[geeks] Can I netboot...

[der Mouse]

>> The core of your problem is that the networking stack in Windows 95
>> just isn't up to the task you're asking of it.  Win9x just wasn't a
>> server platform, even XP Home would do a better job than 95.
> Given that IP is a peer-to-peer networking protocol, "server OS"
> versus "client OS" doesn't enter into it.

(a) There is some non-IP stuff involved, notably reverse ARP.  (ARP and
reverse ARP are not part of IP; they are part of the way IP is
encapsulated on Ethernet.  IPv4, at least; IPv6 addresses the needs ARP
and rARP address differently.)

(b) That side, your conclusion does not necessarily follow; it is
entirely possible for an OS to be better suited to certain types of
tasks (such as "server" or "client"), even if it implements protocols
which by their fundamental design are symmetric - as a simple example,
an OS which supported at most 8 TCP connections would not be tolerable
in a server application but would do for many small client uses.
(Whether this charge is fair when leveled against Windows 95 I am not
competent to comment on; I'm just pointing out that `IP is symmetric,
so "server OS versus "client OS" doesn't matter' is invalid logic.)

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B