2003 Server + Exchange VS 2003 SBS

[TheCake]

Q. Why would I pay extra to go with 2003 Server instead of just buying SBS? I seem to recall its something to do with domains and PDC/BDC...

Client needs a domain controller, a mail server and in the future will need data server, possible backup server etc.

I prefer to load manage my servers so am more inclined to go with W2K3 servers and do what I want instead of letting SBS run the show.

Am I right?

 

[Rasclart]

Depends really

Most of our clients only have one Domain Controller and one server, and SBS does the job perfectly providing Exchange, Remote Workplace via VPN. SBS backup is a bit s**t but that doesnt matter as use Veritas most of the time.

Also there main use apart from Mail is using for serving files and in some cases running a Database based program for example Residential Software for an Estate Agent.

Couple of out clients are running W2K3 but they arent using exchange as there email is managed by a knobend in another branch who INSISTS on seperate POP accounts.

I think for what your doing SBS would do the job.

 

[Darren S]

Yep - small scale, you're fine. It would be IT suicide to have SBS here now though. We had SBS years ago which incoporated a turd version of SQL. The trouble was, was that SQL was (and still is) crucial to our day-to-day business. The cut-down SBS version caused us no end of issues. Got our fingers burnt once - never again....

D.