Re: Dear Mike...
From: Gary Karasik (gkarasik2fea.net)
Date: 03/10/04
- Next message: Dana Becker [MSFT]: "RE: OWA on SBS2K3 help"
- Previous message: Dirk-Thomas Brown: "Re: Intrusion In ISA"
- In reply to: David Elders: "Re: Dear Mike..."
- Next in thread: Andy Nestor: "Re: Dear Mike..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 16:00:28 -0800
Point taken. I'm not arguing about this, really. When there's a better AV
solution than my current Trend and it won't run on NT4, I'll tell my clients
they must upgrade. But right now they have the best AV they can get whatever
OS they're running. Right now they have the best hardware firewall they can
afford regardless of the OS they're running. Right now they've got the best
backup solution available regardless of the OS they're running. Right now
they've got an email system that meets all their needs. They have everything
they need, and they haven't exhausted all the possibilities. I just don't
see, as a practical matter, that anything's going to happen to the OS that
will be affected by the dropping of NT support. The most-likely problem will
be Exchange, and MS are not dropping Exchange support.
> Guarantee that if the support is gone and Sods Law
> applies that a 'bad thing' does happen that the customer
> wishes they'd upgraded before *that* point in time...
Frankly, I've never found the MS support to be particularly useful. Most
every solution comes from these NGs or web sources.
GaryK
"David Elders" <david_elders@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23eMlU6iBEHA.2628@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi Gary,
>
> We too service SME business - that's in fact our core customer-base, so
I'm
> not talking through ignorance here.
>
> Obviously, with *any* upgrade there is a financial implication and thereby
> by definition a cost-justification needs to show a real business benefit.
> Problem is that many real-world business benefits are of the 'what if'
> variety. For example, we ran for about 2 years with only desktop AV
> protection. We had no problems - thereby you *could* have defined this as
a
> 'working' system. We opted to upgrade to server/email/desktop protection.
> We invested in a 'better looking at it than for it' scenario. Same rule of
> thumb could easily be applied to matters such as MS support - if you
haven't
> needed it fine/great/all the better - its what will be available to you IF
> you do need it that is the cost justification for customers still on 4.5.
> Guarantee that if the support is gone and Sods Law applies that a 'bad
> thing' does happen that the customer wishes they'd upgraded before *that*
> point in time...
>
> I know also that its all very well talking about such matters in principle
> and that many many customers will simply opt for the cheapest possible
> option in every conceivable scenario. Fair enough - if we've advised them
of
> the most professional, cover-their-behind course of action and they choose
> not to, we can charge them top dollar for fixing everything if it all does
> hit the fan. But that's their choice. We've still recommended the option
> where they *would* have support and that's before you even get into being
> able to do things for the customer that will address their line of
business
> either better or at all that the previous version may not have allowed or
at
> least have been harder to achieve or achieved less fully. If cost is a
> particular issue, how is it silly to upgrade the Server unless all the
> clients are upgraded? I'd rather have a more stable Server to underpin my
> business on than upgrade the less essential workstations beforehand...
>
> By the same token that its a harder sell to sell based on 'what if', that
> also doesn't and shouldn't mean that the simplest sell 'its worked so far,
> so don't spend more' is the best sell...
>
> Like I said, just my tuppenceworth. Also, not in any way a dig at you but
I
> just simply don't agree with the 'its never happened, so the customer
won't
> go for it' being a valid reason not to propose an improvement which the
> upgrade from 4.5 definitely is. We're not talking about upgrading for the
> sake of it but because it does provider a broader, more supported feature
> set.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> "Gary Karasik" <gkarasik2fea.net> wrote in message
> news:%23y2wdagBEHA.1792@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > For those of us who serve small-business clients, the decision is often
> less
> > technical than financial. I have to have the permission of a business
> owner
> > to spend upwards of ten thousand of his/her dollars to upgrade. The
> upgrade
> > generally requires a new server, new OS, new CALs, many (expensive) new
> > apps, and many consultant hours. If workstations aren't already at W2K
or
> > better, it would be silly to upgrade the server OS without also
upgrading
> > the workstation OSes to at least W2K (and in some cases the workstation
> > hardware and apps) and this would also involve consultant hours for
> > retraining staff (plus the cost of decreased productivity plus added
> > consultant hours). Taken altogether, this is a huge expense.
> >
> > It's not a decision I can make on my own. It's not enough that it's
> > gee-whiz-better technology. I have to convice the business owner that
it's
> a
> > good investment.
> >
> > So what benefits justify the upgrade? Increased productivity? That would
> be
> > a tough argument to make. Increased security? Get a Netgear firewall for
> > $150. Microsoft is "ending support?" How much support does the existing,
> > working system need? Active Directory? No significant benefit to an
> existing
> > system that's working well.
> >
> > Certainly when the server reaches the end of it's active life, or when
> some
> > critical app (like the antivirus) stops being supported, or when some
> > business-critical app offers a must-have feature), then one would
upgrade
> > the OS; but otherwise: Why? No one's ever been able to suggest an
> advantage
> > worth the cost.
> >
> > GaryK
> >
> > "David Elders" <david_elders@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:uZLhqsfBEHA.1792@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > Hi Gary,
> > >
> > > As a happy 4.5 admin who recently [Sep 2003] upgraded to 2K, I'd have
to
> > > disagree.
> > >
> > > The reason we upgraded was that 4.5's support days are rapidly coming
to
> > an
> > > end - the point Susan makes about the 4.5 newsgroup is a valid one. If
> it
> > > weren't for the fact we *always* like to use everyone else out there
in
> > the
> > > big bad world our 'beta-testers' and that ISA/SQL are still on the 2K
> > > versions within SBS2K3 we'd have went 2K3 straight off - as it is
we'll
> > > probably do this towards the latter portion of this year.
> > >
> > > Its not *just* about the software that's working now - its also about
> > there
> > > being a 'current' thread of support when things don't go right. I also
> had
> > > the 'pain' with reboots that are now unnecessary when we amended
simple
> > > areas of config [like re-running the ICW for example...?] that
upgrading
> > has
> > > resolved. It may also just be personal preference but I *far* prefer
the
> > > management of ISA compared to Proxy Server.
> > >
> > > I'm one of the greatest proponents of the 'if it isn't broken' adage
but
> > > there's certainly a difference between upgrading to improve something
> > [which
> > > 4.5 > 2K/2K3 undoubtedly does] and upgrading just for the sake of it.
> > >
> > > Just my tuppenceworth... :-)
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Gary Karasik" <gkarasik2fea.net> wrote in message
> > > news:eSjIzcfBEHA.496@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > Susan,
> > > >
> > > > The important point--one Mike fails to make--is that there's nothing
> in
> > > > SBS2000 or SBS2003 that makes it worth upgrading an existing SBS4.5
> > system
> > > > that's working well.
> > > >
> > > > GaryK
> > > >
> > > > "Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]"
> <sbradcpa@pacbell.net>
> > > > wrote in message news:O1E4GpYBEHA.2360@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > > > http://www.winnetmag.com/Article/ArticleID/41673/41673.html
> > > > >
> > > > > "In fact, because NT is simpler, you could even argue-especially
if
> > you
> > > > > already own NT-that it might be a better fit for small business
than
> > > > > Windows 2003 is."
> > > > >
> > > > > There are times that your articles are right on and there are
times
> > that
> > > I
> > > > feel you don't get it. This is one of those times.
> > > > >
> > > > > As a small business server admin since SBS 4.0 days, I suffered
> > through
> > > > NT4. Trust me, it's not simpler. Not at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > I hated selecting dip switches to get dual modems to load.
> > > > > I hated finding drivers for it.
> > > > > I hated when I had to patch it.
> > > > > I hated when I had to reboot it. I literally would cross my
fingers
> > and
> > > > scrunch up my eyes when I rebooted my SBS 4.5 box that's how much I
> > hated
> > > > NT4.
> > > > > I prayed that I wouldn't BSOD that sucker.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know of any of my small business beancounter buddies that
> turn
> > > off
> > > > XP's system restore as you say we all do out here.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know of many small business IT guys that would recommend
> that
> > > > their client buy an NT box over a Windows 2000 or 2k3 box. Not with
> plug
> > > and
> > > > play [and yes, it is plug and play if you go with quality hardware]
> And
> > > > especially these days, the fact that it's days of getting patches
for
> it
> > > are
> > > > numbered... dude... wake up and start patching and you tell me how
> easy
> > it
> > > > is to maintain that NT box when the case in point the
.public.smallbiz
> > > > newsgroup is decreasing in posts and I can't remember proxy server
> stuff
> > > if
> > > > my life dependent on it. The "been there's and done that's" on that
> NT
> > > box
> > > > are drying up. Don't wait for me to be the last one to turn off the
> > > lights
> > > > in that newsgroup.
> > > > >
> > > > > No sorry dude, you may think NT is easy, but not in my book.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.winnetmag.com/Article/ArticleID/41406/41406.html
> > > > > We also think you are all wet on this article too. But we're
biased
> > out
> > > > here ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > >
> > > > > Susan Bradley
> > > > > Microsoft MVP for SBS
> > > > >
> > > > > P.S. Office XP/2k3 are way better than office 2k as it has the
> footer
> > > > feature in Excel to allow for a "mapped drive location footer" that
> > > > automatically updates when you resave the file. Excel 2k3 has nicer
> > > > equation auditing and just a whole bunch of little features that I
> miss
> > > when
> > > > using a Office 2k.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > http://www.sbslinks.com/really.htm
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
- Next message: Dana Becker [MSFT]: "RE: OWA on SBS2K3 help"
- Previous message: Dirk-Thomas Brown: "Re: Intrusion In ISA"
- In reply to: David Elders: "Re: Dear Mike..."
- Next in thread: Andy Nestor: "Re: Dear Mike..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
