequent, but there is hardware failure. To preclude it, I just buy the best hardware I can, with redundancy wherever possible, so it is not a regular occurrence. I would never be embarrassed that a server went down - anyone expecting (or promising) 100% uptime is smoking & not sharing. ;-) "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote: Hmm. I've been supporting SBS for many years now and I haven't found that to be true at all. SBS 4.5 & 2000 were icky & I avoided the suite then, but 2003 has been great for my clients. Now, if you're running Premium with SQL and ISA (the latter is gone from SBS2008) you do need more firepower, but just for Exchange & AD & Sharepoint, a single processor & 2GB RAM has been plenty for most small companies. In a perfect world yes, I'd prefer to break out these roles to separate servers, but that isn't an option for a small shop and SBS is seriously good bang for the buck. Yes, the interdependencies can make troubleshooting more difficult, but most SBS problems are self-inflicted. Trust me - check the posts in the SBS groups. ;-) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|