Re: minimum requirements
- From: "Bill Swan" <bill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 22:21:16 +0100
Sherry
I have been a bit busy and only just recently come back and intrigued by all
the comments.
I and am sure on behalf of all of us here did not wish to imply you were
dishonest and sincerley apologise if it was read that way. I did not mean to
have it read that way but you can understand now you read my post one way
and mis interpreted my comments aswell as others who posted.
Rereading my post again I see it as quite positive but then that is the
problem with different cultures / nationalities. Sorry, making assumptions
again as you mention we do not know you or where you are from
Don't be a stranger so we can get to know you. (hopefully you do revisit)
Your additional comments explain things more fully and your additional
knowledge could help others here...
--
www.smallbizserver.net (2000 and 2003)
microsoft.public.backoffice.smallbiz2000 (2000 NG)
microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs (2003 NG)
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&group=microsoft.public.backoffice.smallbiz2000
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&group=microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs
http://www.sbslinks.com/
http://www.sbsmigration.com
"Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]" <sbradcpa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote in message news:ebhE3DBOFHA.604@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> SBS without Exchange isn't a full SBS.
>
> That's just Windows 2003 with Sharepoint. SBS is different. Wizard
> driven. It's not raids and redundancies..it's a business in a box. One
> that will keep you informed and challenged. Sherry, take the time to
> understand it. We've started off on the wrong foot and let's start over.
>
>
>
> Sherry wrote:
>> Thanks for the info. But an S2003 chat guy found it having a min of 128,
>> but that does not include Exchange. I also appreciate you asking me what
>> I was going to do with it and not quickly assuming I am trying to sneak
>> something by someone.
>> I am trying to get back up to speed on 2003 as I haven't messed w/it
>> for about four months. You can read the others if you dare & see how
>> they treated my question and credibility. I swore this was a site for
>> help & support, but I was wrong. The position I am applying runs across
>> the MS server platforms, Unix, etc.. I just wanted to be a little more
>> familiar with some of the area's I haven't utilized at other jobs on
>> 2003. To answer your question, it was just testing and refamiliarizing
>> myself. No real use as I don't need it that way. I just didn't want to
>> spend $130 for the eval version I legally bought!
>> It's only loaded on a laptop so I can't do very much, I was just hoping
>> it would load, so I wouldn't have to build one from scratch. I wanted to
>> familiarize myself w/ IIS, security, web services, .net, xml. You are
>> exactly correct on the 1gig on the server. On my last job, we ran at
>> least a gig+, Raids, full redundancy on all servers. We had 17 various
>> servers racked & running live. Desktop & laptops in 5 different cities,
>> wireless @ corp office, web apps & wans, firewalls & portals running in
>> between cities. I could go on and on, but I am already pegged as a sneak
>> & a liar on this newsgroup. If they really knew me they would be
>> embarrassed as I am for them doing it. I wish you well Kevin Weilbacher
>> and thanks for trying to help me. "Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sherry,
>>>
>>>According to Microsoft's requirements on their web site, 256mb *is*
>>>minimum. See:
>>>http://www.microsoft.com/Windowsserver2003/sbs/evaluation/sysreqs/default.mspx
>>>
>>>What are you planning to use this server for? Testing purposes? or Actual
>>>business production? How many users? Are you planning to run Exchange?
>>>SQL? other services?
>>>
>>>Truthfully, in a production environment in today's world, I doubt if I
>>>would install an SBS server with less than 1GB of memory for production
>>>use.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]
>>>"The days pass by so quickly now, the nights are seldom long"
>>>
>>>
>>>"Sherry" <sherry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>news:441CEFA0-B948-4749-BD23-39F6C03D975A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>>>Does anyone have a way I can bypass the 256 meg requirements on the
>>>>Small
>>>>Business Server 2003 setup?
>>>>It's minimum is 128, but during the setup it halts & requires 256 meg of
>>>>ram?
>>>>Any ideas, I really don't want to spend $130 for ram?
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>thanks so much
>>>>sherry
>>>
>>>
>>>
.
- References:
- minimum requirements
- From: Sherry
- Re: minimum requirements
- From: Kevin Weilbacher [SBS-MVP]
- Re: minimum requirements
- From: Sherry
- Re: minimum requirements
- From: Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]
- minimum requirements
- Prev by Date: Re: Accessing OWA remotely
- Next by Date: Re: Giant Images in IE
- Previous by thread: Re: minimum requirements
- Next by thread: Faster synchronization for POP
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
