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.

"stoobloo@googlemail.com" 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.
>
 >> Stay informed about: 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.
 >> Stay informed about: 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.
>
>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: 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.
 >> Stay informed about: XP Home Edition Secure Shared Folders