Guest Gary Richtmeyer Posted April 22, 2008 Posted April 22, 2008 I work with a small business that has a PC (Dell Optiplex 320, SATA, no raid) running Win XP Pro which is used to simply hold files that are shared among their 8 users in a simple workgroup. It's a pretty straight-forward file sharing environment; they're even using the simple file sharing technique. However, their business is growing and they will soon have 13 users, which exceeds XP Pro's 10-user limit, so they will need to upgrade to a Windows server environment. (Linux and other non-Windows OSes are not an option.) My challenge is that I'm not very familiar with the Windows Server arena other than casual reading of various announcements and the like. They don't need a domain or any of the other server-type features -- at least, not yet. All they need is a PC that will hold an share files for more than 10 concurrent users. From the research I've done, it appears that Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard is what we need. Does that sound right? Also, I'm not sure how the licensing works. If I understand correctly, they need a license for the OS itself and then a license for each concurrently logged-on user. True? Looking for some general guidance. Thanks, Gary Richtmeyer
Guest Jabez Gan [MVP] Posted April 22, 2008 Posted April 22, 2008 Re: Migrating "up" from XP Pro You are correct on the licensing part - One server OS license and an n-amount of CAL (client access license) - depending on the amount of users you have. For Windows Server, if it's jsut file sharing it should be quite straight forward - but if you are planning to use other advance roles, i suggest that you hire a train personel to configure it -- Jabez Gan Microsoft MVP: Windows Server http://www.msblog.org "Gary Richtmeyer" <glricht5-removeme-@imailbox.com> wrote in message news:OX%23d8BGpIHA.4736@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >I work with a small business that has a PC (Dell Optiplex 320, SATA, no >raid) running Win XP Pro which is used to simply hold files that are shared >among their 8 users in a simple workgroup. It's a pretty straight-forward >file sharing environment; they're even using the simple file sharing >technique. > > However, their business is growing and they will soon have 13 users, which > exceeds XP Pro's 10-user limit, so they will need to upgrade to a Windows > server environment. (Linux and other non-Windows OSes are not an > option.) > > My challenge is that I'm not very familiar with the Windows Server arena > other than casual reading of various announcements and the like. They > don't need a domain or any of the other server-type features -- at least, > not yet. All they need is a PC that will hold an share files for more than > 10 concurrent users. > > From the research I've done, it appears that Windows Server 2003 R2 > Standard is what we need. Does that sound right? Also, I'm not sure how > the licensing works. If I understand correctly, they need a license for > the OS itself and then a license for each concurrently logged-on user. > True? > > Looking for some general guidance. > > Thanks, > Gary Richtmeyer >
Guest Lanwench [MVP - Exchange] Posted April 22, 2008 Posted April 22, 2008 Re: Migrating "up" from XP Pro Gary Richtmeyer <glricht5-removeme-@imailbox.com> wrote: > I work with a small business that has a PC (Dell Optiplex 320, SATA, > no raid) running Win XP Pro which is used to simply hold files that > are shared among their 8 users in a simple workgroup. It's a pretty > straight-forward file sharing environment; they're even using the > simple file sharing technique. > > However, their business is growing and they will soon have 13 users, > which exceeds XP Pro's 10-user limit, so they will need to upgrade to > a Windows server environment. (Linux and other non-Windows OSes are > not an option.) > My challenge is that I'm not very familiar with the Windows Server > arena other than casual reading of various announcements and the > like. They don't need a domain or any of the other server-type > features -- at least, not yet. All they need is a PC that will hold > an share files for more than 10 concurrent users. > > From the research I've done, it appears that Windows Server 2003 R2 > Standard is what we need. Does that sound right? Also, I'm not sure > how the licensing works. If I understand correctly, they need a > license for the OS itself and then a license for each concurrently > logged-on user. True? > Looking for some general guidance. > > Thanks, > Gary Richtmeyer If you're going through the bother of doing this, *do* put in a domain. Workgroups simply do not scale. More than a small handful of users & they're a nightmare to manage...why not bite the bullet? Workgroups are not generally suitable for businesses as there's no central management, security, administration, whatnot. I strongly suggest you take a look at SBS2003 - it's less expensive than regular W2003, comes with extra stuff (Exchange...which, if you support e-mail at all, is a very good thing to have- no more PST files & POP3 accounts to manage), and is designed with loads of setup assistants/wizards to help you get it up and running. I'd say that the vast majority of businesses who migrate to a domain & Exchange are very pleased & never look back. Try posting in microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs. If you haven't set up a server before you may wish to have a consultant help you out, to make sure everything is covered, and
Guest leew [MVP] Posted April 22, 2008 Posted April 22, 2008 Re: Migrating "up" from XP Pro Lanwench [MVP - Exchange] wrote: > Gary Richtmeyer <glricht5-removeme-@imailbox.com> wrote: >> I work with a small business that has a PC (Dell Optiplex 320, SATA, >> no raid) running Win XP Pro which is used to simply hold files that >> are shared among their 8 users in a simple workgroup. It's a pretty >> straight-forward file sharing environment; they're even using the >> simple file sharing technique. >> >> However, their business is growing and they will soon have 13 users, >> which exceeds XP Pro's 10-user limit, so they will need to upgrade to >> a Windows server environment. (Linux and other non-Windows OSes are >> not an option.) >> My challenge is that I'm not very familiar with the Windows Server >> arena other than casual reading of various announcements and the >> like. They don't need a domain or any of the other server-type >> features -- at least, not yet. All they need is a PC that will hold >> an share files for more than 10 concurrent users. >> >> From the research I've done, it appears that Windows Server 2003 R2 >> Standard is what we need. Does that sound right? Also, I'm not sure >> how the licensing works. If I understand correctly, they need a >> license for the OS itself and then a license for each concurrently >> logged-on user. True? >> Looking for some general guidance. >> >> Thanks, >> Gary Richtmeyer > > If you're going through the bother of doing this, *do* put in a domain. > Workgroups simply do not scale. More than a small handful of users & they're > a nightmare to manage...why not bite the bullet? Workgroups are not > generally suitable for businesses as there's no central management, > security, administration, whatnot. > > I strongly suggest you take a look at SBS2003 - it's less expensive than > regular W2003, comes with extra stuff (Exchange...which, if you support > e-mail at all, is a very good thing to have- no more PST files & POP3 > accounts to manage), and is designed with loads of setup assistants/wizards > to help you get it up and running. I'd say that the vast majority of > businesses who migrate to a domain & Exchange are very pleased & never look > back. Try posting in microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs. If you haven't > set up a server before you may wish to have a consultant help you out, to > make sure everything is covered, and > > I agree - check out Small Business Server 2003. Should you decide to go with that, I would recommend purchasing it with Software Assurance through a volume licensing plan. Doing so will provide you the upgrade to SBS 2008 at no additional charge for the server software component. SBS is due to be released in the second half of this year. (Though note: there will be no "easy" upgrade to SBS 2008 - you will need to do a fresh install and a migration). Also, I strongly recommend you hire someone to implement this. SBS is pretty easy to manage, but if you don't set it up properly, it can become increasingly more difficult to manage and maintain and in turn, more costly. -Lee
Guest Gary Richtmeyer Posted April 23, 2008 Posted April 23, 2008 Re: Migrating "up" from XP Pro "leew [MVP]" <useContactPage@LWComputing.dot.com> wrote in message news:480e2241$0$15195$607ed4bc@cv.net... > Lanwench [MVP - Exchange] wrote: >> Gary Richtmeyer <glricht5-removeme-@imailbox.com> wrote: >>> I work with a small business that has a PC (Dell Optiplex 320, SATA, >>> no raid) running Win XP Pro which is used to simply hold files that >>> are shared among their 8 users in a simple workgroup. It's a pretty >>> straight-forward file sharing environment; they're even using the >>> simple file sharing technique. >>> >>> However, their business is growing and they will soon have 13 users, >>> which exceeds XP Pro's 10-user limit, so they will need to upgrade to >>> a Windows server environment. (Linux and other non-Windows OSes are >>> not an option.) >>> My challenge is that I'm not very familiar with the Windows Server >>> arena other than casual reading of various announcements and the >>> like. They don't need a domain or any of the other server-type >>> features -- at least, not yet. All they need is a PC that will hold >>> an share files for more than 10 concurrent users. >>> >>> From the research I've done, it appears that Windows Server 2003 R2 >>> Standard is what we need. Does that sound right? Also, I'm not sure >>> how the licensing works. If I understand correctly, they need a >>> license for the OS itself and then a license for each concurrently >>> logged-on user. True? >>> Looking for some general guidance. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Gary Richtmeyer >> >> If you're going through the bother of doing this, *do* put in a domain. >> Workgroups simply do not scale. More than a small handful of users & >> they're a nightmare to manage...why not bite the bullet? Workgroups are >> not generally suitable for businesses as there's no central management, >> security, administration, whatnot. >> >> I strongly suggest you take a look at SBS2003 - it's less expensive than >> regular W2003, comes with extra stuff (Exchange...which, if you support >> e-mail at all, is a very good thing to have- no more PST files & POP3 >> accounts to manage), and is designed with loads of setup >> assistants/wizards to help you get it up and running. I'd say that the >> vast majority of businesses who migrate to a domain & Exchange are very >> pleased & never look back. Try posting in >> microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs. If you haven't set up a server >> before you may wish to have a consultant help you out, to make sure >> everything is covered, and >> >> > > I agree - check out Small Business Server 2003. Should you decide to go > with that, I would recommend purchasing it with Software Assurance through > a volume licensing plan. Doing so will provide you the upgrade to SBS > 2008 at no additional charge for the server software component. SBS is due > to be released in the second half of this year. > > (Though note: there will be no "easy" upgrade to SBS 2008 - you will need > to do a fresh install and a migration). > > Also, I strongly recommend you hire someone to implement this. SBS is > pretty easy to manage, but if you don't set it up properly, it can become > increasingly more difficult to manage and maintain and in turn, more > costly. > > -Lee I probably should have mentioned two additional items: 1) about half of the users are running XP Home, and 2) they have no person with more than a passing knowledge of PCs who could do administrator-type activities. I'm a PC tech contractor that's been working with them for about a year or so and I come in about every 2-3 weeks or so when they need something done. I agree that a domain environment (especially SBS) is in their future, but anything beyond doing simple file sharing at this point in time probably won't fly (especially when they find out the cost bump involved). Are you all really saying that it should be a domain environment or nothing? Is there no short-term solution that addresses just the file-sharing situation, so that we can address the migration to a domain environment as a separate project (such as moving the XP Home users to XP Pro)? -- Gary Richtmeyer
Guest leew [MVP] Posted April 23, 2008 Posted April 23, 2008 Re: Migrating "up" from XP Pro Gary Richtmeyer wrote: > "leew [MVP]" <useContactPage@LWComputing.dot.com> wrote in message > news:480e2241$0$15195$607ed4bc@cv.net... >> Lanwench [MVP - Exchange] wrote: >>> Gary Richtmeyer <glricht5-removeme-@imailbox.com> wrote: >>>> I work with a small business that has a PC (Dell Optiplex 320, SATA, >>>> no raid) running Win XP Pro which is used to simply hold files that >>>> are shared among their 8 users in a simple workgroup. It's a pretty >>>> straight-forward file sharing environment; they're even using the >>>> simple file sharing technique. >>>> >>>> However, their business is growing and they will soon have 13 users, >>>> which exceeds XP Pro's 10-user limit, so they will need to upgrade to >>>> a Windows server environment. (Linux and other non-Windows OSes are >>>> not an option.) >>>> My challenge is that I'm not very familiar with the Windows Server >>>> arena other than casual reading of various announcements and the >>>> like. They don't need a domain or any of the other server-type >>>> features -- at least, not yet. All they need is a PC that will hold >>>> an share files for more than 10 concurrent users. >>>> >>>> From the research I've done, it appears that Windows Server 2003 R2 >>>> Standard is what we need. Does that sound right? Also, I'm not sure >>>> how the licensing works. If I understand correctly, they need a >>>> license for the OS itself and then a license for each concurrently >>>> logged-on user. True? >>>> Looking for some general guidance. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Gary Richtmeyer >>> If you're going through the bother of doing this, *do* put in a domain. >>> Workgroups simply do not scale. More than a small handful of users & >>> they're a nightmare to manage...why not bite the bullet? Workgroups are >>> not generally suitable for businesses as there's no central management, >>> security, administration, whatnot. >>> >>> I strongly suggest you take a look at SBS2003 - it's less expensive than >>> regular W2003, comes with extra stuff (Exchange...which, if you support >>> e-mail at all, is a very good thing to have- no more PST files & POP3 >>> accounts to manage), and is designed with loads of setup >>> assistants/wizards to help you get it up and running. I'd say that the >>> vast majority of businesses who migrate to a domain & Exchange are very >>> pleased & never look back. Try posting in >>> microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs. If you haven't set up a server >>> before you may wish to have a consultant help you out, to make sure >>> everything is covered, and >>> >>> >> I agree - check out Small Business Server 2003. Should you decide to go >> with that, I would recommend purchasing it with Software Assurance through >> a volume licensing plan. Doing so will provide you the upgrade to SBS >> 2008 at no additional charge for the server software component. SBS is due >> to be released in the second half of this year. >> >> (Though note: there will be no "easy" upgrade to SBS 2008 - you will need >> to do a fresh install and a migration). >> >> Also, I strongly recommend you hire someone to implement this. SBS is >> pretty easy to manage, but if you don't set it up properly, it can become >> increasingly more difficult to manage and maintain and in turn, more >> costly. >> >> -Lee > > I probably should have mentioned two additional items: 1) about half of the > users are running XP Home, and 2) they have no person with more than a > passing knowledge of PCs who could do administrator-type activities. > > I'm a PC tech contractor that's been working with them for about a year or > so and I come in about every 2-3 weeks or so when they need something done. > I agree that a domain environment (especially SBS) is in their future, but > anything beyond doing simple file sharing at this point in time probably > won't fly (especially when they find out the cost bump involved). > > Are you all really saying that it should be a domain environment or nothing? > Is there no short-term solution that addresses just the file-sharing > situation, so that we can address the migration to a domain environment as a > separate project (such as moving the XP Home users to XP Pro)? > > -- Gary Richtmeyer > > What I'm trying to suggest is that managing a workgroup is a HUGE pain and completely lacks security (and I know small businesses often don't care about security, but that's why the trusted advisor, such as yourself, is there, to help them understand that (and I realize that's not always possible). That said, in most cases, especially with that many systems, I find the workgroup is FAR more work which just costs them more. I find that using remote access services, backup simplicity, Volume Shadow Copy, shared calendars and contacts often (but admittedly not always) is sufficient to get the deal moving. Your first step will be to upgrade the XP home systems to XP Pro as you will need that for the domain. But if you've use SBS, you know that administration is not difficult and should not add much if anything to their bottom line - indeed, the additional benefits could provide greater revenue opportunities that easily justify the costs. -Lee
Guest Jabez Gan [MVP] Posted April 23, 2008 Posted April 23, 2008 Re: Migrating "up" from XP Pro Well, for me, I do agree with what Lee said, but not every business sees the advantage of upgrading all PCs to XP Home. if the business is looking at the short term cost - get a tech to help out once every 2/3 weeks, then so be it; but if the business is looking at the long term cost - and willing to have an in-house to do basic managing of SBS, it would be better. I think it all depends on what the business prefers. -- Jabez Gan Microsoft MVP: Windows Server http://www.msblog.org "leew [MVP]" <useContactPage@LWComputing.dot.com> wrote in message news:480ec59e$0$15197$607ed4bc@cv.net... > Gary Richtmeyer wrote: >> "leew [MVP]" <useContactPage@LWComputing.dot.com> wrote in message >> news:480e2241$0$15195$607ed4bc@cv.net... >>> Lanwench [MVP - Exchange] wrote: >>>> Gary Richtmeyer <glricht5-removeme-@imailbox.com> wrote: >>>>> I work with a small business that has a PC (Dell Optiplex 320, SATA, >>>>> no raid) running Win XP Pro which is used to simply hold files that >>>>> are shared among their 8 users in a simple workgroup. It's a pretty >>>>> straight-forward file sharing environment; they're even using the >>>>> simple file sharing technique. >>>>> >>>>> However, their business is growing and they will soon have 13 users, >>>>> which exceeds XP Pro's 10-user limit, so they will need to upgrade to >>>>> a Windows server environment. (Linux and other non-Windows OSes are >>>>> not an option.) >>>>> My challenge is that I'm not very familiar with the Windows Server >>>>> arena other than casual reading of various announcements and the >>>>> like. They don't need a domain or any of the other server-type >>>>> features -- at least, not yet. All they need is a PC that will hold >>>>> an share files for more than 10 concurrent users. >>>>> >>>>> From the research I've done, it appears that Windows Server 2003 R2 >>>>> Standard is what we need. Does that sound right? Also, I'm not sure >>>>> how the licensing works. If I understand correctly, they need a >>>>> license for the OS itself and then a license for each concurrently >>>>> logged-on user. True? >>>>> Looking for some general guidance. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Gary Richtmeyer >>>> If you're going through the bother of doing this, *do* put in a domain. >>>> Workgroups simply do not scale. More than a small handful of users & >>>> they're a nightmare to manage...why not bite the bullet? Workgroups are >>>> not generally suitable for businesses as there's no central management, >>>> security, administration, whatnot. >>>> >>>> I strongly suggest you take a look at SBS2003 - it's less expensive >>>> than regular W2003, comes with extra stuff (Exchange...which, if you >>>> support e-mail at all, is a very good thing to have- no more PST files >>>> & POP3 accounts to manage), and is designed with loads of setup >>>> assistants/wizards to help you get it up and running. I'd say that the >>>> vast majority of businesses who migrate to a domain & Exchange are very >>>> pleased & never look back. Try posting in >>>> microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs. If you haven't set up a server >>>> before you may wish to have a consultant help you out, to make sure >>>> everything is covered, and >>>> >>>> >>> I agree - check out Small Business Server 2003. Should you decide to go >>> with that, I would recommend purchasing it with Software Assurance >>> through a volume licensing plan. Doing so will provide you the upgrade >>> to SBS 2008 at no additional charge for the server software component. >>> SBS is due to be released in the second half of this year. >>> >>> (Though note: there will be no "easy" upgrade to SBS 2008 - you will >>> need to do a fresh install and a migration). >>> >>> Also, I strongly recommend you hire someone to implement this. SBS is >>> pretty easy to manage, but if you don't set it up properly, it can >>> become increasingly more difficult to manage and maintain and in turn, >>> more costly. >>> >>> -Lee >> >> I probably should have mentioned two additional items: 1) about half of >> the users are running XP Home, and 2) they have no person with more than >> a passing knowledge of PCs who could do administrator-type activities. >> >> I'm a PC tech contractor that's been working with them for about a year >> or so and I come in about every 2-3 weeks or so when they need something >> done. I agree that a domain environment (especially SBS) is in their >> future, but anything beyond doing simple file sharing at this point in >> time probably won't fly (especially when they find out the cost bump >> involved). >> >> Are you all really saying that it should be a domain environment or >> nothing? Is there no short-term solution that addresses just the >> file-sharing situation, so that we can address the migration to a domain >> environment as a separate project (such as moving the XP Home users to XP >> Pro)? >> >> -- Gary Richtmeyer >> > > What I'm trying to suggest is that managing a workgroup is a HUGE pain and > completely lacks security (and I know small businesses often don't care > about security, but that's why the trusted advisor, such as yourself, is > there, to help them understand that (and I realize that's not always > possible). That said, in most cases, especially with that many systems, I > find the workgroup is FAR more work which just costs them more. > > I find that using remote access services, backup simplicity, Volume Shadow > Copy, shared calendars and contacts often (but admittedly not always) is > sufficient to get the deal moving. > > Your first step will be to upgrade the XP home systems to XP Pro as you > will need that for the domain. But if you've use SBS, you know that > administration is not difficult and should not add much if anything to > their bottom line - indeed, the additional benefits could provide greater > revenue opportunities that easily justify the costs. > > -Lee
Guest Lanwench [MVP - Exchange] Posted April 23, 2008 Posted April 23, 2008 Re: Migrating "up" from XP Pro Jabez Gan [MVP] <mingteikg@blizNOSPAMhosting.com> wrote: > Well, for me, I do agree with what Lee said, but not every business > sees the advantage of upgrading all PCs to XP Home. > > if the business is looking at the short term cost - get a tech to > help out once every 2/3 weeks, then so be it; but if the business is > looking at the long term cost - and willing to have an in-house to do > basic managing of SBS, it would be better. > > I think it all depends on what the business prefers. I support numerous small to medium businesses running domains, and I don't go in to see them nearly that often. I don't support workgroups, because they're a huge PITA and cost far more to support in the long run. I do most of my support remotely. But when stuff is set up right to begin with (including an investment in good hardware), and the user accounts & workstation configs are locked down, they don't need much support, honestly. To the OP - it's important that you not allow your own lack of familiarity with AD temper your recommendation here. If you're not in the MS partner program, get in -and take the (quick) exam so you can sign up for the MS Action Pack, and deploy pretty much all the software you'll need to know in your own lab / home environment to gain familiarity. > > > "leew [MVP]" <useContactPage@LWComputing.dot.com> wrote in message > news:480ec59e$0$15197$607ed4bc@cv.net... >> Gary Richtmeyer wrote: >>> "leew [MVP]" <useContactPage@LWComputing.dot.com> wrote in message >>> news:480e2241$0$15195$607ed4bc@cv.net... >>>> Lanwench [MVP - Exchange] wrote: >>>>> Gary Richtmeyer <glricht5-removeme-@imailbox.com> wrote: >>>>>> I work with a small business that has a PC (Dell Optiplex 320, >>>>>> SATA, no raid) running Win XP Pro which is used to simply hold >>>>>> files that are shared among their 8 users in a simple workgroup. >>>>>> It's a pretty straight-forward file sharing environment; they're >>>>>> even using the simple file sharing technique. >>>>>> >>>>>> However, their business is growing and they will soon have 13 >>>>>> users, which exceeds XP Pro's 10-user limit, so they will need >>>>>> to upgrade to a Windows server environment. (Linux and other >>>>>> non-Windows OSes are not an option.) >>>>>> My challenge is that I'm not very familiar with the Windows >>>>>> Server arena other than casual reading of various announcements >>>>>> and the like. They don't need a domain or any of the other >>>>>> server-type features -- at least, not yet. All they need is a PC >>>>>> that will hold an share files for more than 10 concurrent users. >>>>>> >>>>>> From the research I've done, it appears that Windows Server 2003 >>>>>> R2 Standard is what we need. Does that sound right? Also, I'm >>>>>> not sure how the licensing works. If I understand correctly, >>>>>> they need a license for the OS itself and then a license for >>>>>> each concurrently logged-on user. True? >>>>>> Looking for some general guidance. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Gary Richtmeyer >>>>> If you're going through the bother of doing this, *do* put in a >>>>> domain. Workgroups simply do not scale. More than a small handful >>>>> of users & they're a nightmare to manage...why not bite the >>>>> bullet? Workgroups are not generally suitable for businesses as >>>>> there's no central management, security, administration, whatnot. >>>>> >>>>> I strongly suggest you take a look at SBS2003 - it's less >>>>> expensive than regular W2003, comes with extra stuff >>>>> (Exchange...which, if you support e-mail at all, is a very good >>>>> thing to have- no more PST files & POP3 accounts to manage), and >>>>> is designed with loads of setup assistants/wizards to help you >>>>> get it up and running. I'd say that the vast majority of >>>>> businesses who migrate to a domain & Exchange are very pleased & >>>>> never look back. Try posting in >>>>> microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs. If you haven't set up a >>>>> server before you may wish to have a consultant help you out, to >>>>> make sure everything is covered, and >>>> I agree - check out Small Business Server 2003. Should you decide >>>> to go with that, I would recommend purchasing it with Software >>>> Assurance through a volume licensing plan. Doing so will provide >>>> you the upgrade to SBS 2008 at no additional charge for the server >>>> software component. SBS is due to be released in the second half >>>> of this year. (Though note: there will be no "easy" upgrade to SBS >>>> 2008 - you >>>> will need to do a fresh install and a migration). >>>> >>>> Also, I strongly recommend you hire someone to implement this. SBS is >>>> pretty easy to manage, but if you don't set it up properly, >>>> it can become increasingly more difficult to manage and maintain >>>> and in turn, more costly. >>>> >>>> -Lee >>> >>> I probably should have mentioned two additional items: 1) about >>> half of the users are running XP Home, and 2) they have no person >>> with more than a passing knowledge of PCs who could do >>> administrator-type activities. I'm a PC tech contractor that's been >>> working with them for about a >>> year or so and I come in about every 2-3 weeks or so when they need >>> something done. I agree that a domain environment (especially SBS) >>> is in their future, but anything beyond doing simple file sharing >>> at this point in time probably won't fly (especially when they find >>> out the cost bump involved). >>> >>> Are you all really saying that it should be a domain environment or >>> nothing? Is there no short-term solution that addresses just the >>> file-sharing situation, so that we can address the migration to a >>> domain environment as a separate project (such as moving the XP >>> Home users to XP Pro)? >>> >>> -- Gary Richtmeyer >>> >> >> What I'm trying to suggest is that managing a workgroup is a HUGE >> pain and completely lacks security (and I know small businesses >> often don't care about security, but that's why the trusted advisor, >> such as yourself, is there, to help them understand that (and I >> realize that's not always possible). That said, in most cases, >> especially with that many systems, I find the workgroup is FAR more >> work which just costs them more. I find that using remote access >> services, backup simplicity, Volume >> Shadow Copy, shared calendars and contacts often (but admittedly not >> always) is sufficient to get the deal moving. >> >> Your first step will be to upgrade the XP home systems to XP Pro as >> you will need that for the domain. But if you've use SBS, you know >> that administration is not difficult and should not add much if >> anything to their bottom line - indeed, the additional benefits >> could provide greater revenue opportunities that easily justify the >> costs. -Lee
Recommended Posts