Re: Questions about SBS
From: Henry Craven (IUnknown_at_Dot.Nyet)
Date: 06/19/04
- Next message: Rick: "Repost to MS - permissions problem as Administrator"
- Previous message: Merv Porter [SBS-MVP]: "Re: WAN connected client"
- In reply to: Tim Crosby: "Questions about SBS"
- Next in thread: Tim Crosby: "Re: Questions about SBS"
- Reply: Tim Crosby: "Re: Questions about SBS"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 11:25:09 +1000
Tim, this very much depends upon your "numbers", but I'd say you're best
off to Migrate to Full Windows Products now if you can afford it. 60 By
EOY and 75 probably Soon after probably only gives you an SBS 2003 life
of 9-12 Months. You can put off the Transition, but at the cost of a
second install/migration ( time / Money IT personnel ). It's not all
that hard, but you'll probably be looking at splitting functionality to
Individual Servers at the same time, so the time, effort and cost is no
insubstantial.
There is a misunderstanding of the SBS licensing that you appear to have
fallen into in as much as that there -is no- concurrent connection
licensing.
Let me explain.
CALs are allocated to an individual User or Device (in SBS2003). These
are -not- dynamically switchable, so just because User 75 is not logged
onto SBS you cannot say that User 76 is using that CAL instead ( same
goes for Devices ).
Each user/device which is "Entitled" to log-on -must- have a CAL
allocated ( legally at least ). Unfortunately MS have currently totally
confused the issue by not implementing this physically in a License
Registry as part of SBS but are relying upon "ethical" use by the Owner
of the Licenses, and their keeping their own "Paper" record of who/what
is allocated which license and which type.
If you has say shifts of workers sharing machines ( as in a Call
Centre ) you could assign "Device" CALs to those machines and have more
users than licenses.
If you have employees who use multiple devices and for instance log on
at work, and after hours at home or while travelling or other devices
such as PDAs, smartphones etc... you'd assign them "User" CALs.
In your case, because the Off-site User/employees are "additional" to
you in-office employees they each require a CAL, be it a "User" CAL for
them personally, or a "Device" CAL for the workstation/device they are
logging in from.
I hope that makes some sense, and helps you crunch the numbers.
P.S. Remember as well that Terminal Server in Application Mode is not
supported in SBS 2003. You'll need to buy a Separate Server, Windows
Server License, Terminal Server Software and TS CALs if your off-site
users are using TS.
--
Henry Craven {SBS-MVP}
Melbourne Australia
"Tim Crosby" <tcrosby@fhtinc.com> wrote in message
news:64967d21.0406180625.781bdd28@posting.google.com...
> Question for you SBS experts out there: We are about ready to upgrade
> from Windows 2000 Server to 2003. Does it make any sense to consider
> switching from a Windows 2000 Server domain over to a SBS 2003 domain?
> We are a fast growing company (about 50 employees now, expect to be
> over 60 by the end of the year). I know that SBS is limited to 75
> connections which I assume means we could have more users than that as
> long as they aren't connected at the same time. A lot of our users
> work outside the office and don't access the domain so that alone may
> not be a problem for us. Am I correct that you can switch over to
> Server 2003 fairly easily when you hit the 75 user limit?
>
> The only reason I would consider SBS instead of Windows 2003 is cost.
> But I see that the SBS 2003 server has to be the first server in the
> forest. Does that mean I would have to rebuild my Windows 2000 domain
> if we switch to SBS?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Tim
- Next message: Rick: "Repost to MS - permissions problem as Administrator"
- Previous message: Merv Porter [SBS-MVP]: "Re: WAN connected client"
- In reply to: Tim Crosby: "Questions about SBS"
- Next in thread: Tim Crosby: "Re: Questions about SBS"
- Reply: Tim Crosby: "Re: Questions about SBS"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
