Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Are you being serious or are you just trolling? I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or not. Who in there right mind would want an Windows XP SMB server for a Mac centric network?

I honestly don't see the problem. You can get Windows boxes dirt cheap and unlike what the zealots will tell you, Windows XP *is* stable enough to act as a file server. Heck, I ran a file/audio/home-automation/caller-ID-announcement server in my parents' house for years under Windows 98, and even that only needed rebooting once every few months. They had occasional neighborhood blackouts more often than that, so the problem was even self-correcting!

Unless there are specific things you really want, like the aforementioned desire to share HFS+ volumes and use Time Machine, then any machine capable of serving files would work fine. If you "feel dirty using Windows" or knowing that your files came off a non-Mac machine, then you need to get your head examined, because in the end a computer's just a computer!
 
Feeling dirty using Windows aside, it's hard not to argue
that Linux is WAY more efficient on any given hardware
than XP (or OSX for that matter).
 
it's hard not to argue
that Linux is WAY more efficient on any given hardware
than XP (or OSX for that matter).

This is true. A dirt-cheap PC machine with a free Linux distro would be the cheapest and probably most reliable way to go. However, even with my reasonable Unix knowledge, it may still be a touch beyond what I'd be comfortable setting up, which is probably the only real reason you'd want to use Windows for a server OS.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.