differences between SBS2000 and it's individual components...

Greetings,

A small business client of mine is purchasing a new properly management
package to replace their old DOS based package. The new package is web
based and runs on Win2k, IIS, SQL Server 2000 and Exchange 2000. The small
business client currently runs an old Novell server and about 6 older Win95
and 98.

The vendor of the new software made recommendation regarding the new server
(Dell 2x Xeon, 2GB RAM, Raid 5) and also recommended the purchase of
individual packages of Windows 2000, Exchange 2000, and SQL Server 2000 and
the appropriate numer of CAL's for each. The vendor also stated that the
backup program shipped with Win2k Server is more than adequate to back up
this server properly.

I came back with the recommendation that they consider the purchase and use
of SBS2000 instead of the individual components. Purchasing SBS2000 would
save about $3000 over the individual components so it's not a trivial sum.
I also recommended the purchase of a third party server backup package
(Backup Exec, Arcserve, etc.) to take care of the system backup needs.

The vendor responded that SBS2000 wasn't the same as the individual
components and that they've had lot of problems when using SBS2000, but
could not provide specifics about these problems when asked. The vendor
also stated that the level of support from MS was different and inadequate
for the SBS products when compared to the individual components so that was
another reason to not use SBS2000.

The vendor also stated that they would allow the use of SBS2000, but would
charge an additional 8-16 hours of install labor if SBS2000 was used.

As a seasoned veteran of the consulting and small business technology
support profession, I know what my feelings are towards what this vendor has
to say.

I'm interested in hearing from anyone who cares to comment regarding this
vendors recommendations.

Javier
Wed Jul 09 13:36:55 CDT 2003

Chuck,

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not
sure about the former.
-Albert Einstein

Ignorance is the mother of all stupidity.
-Someone Somewhere

There are a couple of limitations when using SBS. In most of the cases this
will not be a problem.

-SBS has to be the root domain controller
-No trust relationships with other domains
-All of the SBS components must reside on the same box
-Maximum of 50 Workstations
-CALs are strictly enforced

I think... that's it. This is what you "lose" if you decide to run SBS
compared to Win2k/Exch/ISA/SQL... of course the pricing structure is very
different (as you noted).

For more details, take a look at:
http://www.microsoft.com/sbserver/techinfo/administration/2000/TechFAQ.asp

If you can live with those limitations... and the software will also, then
go for it. Most people believe that SBS is crippled because they don't know
it. I would ask them to disclose what exactly they will do in SBS with those
16 additional hours that they wouldn't do with the individual components
alone.

Maybe you should get someone with experience with SBS to do the initial
install and then they would install the required software for their app.

My $0.02

Javier

"Chuck Orton" <chucko@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:behlsp$nus$1@nnrp.atgi.net...
> Greetings,
>
> A small business client of mine is purchasing a new properly management
> package to replace their old DOS based package. The new package is web
> based and runs on Win2k, IIS, SQL Server 2000 and Exchange 2000. The
small
> business client currently runs an old Novell server and about 6 older
Win95
> and 98.
>
> The vendor of the new software made recommendation regarding the new
server
> (Dell 2x Xeon, 2GB RAM, Raid 5) and also recommended the purchase of
> individual packages of Windows 2000, Exchange 2000, and SQL Server 2000
and
> the appropriate numer of CAL's for each. The vendor also stated that the
> backup program shipped with Win2k Server is more than adequate to back up
> this server properly.
>
> I came back with the recommendation that they consider the purchase and
use
> of SBS2000 instead of the individual components. Purchasing SBS2000 would
> save about $3000 over the individual components so it's not a trivial sum.
> I also recommended the purchase of a third party server backup package
> (Backup Exec, Arcserve, etc.) to take care of the system backup needs.
>
> The vendor responded that SBS2000 wasn't the same as the individual
> components and that they've had lot of problems when using SBS2000, but
> could not provide specifics about these problems when asked. The vendor
> also stated that the level of support from MS was different and inadequate
> for the SBS products when compared to the individual components so that
was
> another reason to not use SBS2000.
>
> The vendor also stated that they would allow the use of SBS2000, but would
> charge an additional 8-16 hours of install labor if SBS2000 was used.
>
> As a seasoned veteran of the consulting and small business technology
> support profession, I know what my feelings are towards what this vendor
has
> to say.
>
> I'm interested in hearing from anyone who cares to comment regarding this
> vendors recommendations.
>
>

Susan
Wed Jul 09 14:03:39 CDT 2003

oh gimme a 2x4 and just let me at this dude.....

Show me a SBSer and many times they'll know more about the MS product family
than anyone else at Microsoft because we do touch so many of the products.

"The vendor
also stated that the level of support from MS was different and inadequate
for the SBS products when compared to the individual components so that was
another reason to not use SBS2000."

Gimme a break. Show me another newsgroup out here that has the wide variety of
support that we've got.

Tell that vendor he/they are full of it and that the products inside the SBS are
their full fledged counterparts with the limitations of "no trusts"

Tell him/them you want exact documented reasons why it cannot be loaded on
SBS2k. In writing. The exact reason.

I'm sorry.... but as consumers and buyers of product we deserve real answers as
to why something doesn't work. Just the "word" of a vendor is not cutting it in
my book anymore. None of this marketing fluff anymore. I want to know it works
or why it doesn't work or it doesn't make a sell in my book, or I take the time
to get a real live program in my hands for a period of time and I test .

Chuck Orton wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> A small business client of mine is purchasing a new properly management
> package to replace their old DOS based package. The new package is web
> based and runs on Win2k, IIS, SQL Server 2000 and Exchange 2000. The small
> business client currently runs an old Novell server and about 6 older Win95
> and 98.
>
> The vendor of the new software made recommendation regarding the new server
> (Dell 2x Xeon, 2GB RAM, Raid 5) and also recommended the purchase of
> individual packages of Windows 2000, Exchange 2000, and SQL Server 2000 and
> the appropriate numer of CAL's for each. The vendor also stated that the
> backup program shipped with Win2k Server is more than adequate to back up
> this server properly.
>
> I came back with the recommendation that they consider the purchase and use
> of SBS2000 instead of the individual components. Purchasing SBS2000 would
> save about $3000 over the individual components so it's not a trivial sum.
> I also recommended the purchase of a third party server backup package
> (Backup Exec, Arcserve, etc.) to take care of the system backup needs.
>
> The vendor responded that SBS2000 wasn't the same as the individual
> components and that they've had lot of problems when using SBS2000, but
> could not provide specifics about these problems when asked. The vendor
> also stated that the level of support from MS was different and inadequate
> for the SBS products when compared to the individual components so that was
> another reason to not use SBS2000.
>
> The vendor also stated that they would allow the use of SBS2000, but would
> charge an additional 8-16 hours of install labor if SBS2000 was used.
>
> As a seasoned veteran of the consulting and small business technology
> support profession, I know what my feelings are towards what this vendor has
> to say.
>
> I'm interested in hearing from anyone who cares to comment regarding this
> vendors recommendations.

Mark
Wed Jul 09 18:21:55 CDT 2003

pull the vendor away from the client and simply ask, "do you really expect
to bullshit another IT person of my caliber?" See what he says. If he
backs his statement, simply say "do you want me to tell me client you are
lying to their face and look elsewhere?" or he will LIKELY look at you
oddly and then you should say, "I know you don't know what you are talking
about and that's ok but understand that I do not want to be bullshitted to
again. Now, lets install SBS, no additional charge and I won't charge you
for the free training you will be getting." He will then turn into your
friend.

--
Sincerely,
Mark Mancini, CCA, CCNA, Master CIW&CI, CNE 4&5, MCSE+I 4&2000
www.MCSE2000.com
www.AppLauncher.com



"Chuck Orton" <chucko@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:behlsp$nus$1@nnrp.atgi.net...
> Greetings,
>
> A small business client of mine is purchasing a new properly management
> package to replace their old DOS based package. The new package is web
> based and runs on Win2k, IIS, SQL Server 2000 and Exchange 2000. The
small
> business client currently runs an old Novell server and about 6 older
Win95
> and 98.
>
> The vendor of the new software made recommendation regarding the new
server
> (Dell 2x Xeon, 2GB RAM, Raid 5) and also recommended the purchase of
> individual packages of Windows 2000, Exchange 2000, and SQL Server 2000
and
> the appropriate numer of CAL's for each. The vendor also stated that the
> backup program shipped with Win2k Server is more than adequate to back up
> this server properly.
>
> I came back with the recommendation that they consider the purchase and
use
> of SBS2000 instead of the individual components. Purchasing SBS2000 would
> save about $3000 over the individual components so it's not a trivial sum.
> I also recommended the purchase of a third party server backup package
> (Backup Exec, Arcserve, etc.) to take care of the system backup needs.
>
> The vendor responded that SBS2000 wasn't the same as the individual
> components and that they've had lot of problems when using SBS2000, but
> could not provide specifics about these problems when asked. The vendor
> also stated that the level of support from MS was different and inadequate
> for the SBS products when compared to the individual components so that
was
> another reason to not use SBS2000.
>
> The vendor also stated that they would allow the use of SBS2000, but would
> charge an additional 8-16 hours of install labor if SBS2000 was used.
>
> As a seasoned veteran of the consulting and small business technology
> support profession, I know what my feelings are towards what this vendor
has
> to say.
>
> I'm interested in hearing from anyone who cares to comment regarding this
> vendors recommendations.
>
>

Javier
Wed Jul 09 18:31:22 CDT 2003

> Everyone else has taken the polite route, so I'm going to be blunt.

How rude !!! ;-)

<asHulk> You are making me angry... you won't like me when I'm angry
</asHulk>

LOL