Re: R2 or Not to R2 - That is the question
- From: "Gary Karasik" <gkarasik@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 11:09:18 -0800
In my opinion, R2 was not designed or intended to be sold primarily to
existing SBS 2003 SP1 customers.
Sorry, but it's being marketed as a "refresh." Of what?
I don't see how you can call it a service pack or something that MS should
not charge for - there's no circumstance other than SA where you're going
to get a SQL version upgrade at no cost.
In the past within a product cycle MS has offered a major package of fixes
and upgrades they call a "service pack." R2 is exactly that, a major package
of fixes and upgrades within a product cycle. Instead of calling it a
service pack, they call it a "refresh" (damn, they're good at that) and
charge for it. I don't see the "benefit" of the SQL "upgrade" wherein SBS
Premium goes from a full implementation of SQL to a more restricted,
"workgroup" implementation of SQL.
The reason other than reports is that a lot of end-user SBS'ers do not run
WSUS.
That's because on small networks WSUS is a solution in search of a problem.
I installed WSUS when it first came out (it sounded like a good idea at the
time), couldn't understand why I had to download over 50 megs of service
pack language files that I would never need, couldn't get a sane answer to
that question ("You might need them in the future" is the best explanation I
could get), and couldn't see any benefit to WSUS that didn't outweigh all
its negatives. I stil had to run WinUp/MicUp to look for updates that WSUS
didn't (and as far as hardware upgrades still doesn't) cover, don't want
upgrades applied automatically (IE7 is no improvement over IE6), and would
much rather touch each machine once a month to see what's going on there.
With AutoUpdate turned on on the workstations (downloads not installed until
I say), I save some time by having some of the downloads already there. So
what does WSUS do for me? Reports? Don't care.
Microsoft is pushing WSUS because it's desperate to find a way to fix its
security problems. WSUS is aimed at office power users, regular working
people with other responsibilities who get the added chore of administering
an office network but who don't make a living keeping systems running well
(IOW the original SBS target audience, and we know how THAT worked out:
Everyone here who's NOT an IT professional, raise your mouse). But it turns
out that no one but an IT pro could install/administer WSUS, so R2 (echoes
of R2D2, the helpful little 'droid) installs it for us. And we get to pay
for it.
There's a reason that Bill Gates is the richest man on the planet, and it
ain't because he puts out great software.
--
GaryK
"Dave Nickason [SBS MVP]" <gwdibble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23TYloOiGHHA.1784@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In my opinion, R2 was not designed or intended to be sold primarily to
existing SBS 2003 SP1 customers. For new SBS customers, it's clearly a
value-add given that they not only get the integrated WSUS and upgraded
SQL, they get it for either the same price (Standard) or less (Premium)
than SP1. I don't see how you can call it a service pack or something that
MS should not charge for - there's no circumstance other than SA where
you're going to get a SQL version upgrade at no cost. That said, I don't
disagree with Russ that it's not a good bang for the buck - that's a
decision that anyone can make for him/her self.
The reason other than reports is that a lot of end-user SBS'ers do not run
WSUS. For whatever reason, there is a low adoption rate for standalone
WSUS on SBS networks. So if a customer is not going to install WSUS and
they're using WU, MU, or sneakernet, R2 clearly has value to that person.
Yes they could get WSUS for free, but they did not do that, so maybe now
they'll get R2 and have that protection.
A few people might want standalone SQL boxes. The expanded client rights
in R2 are a huge benefit to them - I don't know if you've ever priced SQL
CALs, but they're very expensive - you could buy R2 for the SQL CAL rights
alone and be hugely ahead financially. I'm not sure how much Exchange
CALs cost, but questions show up periodically from people wanting
standalone Exchange servers too.
I guess the point of the whole thing is that it's an individual decision,
and neither choice is right for everybody. I would argue that if you're
afraid of WSUS for whatever reason, you should buy R2 for that alone. I
know that WSUS has saved me dozens or hundreds of times the cost of R2,
and if I hadn't been willing to install it, R2 would have been a clear
winner on my network, even given that I'm paying the higher price for
Premium and I don't use SQL.
"Gary Karasik" <gkarasik@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eXPiqIcGHHA.3976@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
R2 is nothing but a service pack with a glorified name. MS needs to keep
its income stream going, and that necessitates charging for what they
used to give away free.
--
GaryK
"J_Stoner" <JStoner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:DD5CBD76-90F8-4865-ABD7-F20D4520FE93@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Greetings,
I have SBS 2003 Standard SP1 with WSUS installed via documentation from
Smallbizserver.net.
Is there any value in upgrading to R2?
Will my existing install of WSUS screw-up the R2 upgrade?
My bias is toward the upgrade so I don't get left out of future
upgrades.
Any help or advice would be very much appreciated.
Thanks
--
I don''t know what I don''t know
.
- References:
- Re: R2 or Not to R2 - That is the question
- From: Gary Karasik
- Re: R2 or Not to R2 - That is the question
- From: Dave Nickason [SBS MVP]
- Re: R2 or Not to R2 - That is the question
- Prev by Date: cannot reach companyweb from workstations
- Next by Date: Re: Should my SBS be behind my firewall or should it function as the f
- Previous by thread: Re: R2 or Not to R2 - That is the question
- Next by thread: Re: R2 or Not to R2 - That is the question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
