yes you could have a mix of DCs where some are std. and some are ent. AD does not care about that. and if you really wanna go nuts you could even throw in datacenter edition! ;-) don't forget what neil said: think about CURRENT and possible FUTURE requirements jorge
________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Ryan A. Conrad Sent: Tue 2006-02-14 17:15 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] W2K3 Std. vs. Ent. for DCs Jorge, Are you suggesting that some DCs an be Ent. Ed. and some Std.? I noticed in the matrix that MIIS integration/support was limited to Ent. Ed., as well as pieces of ADFS. We presently have an empty root (ignoring why we have it, as I don't want to spark any heated conversations), with several child domains that we are working on eliminating. Forest is at 2003 FFL. Thanks again! Ryan On 2/14/06, Almeida Pinto, Jorge de <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I these are plain vanila DCs standard edition is OK. However it really depends on what additional features you want to use on your DCs. Compare the editions of W2K3 and see what you need for each DC. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/features/comparefeatures.mspx jorge ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Ryan A. Conrad Sent: Tue 2006-02-14 16:37 To: [email protected] Subject: [ActiveDir] W2K3 Std. vs. Ent. for DCs Dean posted this comment in a recent post: ---------------------------- I have no concerns using Standard edition for DCs, I don't see it too often since the majority of my customers are licensed up the wazoo and use whatever ISO they stumble across first :o) ---------------------------- As ironic as it is, we have recently been prodded by our internal server support group to provide sufficient documentation (beyond saying "because we want it") as to why we need W2K3 Ent. instead of W2K3 Std. Thus far the only thing official I've been able to come up with is the fact that we have multiple DFS roots. They seem to think that the license costs for Ent. being 3x that of Std. doesn't justify implementation. Can anyone point me to some documentation or specific reasons to stick with Ent.? Ultimately this is what we want for AD, but somehow our desires are not good enough when it comes to $$$ savings. Thanks! Ryan This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you.
<<winmail.dat>>
