Hi

> I am currently using Win2k right now. I myself cannot really see a

difference between the workstation or server version of win2k.

The most important point is, that a server can act as domain controller. A
workstation cannot. For deamons (aka services), servers should be faster
(which I cannot detect here). Another point is that file shares are limited
to 10 client connections on workstation oses. And you cannot connect to
another mashine using different creditials, as a server can.
(Secondary connections always use the same creditials as the primary
connection, no matter what you specify.)

However, for use as database server only, a workstation should do fine. Care
for regularay backup.

One point to remember: Most people shy at servers. But workstations are
well-known. If you give them a workstation, that is running as database
server, make absolutely clear, that they should not log on and work locally
on that system.
Better, don't give them any password for it.

> The one observation I do have is that if the clients do not need to be on

a win2k domain, or really do not even need the features of a server,
workstation would be best and cheaper.

dito.

> A server is more expensive and will require licenses for the 4 seats.

No, you need windows CALs for those seats only, that use windows services,
such as file server, print server or active directory. If you only use
firebird on it, CALs are not required. Anyway, at least 5 CALs are included.

Regards,
Steffen