Active Directory VS. Shared network folder

[audiopimp]

Hi, I'd like all the workstations on my network to store they\re files on the windows 2000 server box. I'm using 2x40Gb mirroring scsi drives in case of 1 HD failure.
I could pretty much set everything up manually with profiles and group policies ect... My question is with Active directory. From my understanding of it, it sounds like this should be set up. Is this the case? What's the difference between using a shared network folder and allow all access and setting up an active directory. My concern is that the Active directory is too much and I dont need it. Am I right? Or should I catch up on my reading

Thanks

 

[InfrArch]

If you 'd like to benefit from central profiles and Group Policies in case of W2k you must to set up a DC.
Shared Folders - is just a "storage type/filosophy" , but AD - is a management/configuration tool .
Choosing between SF and AD depends on your needs.
>>>I'd like all the workstations on my network to store they\re files on the windows 2000 server box
in this case , SF solution possible will be sufficient.


Victor K
psas@canada.com
MCSE+I;MCSA;MCSE(w2k);CNE(5.1);MCNE(6);CIWSP;CIWSA.