Re: Server too Expensive...
From: Jeff Cochran (jeff.nospam_at_zina.com)
Date: 07/17/04
- Next message: Jeff Cochran: "Re: Server too Expensive..."
- Previous message: Steven L Umbach: "Re: Ports"
- In reply to: Herb Martin: "Re: Server too Expensive..."
- Next in thread: Jeff Cochran: "Re: Server too Expensive..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:35:24 GMT
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 12:30:15 -0500, "Herb Martin"
<news@LearnQuick.com> wrote:
>"Bob Sisson" <Bob@Sisson Family.com> wrote in message
>news:40f94756$0$28137$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>> I appreciate all the responses. I would prefer a "Server" rather than a
>> workstation to perform my gateway (ICS) duties, but the cost is too high.
>>
>> With 10+ stations on the intranet, I have been told I would need 10 CALs
>and
>> that really drives up the cost. I was HOPING that since all I was doing
>was
>> running ICS and file sharing I wouldn't need CALS but have been told
>> elsewise. I can get server (2000, XP, 2003) cheep, but the CALs are
>another
>> story.
>
>Check with someone who knows but I don't believe that
>Routing-NAT require ANY CALs.
The file sharing would though.
Jeff
>> I have seen a DHCP server program that will run on a workstation, and I
>will
>> look into that to see if I can turn off the ICS mini-server, or got with a
>> router.
>
>Not easily, perhaps though some hack.
>
>> Microsoft seems to have left a "hole" in their product line for the SOHO
>> offices and large technology families. Even SBS is expensive when you
>need
>> lots of CALS. SBS might make sense if I wanted Exchange, but we don't use
>> it.
>
>Yes.
- Next message: Jeff Cochran: "Re: Server too Expensive..."
- Previous message: Steven L Umbach: "Re: Ports"
- In reply to: Herb Martin: "Re: Server too Expensive..."
- Next in thread: Jeff Cochran: "Re: Server too Expensive..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
