Re: So why SBS?

Thats just the point Susan, the SHARING is what I really need, calendars,
contacts and files.

Thats why SP is so attractive, and despite your assertion I have 5 SP sites
up and running, my different clients have there own portals (theres 140 to
go!). Quite clever XML when you export a spread*** to desktop and the
changes go back to the SP site!!

Back to the point, SP doesnt SHARE! it "checks in/out" this is mindless
rubbish when you consider that xls files in XP can be "shared" thus allowing
multiple appends at the same time on a simple file share!! (u know none of
that locked for editing)

SP doesnt even intergrate with Public Folders, nor properly link to
Outlook - viewing only. So wheres my Group Calendar thats one and the same
on sharepoint? DUH!

My point being that I try all this stuff and I meet barriers almost
immediatly. Its like someone know's what I want to do and then laughed and
put a block in.

Thinking of sharing again, SP requires add-ons to do that simple Folder View
task properly.

I totally disagree that other applications require countless updates and bug
fixes, registry hacks, add-ons you blinking name it. Most decent development
house will produce a combined UPGRADE once a year. Just try installing
Server2003 and see how long you gotta stare at updates/fixes/patches. Utter
madness, if they built it properly in the first place rather than hashing
old NT stuff it would not need so much rehash.

I notice no-ones commented on the floppy issue! Come on what do you mean I
have to start the car first time with a cranking handle. Thats eactly what
it is.

Remote web workplace, come on! Tell me whats wow when Ive been remote
desktopping for years. I was disapointed by it. A bit of webmail and
companyweb, which I had anyway. Though it does work and does do what is sais
on the tin.

In conclusion Im moving towards pure sharepoint with the addition of a
shared drive for file sharing..... Anyone tried migrating, or saving an
exsiting site as a template (nice and easy)...... GOTCHA its too big to be
saved/moved!

Whoops, cant remote activesync without exchange, are you getting to
understand the nonsense yet?

I will struggle on, Im not known for quitting and Ive got SQL on my list
yet! Now if only I can figure out what an SP datafile is?


"Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]" <sbradcpa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote in message news:%23w3xlUFRGHA.4976@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
There are some people that just don't have an open mind for change. For
seeing something new.

I think you just need to share files.

Doesn't sound like you need to email anyone, or share calendars, or route
info around an office, and that's fine.

Yes you can have a catchall email box.

The problem with this newsgroup is that we are a bunch of BTDT. 85% of
the typical email you get is spam. So if you set up a catchall, just be
aware that you need to set up IMF v2 or some other spam solution is all.

Public folders will be in the next version.. and besides the next version
is 64 bit and you'll probably stay on this one for a long time.

As far as a consultant installing 1,000 of patches... I haven't met a
piece of software yet that doesn't get updated.

If SBS isn't for you...that's fine.
But if you haven't seen what Remote web workplace can do, if you haven't
set up the monitoring piece, if you haven't played around with Sharepoint
and web parts....if you don't see the power of group policy to deploy
software, ensure all machines have a third party a/v installed... and just
all the goodness that a domain brings.

Read the document on backup and restore. The sad part of most of us is
that we haven't even tried or practiced a backup/restore and we freak out
over a 'single" SBS box when we haven't even tried to restore it from a
harddrive.

Go here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/techinfo/productdoc/default.mspx

Read this
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=46575

and if you have no idea what I'm talking about when I say RWW... keep
reading and looking at that box .. and truly... understand that maybe you
do need to get someone in to help jump start your knowledge.. or better
yet.. why not see if there is a SBS group in your area. And while VPN
doesn't impact RWW... RRAS does so security is an issue here.

SBS shares... printer shares?
Rogue PC.. for shared items it would have to be joined to the domain.
Can you be more specific on that? You didn't give enough details.. Start
a new thread on that one if need be.

Jonathan Davey wrote:
Theres some interesting point being raised, even though I know so little!

Clearly its big old topic, but if I try to keep within the points made:

Mailenable is an example of a freeware or pay for extra's, mail server.
It is infinitly simpler to configure than Exchange once installed. The
snap in is intuative and logical. Exchange seems to mix its words and
titles, the global/generic use of POP and SMTP for just about every
Exchange function is dumb, MailEnable understands post office protocol
and simple mail transfer protocol (i didnt look it up) in a "meaningfull"
way. Exchange just creates a jumble of folders all sounding and looking
the same.

Agreed, Exchange does provide remote-web-mail and public folders, the
latter of which I hear is to be retired in leu of SP; So that just leaves
remote webmail!? Which I WANT!

I also want Catchall, I asked in another thead about this and was told:
a) People who dont know your address, its their stupid fault. b) Recieve
lots of spam c) NDR is generated in any event.

A true story this week in fact, a UK construction company has just lost
$10m court case by default, because they failed to serve an
"acknowledgment of service" on the court. Why? Because the other firms
solicetors sent their grounds by email to the email address on the
companys website. The court held that it was reasonable for an email
address displayed by a company to be a valid means of comunication.

SPAM?? Exchange does a good job on spam, so does MailEnable and so does
WindowsXP. There might be less spam about if Win2k did not have open
relay by default, but thats another story ;)

NDRs well I am led to believe that most companies now block NDRs.

So for the risk of litigation or loosing a contract, the occasional spam
that gets through, I have to wonder whether theres an argument here at
all.

Again in another thread the first thing I wanted to do with SBS was link
public folders to SP. Alas it cant be done. As was intimated earlier,
Outlook and SP integration is not comparible with Public Folders (view
only seems to be the order of the day).

Ive posted another thread about the SBS shares appearing on a rogue PC as
its a rather serious matter and I have no idea how or why its happening,
ive kept nearly all the install setting default.

Users.... AD, yes I agree enterprise wize theres a real advantage, but I
cant see it below 50 users. The standard profiles in Server are quite
effective assuming you add new users to the correct account in the first
place and your note running more than 1 file server.

The KILLER is backup and restore issues. Ive come to believe that to
judge an MS product, visit the sales webpage and simply invert everything
it sais! Honestly just read about SBS "security, ease of migration"
profound statements that are in a word LIES.

No Im not using Tape drives, why would I. My company is in construction,
that means vast amounts of drawings and photo's (I reach my 2gb Exch.
limit in 3 months!!) Simply a hard drive with a routine backup to another
PC in another building. All I have to do is rename the backup PC and wham
everyones got the files again. In fact best way is to add the file
location as a "homepage" to a folder in Outlook!! No Exchange Required.
Makes you wonder who's fooling who........

I think Leythos unwittingly sums it up for me in his last paragraph :)

"Leythos" <void@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4rdQf.11321$g91.1930@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In article <e79jOaCRGHA.2536@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, me@xxxxxxxxxxx
says...

Now that Ive implemented SBS, I cant actually see what benefits it
brings
over and above SharePoint for SMB

1) Exchange is weird and unfamilar, theres plenty of significantly
better
freeware options available!

I've been in the Linux world for a while, never found a "Free" product
with all the functions/features of Exchange or that provides as much as
exchange. I've seen many claim they replace exchange, but nothing has
the same level of features.


1b) Sharepoint provides "public" folders in much the same way as
Exchange,
but significantly simpler and usable.

Sharepoint is nice, and it has it's place, you need to learn the
difference between sp folders and exchange folders.


2) Domain, err still dont see the point. For example as a test Ive
added a
dummy PC to the network, it does not have any user/device
authentication
within SBS but its network places are populated with server/shares!!
AND I
can add and delete any files from UserFolders. Get real!!

This is what makes a Admin's or Managers life simple. If you don't have
a group of users, or if you're not testing as a domain_user, then you
won't see the difference and why it's so dang nice to have a domain.


3) Backup, migrate, swing, nightmare with blob files. NO NO NO!
Simple file share, simple backup, 5mins fallover recovery.

I like simple, and moving a SBS2003 server to another box while
preserving all can be a problem, I've seen the same thing when moving a
Linux server to new hardware, it's not as simple as you might like. Oh,
and if it only takes you 5 minutes to restore from tape, then you're not
really doing anything with your server.


4) RAS, VPN.... Why bother?? Sharepoint provides depositry of files,
security job done!

Wrong, you don't understand VPN's if you think this to be true.


5) Sharepoint doesnt require you to employ a person simply to
administer
CALs, (yes theres actually a user profile for CAL management!)

If you don't want security or central control, just get a cheap NAS unit
and share it with workstations across the network - even easier than
your solution.


I like SBS but have difficulty with the correlation between ease/cost
of
deployment and benefits.

The thing I don't like about SBS2003 is that they went away from the
normal server management methods - when I first got a SBS box I didn't
use the wizards, never liked them, still don't like them, but I quickly
learned it was a mistake to use all those skills MS wanted
administrators to have. In my opinion they broke SBS by not making it
populate the wizards from the actual configuration for people that
didn't use the wizards.

The nice thing about SBS is that it's cheap initially, can get a shop up
and running in about 4 hours, has a lot of nice features, and even SQL
is cheap to add to it. Wizards make it easy for me to train the office
manager to check backup status, event logs, when to call me....

I actually moved from my Windows 2003 Standard server in my home to a
SBS2003 Premium server for my family, and I'm teaching my kids to manage
it.


--

spam999free@xxxxxxxxxx
remove 999 in order to email me





.