Prev: Remote Desktop Connection not working
Next: SBS 2008 RPC under wrong virtual directory in IIS
From: Boolean1 on 6 Apr 2010 16:45
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: Chris Puckett [MSFT] on 6 Apr 2010 18:01
According to the FAQ, there are no details to share at this time.

http://www.microsoft.com/sbs/en/us/faq.aspx

Q. Will there be a next version of Windows Small Business Server (SBS)?
When will Microsoft release it?

A.
Windows Small Business Server 2008 is an important part of the Windows
Server family, and we are fully committed to expanding the capabilities of
this solution to meet the needs of our SMB customers. In fact, we are
currently hard at work building the next version of Windows SBS. We don't
have any additional details to share at this point about release schedules,
and such.


--
Chris Puckett

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.



"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 6 Apr 2010 20:50
Boolean1 wrote:
> 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,
>
As a current SBS 2008 owner, may I just say that SBS 2008 is not an
interim release.
To me it's a hardware induced upgrade.
From: Leythos on 6 Apr 2010 21:14
In article <FD4076CF-F209-42B9-A0C2-D700A660045C(a)microsoft.com>,
Boolean1(a)discussions.microsoft.com says...
>
> 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.

I think that SBS 08 is much like Windows Mellinium Edition and Vista
was, a method to get people/admins to buy enough CPU/MEMORY to run the
newer OS platform when it's released.

This is what was done for Win XP and Win 7, and I believe, with Exchange
2010 already out, it's what was done with SBS 2008. 08 pushed us to 64
bit hardware, but it did provide a few nice things - better backup,
wizards that seem to work well, easier server management, but, nothing
that we could not already handle/do in 03.

> 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.

The only reason to upgrade to 08 is that you need new hardware and have
an OEM version of SBS 03.

> 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.

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.

--
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: Susan Bradley on 6 Apr 2010 22:00
Leythos wrote:
> In article <FD4076CF-F209-42B9-A0C2-D700A660045C(a)microsoft.com>,
> Boolean1(a)discussions.microsoft.com says...
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I think that SBS 08 is much like Windows Mellinium Edition and Vista
> was, a method to get people/admins to buy enough CPU/MEMORY to run the
> newer OS platform when it's released.
>
> This is what was done for Win XP and Win 7, and I believe, with Exchange
> 2010 already out, it's what was done with SBS 2008. 08 pushed us to 64
> bit hardware, but it did provide a few nice things - better backup,
> wizards that seem to work well, easier server management, but, nothing
> that we could not already handle/do in 03.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> The only reason to upgrade to 08 is that you need new hardware and have
> an OEM version of SBS 03.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> 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.

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.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Remote Desktop Connection not working
Next: SBS 2008 RPC under wrong virtual directory in IIS