Prev: Remote Desktop Connection not working
Next: SBS 2008 RPC under wrong virtual directory in IIS
From: SuperGumby [SBS MVP] on 7 Apr 2010 07:09
If I suggested your client had it completely assbackward do ya reckon they'd
be upset?

The show started with SBS4.0, SBS 4.5 addressed many of the problems.
Then came SBS 2000, kickin' heiney. SP1 was a free upgrade.
SBS 2003 built on the strengths of the previous version. SBS03 R2 added
things you could get for free anyway.
We both lost and gained some things with SBS08. (personally, I was annoyed
by x64 dependence, but Exchange08 in production requires x64 so SBS08 does
as well)

_IF_ an SBS08R2 were to become available (and I neither confirm nor deny any
such rumour) it would be a 'minor release' change from SBS08. The next
'major release' will be SBS.next, whenever it becomes available. The point
being a difference between 'minor' and 'major' releases, SBS03 (V anything)
to SBS08 (V anything) is a major release upgrade.

"Boolean1" <Boolean1(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FD4076CF-F209-42B9-A0C2-D700A660045C(a)microsoft.com...
>I have a client on SBS2003 R2. They're okay with it, as it has been very
> stable environment for them. They would have upgraded to SBS2008 but
> decided
> not to because they see it as "an interim release" between SBS2008 R2 or
> SBS2010.
>
> Would you say that's a correct way of looking at this. I know the
> Exchange
> 2007 is a nice improvement with SBS2008. But they're actually okay with
> Exchange 2003 for now.
>
> They think they might want to wait for Exchange 2010 to be included before
> they consider upgrading. Not to rush them if they're happy, but I'm just
> curious to know when Exchange 2010 is slated to be part of the SBS family.
>
> Thanks,


From: Leythos on 7 Apr 2010 07:46
In article <uVEMKYf1KHA.264(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, sbradcpa(a)pacbell.net
says...
> > I don't see the benefit of Exchange 2010 for any SOHO, but it does
> > appear we're moving back to where Admins actually have to know the
> > platform in order to maintain it.
> >
> >
> Personally I have the religion of "I don't put old code on new
> hardware". Also I wanted to set up a virtual platform and SBS 2003 is
> not supported on HyperV.

Hyper-V might be an issue, but I have installed SBS 2003 Std as a child
and it works perfectly and it's actually easier on memory and CPU than
2008 is, but we expect that. I keep a child SBS 2003 system available in
case I have to test something for customers that still run 2003.

>
> That said, I'm finding Exchange 2007 to be comfortable and stuff I can
> handle. Exchange 2010 however is a bit fuzzy. They built it for
> hosted/big enterprises and not for us small guys and boy do they make it
> obvious in their literature. I see people on twitter say "I'm taking a
> firm from SBS 2003 to google docs, why would you want a SBS box" and boy
> I think to make a blanket statement like that is just as dangerous these
> days.

Yep, I know a number of IT people that have left SBS behind for their
own company and moved to google, but I don't like the idea of another
company/outfit having my files. It's bad enough that google keep track
of every IP/Search query and provides that to the authorities....



--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: SuperGumby [SBS MVP] on 7 Apr 2010 08:05
I was thinking more about this, and being in a somewhat 'speculative' mood
thought I might suggest further.

MS 'product cycle' has, during the last few years, closely aligned with
hardware product cycles. Think about it. Recommended hardware life is 3
years. Where has Windows gone? If I forget the early NT stuff I see '95,
'98, 2000, '03/Vista, and '08/Win7. Close enough 3yrs a piece? OK, ME was in
there, but as the development of NT4 and something most people want to
forget anyway, do I get away with ignoring it?

PURE SPECULATION

SBS has also always 'lagged behind' major release of the components. The SBS
Dev team need time to tie all the bits together.

"SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <not(a)your.nellie> wrote in message
news:OjhzTMk1KHA.3868(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> If I suggested your client had it completely assbackward do ya reckon
> they'd be upset?
>
> The show started with SBS4.0, SBS 4.5 addressed many of the problems.
> Then came SBS 2000, kickin' heiney. SP1 was a free upgrade.
> SBS 2003 built on the strengths of the previous version. SBS03 R2 added
> things you could get for free anyway.
> We both lost and gained some things with SBS08. (personally, I was annoyed
> by x64 dependence, but Exchange08 in production requires x64 so SBS08 does
> as well)
>
> _IF_ an SBS08R2 were to become available (and I neither confirm nor deny
> any such rumour) it would be a 'minor release' change from SBS08. The next
> 'major release' will be SBS.next, whenever it becomes available. The point
> being a difference between 'minor' and 'major' releases, SBS03 (V
> anything) to SBS08 (V anything) is a major release upgrade.
>
> "Boolean1" <Boolean1(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:FD4076CF-F209-42B9-A0C2-D700A660045C(a)microsoft.com...
>>I have a client on SBS2003 R2. They're okay with it, as it has been very
>> stable environment for them. They would have upgraded to SBS2008 but
>> decided
>> not to because they see it as "an interim release" between SBS2008 R2 or
>> SBS2010.
>>
>> Would you say that's a correct way of looking at this. I know the
>> Exchange
>> 2007 is a nice improvement with SBS2008. But they're actually okay with
>> Exchange 2003 for now.
>>
>> They think they might want to wait for Exchange 2010 to be included
>> before
>> they consider upgrading. Not to rush them if they're happy, but I'm just
>> curious to know when Exchange 2010 is slated to be part of the SBS
>> family.
>>
>> Thanks,
>
>


From: Susan Bradley on 7 Apr 2010 10:13
Leythos wrote:
> In article <uVEMKYf1KHA.264(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, sbradcpa(a)pacbell.net
> says...
>
>>> I don't see the benefit of Exchange 2010 for any SOHO, but it does
>>> appear we're moving back to where Admins actually have to know the
>>> platform in order to maintain it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Personally I have the religion of "I don't put old code on new
>> hardware". Also I wanted to set up a virtual platform and SBS 2003 is
>> not supported on HyperV.
>>
>
> Hyper-V might be an issue, but I have installed SBS 2003 Std as a child
> and it works perfectly and it's actually easier on memory and CPU than
> 2008 is, but we expect that. I keep a child SBS 2003 system available in
> case I have to test something for customers that still run 2003.
>
>
>> That said, I'm finding Exchange 2007 to be comfortable and stuff I can
>> handle. Exchange 2010 however is a bit fuzzy. They built it for
>> hosted/big enterprises and not for us small guys and boy do they make it
>> obvious in their literature. I see people on twitter say "I'm taking a
>> firm from SBS 2003 to google docs, why would you want a SBS box" and boy
>> I think to make a blanket statement like that is just as dangerous these
>> days.
>>
>
> Yep, I know a number of IT people that have left SBS behind for their
> own company and moved to google, but I don't like the idea of another
> company/outfit having my files. It's bad enough that google keep track
> of every IP/Search query and provides that to the authorities....
>
>
>
>

"Hyper-V might be an issue, but I have installed SBS 2003 Std as a child
and it works perfectly and it's actually easier on memory and CPU than
2008 is, but we expect that. I keep a child SBS 2003 system available in "
case I have to test something for customers that still run 2003."

I keep a 2k3 as well that way but to be clear to everyone SBS 2003 is not supported in HyperV .
From: Leythos on 7 Apr 2010 10:42
In article <e8Phxxl1KHA.5328(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, sbradcpa(a)pacbell.net
says...
> but to be clear to everyone SBS 2003 is not supported in HyperV .
>
>

That's why I'm not an MVP :-)

--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Remote Desktop Connection not working
Next: SBS 2008 RPC under wrong virtual directory in IIS