Talk:Windows domain

Page name

"Windows Server domain" may not be the ideal name for this page. "Domain" by itself is ambiguous, but "Windows Server domain" isn't a widely used term. If someone can come up with something better please rename it. Rhobite 04:01, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

• Perhaps "Windows domain"? I agree, I have never seen the term "Windows Server domain" used to describe this, perhaps apart from official Microsoft stuff. --82.18.247.220 21:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion a page should be called what it really should be called, and if the author of it calls it Windows Server domain, then so be it. Redirections were invented for a reason ;-)

Domains are always Active Directory?

The article mentions that the domain uses Active Directory, but prior to Windows 2000 Server, there was a different domain system that did not use Active Directory. [Chapter 11 from Introducing Windows 2000 Server] says the following (emphasis added):

Windows NT domains worked best in small-sized and medium-sized environments. Administrators of large environments were forced to partition their network into multiple domains interconnected with trusts. Microsoft Windows 2000 Server introduces Active Directory to replace domain functionality.

In essence, saying that domains use Active Directory ignores the history that caused AD to be created. --TehBuzzy 17:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC) This is not the case, as computer could very well participate in a Windows Server Domain but belong to a different type of authentication service it would not "have" to be included in the active directiry. Hoovie 03:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Workgroups

I think there should be some mention of workgroups or at least a See Also link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workgroup as if a computer were to participate in a windows domain, it would be excluded from participating in a workgroup. Hoovie 03:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

WHAT IS THE FUNTION OF WINDOWS DOMAIN

Centralised authentication, mainly. AND STOP SHOUTING.81.23.50.232 (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Active Directory

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed merge of the article. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a separate section. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was Don't merge, but refactor --soum ^talk 14:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a substantial overlap between these two articles; in fact, I can't see any structural reason why they're apart to start with. As it stands, this article is poorly structured and the distinction between it and the Active Directory article is confusing. This article doesn't fit into standard terminology, and doesn't fit into any of the existing boxes or navigation bars within microsoft/windows-related articles on wikipedia. I propose that these two articles be merged in order to remedy these issues. njan 19:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont think they should be merged (we can refactor the domain article, and link to the AD article in some places). This is mainly because pre-Win2K, domains existed without AD. If for nothing, for at least historical interest, they should be kept separate.

And AD is not just domains, so when the articles are separate, we can go deep into both subjects without overloading any article. But, yeah, clarification and separation of features and functionality of AD-domains and non-AD-domains should be provided. --soum ^talk 08:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I can understand most of your reasons for suggesting a merge, but I have to agree that these articles represent separate topical interests. I do believe that the Windows Server domain article requires clean-up and most of it's contents could probably be appropriately moved to the Active Directory article. However, at this point in time merging them entirely does not represent best judgment. I believe in the future it maybe entirely possible, but because numerous amounts of NT 4 based networks are still in use today, for now they should remain separate.--Jc monk 21:48, 16 June 2007 (EST)

It should not be merged with the other article as I was looking for Active Directory and found exactly what I needed. Rukaribe 06:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it should not be merged, both articles are different

Alright.. it seems like the general consensus is that this should be a Windows NT Domain article, so I'll start restructuring it into this, using standard terminology, and linking it better into the Active Directory article, and give the article less confusing name in the next few days, unless anyone has anything more to say. :) njan 08:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a separate section. No further edits should be made to this section.

♦¶♥ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.18.60.241 (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Domain networks are not strictly client-server

Under the "workgroups" section it is said that workgroups are a peer-to-peer model rather than a client-server model. I'd like to point out that even when a domain is present, the only dedicated server is the domain controller. Other machines may serve as both client and server so it doesn't follow the strict client-server model. NegativeIQ (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)