Javier
Mon Dec 08 13:50:32 CST 2003
Hi Jim!
ISA is a business class firewall (like I always say: for some reason MS can
charge $1300 for it + the cost of the OS) there is no doubt about it. The
reporting tools in ISA are great and the granularity on how to control
access to the users to external websites/protocols is exceptional.
While I truly love ISA, I realize it is not for the faint of heart. Most of
the ISA configuration is done by CEICW... but it still requires some
tweaking for certain things. Most people here like to put a 2nd cheap
(>$100) hw firewall in front of ISA for extra peace-of-mind.
My advice is that if you can afford SBS2k3 Prem... go for it (and post your
questions to the SBS2k3 NG, you will find tons of help there).
--
-Javier
<< SBS ROCKS !!! >>
"Jim" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:027901c3bdc1$ab996340$a301280a@phx.gbl...
> Gotcha - so that's why Roger said Standard would be fine if
> we already have a firewall in place. I'm not concerned
> about SQL Server.
>
> I need to learn more about their current setup before
> proceeding. But if they don't have a good firewall in
> place, how is ISA viewed by you all? Is it a low-end
> firewall or is it fairly strong and robust? I understand
> it used to be the Microsoft Proxy server.
>
> Thank you for all you help so far!
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >Just so we are clear the official name is SBS2003 Standard
> (there is also
> >the Premium version). We call it "Lite" because it doesn't
> have ISA nor SQL.
> >Be aware that MS has another product that has similar
> wording (for up to 15
> >clients) but doesn't even have Exchange.
> >
> >--
> >-Javier
> >
> ><< SBS ROCKS !!! >>
> >
> >"Jim" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >news:080c01c3bd9e$5c40d120$a401280a@phx.gbl...
> >> Thanks Roger. I'm not familiar with SBS 2003 Lite. I'll
> >> look into it.
> >>
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >I would go SBS 2003 Lite if you alreay have a Good
> >> Firewall in Place. I have
> >> >brought this into the exact type of enviroment that you
> >> are talking about
> >> >and if your workstations are 2000 or XP the SBS 2003
> >> Migration piece for the
> >> >users desktop works great. But that is just my 2 cents
> >> worth.
> >> >
> >> >Roger Crawford
> >> >HTS
> >> >
> >> >"Jim" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> >> message
> >> >news:03c001c3bd4d$e7aa8770$a501280a@phx.gbl...
> >> >> I am new to SBS 2000 and Exchange as an admin. I have
> >> >> used them for years, but never set them up. I am
> >> >> suggesting a recommendation that SBS be installed at my
> >> >> brother's law office. Here's the scenario:
> >> >>
> >> >> In the office there are 10 PCs running peer-to-peer.
> >> >> There is a file server installed. There are 2 partners
> >> in
> >> >> the office and each has a secretary. Each partner uses
> >> a
> >> >> laptop and a pda. The secretary syncs the pda with her
> >> >> local copy of Outlook. But each partner cannot use his
> >> >> laptop to see current Outlook appointments because they
> >> >> are on the secretary's system.
> >> >>
> >> >> My idea is to install SBS 2000 and create a domain.
> >> Each
> >> >> secretary could maintain the corresponding partner's
> >> >> calendar by opening it in Outlook. When the partner
> >> wants
> >> >> the PDA synced up the secretary can open the appropriate
> >> >> calendar (and any other folders) and sync it. The
> >> partner
> >> >> would also be able to see his own calendar in Outlook.
> >> >>
> >> >> Does this sound reasonable?
> >> >>
> >> >> Another option is to forego SBS and Exhange and have the
> >> >> secretary sync her Outlook to the pda, then have the
> >> >> partner sync the pda to his copy of Outlook.
> >> >>
> >> >> Still another option is to sync each copy of Outlook
> >> using
> >> >> Vaita's OSASync.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think they will get much better mileage out of SBS and
> >> >> Exchange.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks - Jim
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >.
> >> >
> >
> >
> >.
> >