Which version of Microsoft Server do I need?

d_brennen · 11 Jun 2010 at 11:16

Been asked to setup a network of 5 computers with one server in a basic office. It has been a while since I have done anything like this but I still have a grasp of Server 2003 AD and users etc.

I have the 5 computers and server. The PCs are running XP Pro

Would be tempted to tell them to get someone else to do it but money is tight and these people need to do it right with regards to software licenses etc.

What version of Server should I go with?

Caged · 11 Jun 2010 at 11:19

Well you haven't said what you want to do with it. If you want Exchange (I recommend you don't) then go with SBS2008. If not, Windows Server 2008 Foundation.

Sp00n · 11 Jun 2010 at 11:20

Caged said:
If you want Exchange (I recommend you don't)

why?

Dazza_Random · 11 Jun 2010 at 11:21

Use 2008 not 2003 if you are buying it new...

d_brennen · 11 Jun 2010 at 11:36

Caged said:
Well you haven't said what you want to do with it. If you want Exchange (I recommend you don't) then go with SBS2008. If not, Windows Server 2008 Foundation.

Good point. They don't need Exchange at this stage but maybe in the future. TBH the only server packages I have used is 2003 standard.

All they require at the moment is a server that controls access to files, centralised backup and possibly remote access.

Do you know if Foundation supports up 15 users "out of the box" and not a seperate purchase of CALs?

matthab · 11 Jun 2010 at 12:45

I would get smb2008 and then it covers all your bases. But if you just want to get started use Standard R2 2008 then you have the ooption of hyper-v in later life iof ytou want to do things like exchange.

theheyes · 11 Jun 2010 at 13:18

I'd definitely go with 2008 over 2003 - if you haven't used 2003 for a while you'd have to hit the books/Google anyway. I don't have much experience with SBS so someone else would have to advise on that.

matthab · 11 Jun 2010 at 13:33

SBS is good as it is a one stop shop for everything. Its laid out the same as normal 2008 but is designed to be one server running everything. I regulary install these into small companies with about 10 -15 employees.

d_brennen · 11 Jun 2010 at 14:15

SBS2008 it is. Found a copy of SBS2008 5 CAL OEM for £475ex from the wholesaler I use. Prices online seem to vary!

SiriusB · 11 Jun 2010 at 14:33

SBS 2008 is very good and you can probably have it up and running in a day. Assuming you have all the info you need!

It handles Exchange just fine too. Not sure what Caged is getting at. All our client servers are SBS 2003 and SBS2008 and all of them run Exchange without issue, even with 30+ mailboxes.

matthab · 11 Jun 2010 at 15:11

The only limitation ive found on SBS is you cant run another domain controler in the same network which can be a pain but I dont think you will have a issue with that.

SiriusB · 11 Jun 2010 at 15:24

matthab said:
The only limitation ive found on SBS is you cant run another domain controler in the same network which can be a pain but I dont think you will have a issue with that.

Well if there is any possibility of requiring a second domain controller you wouldn't use SBS. Though if you are considering SBS in the first place there is a pretty damn good chance you wont be looking for a second DC anyway.

Caged · 11 Jun 2010 at 17:36

Sp00n said:
why?

You want to give 5 users with no full-time IT employee Exchange to run? And host email internally on what can at best be a business ADSL line. It's a diaster waiting to happen. SBS is such a poorly thought out solution for it's target market it's untrue.

Now if the SBS product was a combination of a locally installed server for Active Directory and acting as a local cache for cloud-hosted email services it would be a lot more suitable.

This size company is what Google Apps was made for.

Edward78 · 11 Jun 2010 at 17:56

Why not use a Linux OS?

theheyes · 11 Jun 2010 at 18:29

Edward78 said:
Why not use a Linux OS?

Amongst other reasons, it probably wouldn't work out any cheaper.

SiriusB · 11 Jun 2010 at 20:23

Caged said:
You want to give 5 users with no full-time IT employee Exchange to run? And host email internally on what can at best be a business ADSL line. It's a diaster waiting to happen. SBS is such a poorly thought out solution for it's target market it's untrue.

Now if the SBS product was a combination of a locally installed server for Active Directory and acting as a local cache for cloud-hosted email services it would be a lot more suitable.

This size company is what Google Apps was made for.

None of the 6 clients I deal with have any problems at all running Exchange on SBS or ADSL.

Though I agree trusting "users" with Exchange is asking a bit much if they have no form of IT support.

d_brennen · 11 Jun 2010 at 20:25

matthab said:
The only limitation ive found on SBS is you cant run another domain controler in the same network which can be a pain but I dont think you will have a issue with that.

SiriusB said:
Well if there is any possibility of requiring a second domain controller you wouldn't use SBS. Though if you are considering SBS in the first place there is a pretty damn good chance you wont be looking for a second DC anyway.

Thanks for all the input guys. SBS is the way I am going on this one. Hope all I know of 2003 is easily transferable :eek:

There isn't much chance of the server ever coming in contact with a second DC. To be honest I think the company will have gone bust long before that becomes a concern lol. Money up front for everything!

Edward78 said:
Why not use a Linux OS?

While I like the idea of Linux, and have played about with a couple of distros, I don't think it is a viable option. People know Windows. Say what you like about Microsoft (or M$ if your that way inclined), they make a damn good product which in many ways drives the world as we know it

d_brennen · 11 Jun 2010 at 20:27

Caged said:
You want to give 5 users with no full-time IT employee Exchange to run? And host email internally on what can at best be a business ADSL line. It's a diaster waiting to happen. SBS is such a poorly thought out solution for it's target market it's untrue.

Now if the SBS product was a combination of a locally installed server for Active Directory and acting as a local cache for cloud-hosted email services it would be a lot more suitable.

This size company is what Google Apps was made for.

I am making a rod for my back here, I know!