"Barry Dorrans" <usenet@idunno.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:3f71799e$0$10771$afc38c87@auth.uk.news.easynet.net...
> J Houston <james.houston@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> > I checked the BTB website, and it says it's not compatible with
> > Windows Server 2000 (no mention on Win Server 2003, but I'm guessing
> > the same applies?). Does this mean it won't work at all on our
> > Server?
>
> Oh dear, frog/USB modem? If so, bad choice.

Wasn't my choice (isn't my company ;)  )



> > Or, as I suspect,
> > will I be able to install it and share the connection regardless?
>
> Win2003 is even more fussy about certain types of drivers than Win2k
> was. If it's a "proper" ethernet router, you're golden, just plug the
> external facing NIC in and away you go, sharing as you did for dialup.

Sorry. Should have said I'm largely a network & broadand newbie.
We have a Netgear 24 Port Switch to which all our PC's and
Server is connected, and as I said, I've been using
Win Server 2003's Internet Connection Sharing up till now on the 56k.
What if I try to install this ADSL modem on Server 2003 and it wont work?
Would buying a ADSL modem that does work with Server 2003
help?




> > When she came back, the spiel
> > she gave me sounded suspiciously like a script to me, i.e.
> > upgrade-to-our-far-more-expensive
> > package-please-cos-BT-can-tell-how-many-PC's-you're-using-and-what
> > operating-system-they-are etc...?
>
> In *theory* it's possible to find out how many machines are behind a
> NATing machine/router, there have been whitepapers written, but I really
> wouldn't worry.

Thought that. Cheers.



James H