If you ignore other factors like domains, sql or web servers and the like, the decision to use Pro or Server largely comes down to how many machines need to access it.

Windows uses a client access license system. All versions of Windows support 5 concurrent connections. The big difference is that Server allows you to purchase additional client licenses but this is impossible with Pro.

Technically Pro is also not optimised to be a server, but with 5 or less connections it doesn't really matter too much anyway (unless you're doing something really heavy like video rendering).

So in short 0-5 clients = Pro, >5 Clients = Server (ignoring other circumstances).

As for NAS, I don't have much experience of it but I have heard people express similar concerns regarding access speed. Sata drives are capable of 150MB/sec which would need a network capable of 1200kbps to make maximum use of. Ie you'd need a fibre channel network to get the best speeds but a gigabit ethernet network would be pretty good. The standard 100mbps network would be a serious bottle neck. Of course, this limit will also apply to accessing files on SAS too so it probably won't affect what you're doing.

thanks for the responses. Checking back to the old documents we did actually get Windows 2000 Server as the OS on our machine. It really does just sit there serving the audio to the other workstations. Which I believe may be best for it.

I suppose windows 2000 server was cutting edge in feb 2002 when we got the kit.

Matt Wade
Need Training or Consultancy for Broadcast Radio Software Products?
Get in touch
w: https://mattwadeonline.co.uk
e: training@mattwadeonline.co.uk

In that case there's really no harm in staying with 2000 Server. The only thing to watch is when MS extended support expires as at that point you stop getting critical security updates. That's not until 2010 though so you have some breathing space yet!

[quote:6514045228=\"Richard Payne\"]If you ignore other factors like domains, sql or web servers and the like, the decision to use Pro or Server largely comes down to how many machines need to access it.

Windows uses a client access license system. All versions of Windows support 5 concurrent connections. The big difference is that Server allows you to purchase additional client licenses but this is impossible with Pro.
[/quote]

In actual fact Windows 2000 Professional allows 10 concurrent connections. See:
http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=kb;EN-US;122920

I am unsure if this is also the case on Win XP Pro.

--
Myriad user since 1998, now custodian of dozens of Myriad,Autotrack, Powerlog and Scoop boxes of many different flavours.
http://www.philedmonds.com

True, but we've always found performance to a little hit and miss above 5.

Well spotted :-)

Lets say that was a test!

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314882/ shows the details for XP - 10 for Pro, 5 for home.

To anyone reading this and thinking \"ooh cheap way round having to buy a server\" please bear in mind that Windows 2000 and XP Pro are optimised to run applications not network access. Even a screen saver can seriously impact the performance on the computer :-)

Server OS's on the other hand are designed to self-tune to meet conditions - and by default they lean towards to network first, local applications second.

Thats why a \"Peer to Peer\" is never as nippy as a server based system :-)

------------
Peter Jarrett, Technical Director
Broadcast Radio Ltd.

Bill Bailey: No win, no fee, no basis in reality. Just a room above a minicab office in Acton and a steady stream of greedy simpletons whose delusion is only matched by their clumsiness

To throw something else into the mix... at Phoenix HR in Burton on Trent we've been using a Linux server running Samba as our Myriad audio and data server with no negative side effects for over 12 months now.

I'm guessing that this would be equivilent to some of the external disks with network connections (as discussed somewhere else on the forums already, I think), as many of these run an on-board variation of Linux.