What client licenses anyway? [network neighborhood] [client licenses]

admin / September 2nd, 2010/ Posted in Software / No Comments »

Q: I am looking to set up a very simple Windows fileserver. Can not go Linux.

People will just access to files and folders on it via the . The catch is that I need more than 10 concurrent users access to files needs. So that throws Win 2k or XP Pro window.

So I looked at Windows Server OSs. It seems there are multiple packages License Client runs 5 to 25 more. If I do not need the server to a domain host, I still do it for years for more than 10 licenses? Is the client license only the number of computers simultaneously can log into the domain hosted on the server? Or is there no difference?

I should just go to a folder on the server and share 20 or more people are able to view the files simultaneously via the network access neighborhood.

Please help. Thanks


Best Answer: There are 2 options: "Per user or per device" and "Per server"

Per user/device covers two kinds of licenses – client access licences (CALs) and device licenses. CALs are assigned to users while device licences are assigned to computing devices (which may be used by 2 or more users). This form of licensing is not enumerated by the licensing service in W2K3 and any licensing configured in this manner is carried out in good faith. 1 user = 1 license

In "Per server license" mode, concurrent connections to the server are monitored and enumerated, regardless of user/device/OS. If you've set a per server configuration of, say, 10 connections, W2K3 will always drop the 11th concurrent connection and will not differentiate between clients.


Re:Hmm, in that case, we have an Windows 2000 Pro license for each user…
So then could I just get the Windows Server with 5 CAL's and then allow the additional 15 users to connect via using their own Windows 2000 Pro license?

Argh, this is pretty confusing


Re:Argh, this is pretty confusing

Welcome to MS Licensing.


Re:Hmm, in that case, we have an Windows 2000 Pro license for each user…
So then could I just get the Windows Server with 5 CAL's and then allow the additional 15 users to connect via using their own Windows 2000 Pro license?

Argh, this is pretty confusing


Re:I don't know about SBS specifically, but last I saw with both NT and Win2K Server you told the OS how many CALs you had and it just took your word for it. Also I believe each Win2K Pro counts as a client license, but I'm not sure since I try to avoid MS Licensing as much as possible.

Re:Sorry, still not clear.

So if I buy Windows 2003 Small Business Server w/ 5 CAL, let's say, then will 10 users in the same workgroup be able to download files from this server simultaneously?


Re:Because you're using the workstation version of the OSes, Windows 2000 Server will work, Pro won't, just like Win2K3 will work but XP Pro won't.

Re:How about functionally?

Because with Windows 2000 or XP, it allows a maximum of 10 connections. The 11th guy can't get connected…


Re:Not legally, that's the point of the CALs, otherwise what good would they be?

Re:But if I bought a 5 pack license, would more than 5 people be able to simultaneously access files on the server?

Re:Technically you need them to be legal, but last I saw you just told Windows how many you had and it took your word for it.

Re:Look at Small Business Server, it is cheaper

Re:Can't go Linux due to bureaucratic tape I can't wade through here.

I want minimal hassle from the powers that be.

Yeah, I'm really curious to know if you need all those CAL's for a workgoup. There is a considerable price difference obviously.


Re:The CAL's allow how many can connect to server shares. If you have more clients than licenses, someone will have trouble connecting to and/or mapping drives to the server. Whether or not the same applies in a workgroup I am not sure.

Your best bet is to just pay for the CAL's you will need.

Why can't you go Linux? Linux with Samba setup is a great alternative for those who don't have the fundage for MS licenses. It's reasonably easy to setup and its cost is next to nothing (cost of server only). IMHO


Related posts


Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

Name required

Mail (will not be published) required

Website