Guilty as charged :-) Even at that it only failed because I tried to do an SBS-y thing after treating it non-SBS-y for years. I think the real takeaway is either treat it "native" -OR- SBS-like but don't mix and match. SBS2011 makes the "non-SBSy" stuff kludgy so you REALLY don't want to mix and match.
Notable with SBS2011: 1. Once you run the Connect to Internet wizard it automatically creates a DHCP scope and activates it. 2. It automatically configures WSUS 3. With wizards you can move where Exchange, SharePoint, and User shares are stored, even after you've had the server running for months SBS2011 is almost NOTHING like SBS 2003. Not sure what the concern is of the SBS server having the FSMO roles, that doesn't prevent you from standing up another DC. In fact when this environment was SBS 2003 I was able to extend the schema and stand up a 2008 R2 DC. I say stick with the wizards and everything will be more consistent . Dave -----Original Message----- From: Art DeKneef [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 12:49 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SBS Standard 2011 or Server 2008 R2 Ben, I will have to disagree with you on this. In my experience I haven't had many issues with the different SBSs compared to regular Windows Server. Each has its place and I agree it will depend on the individual client's needs. Yes the "wizards" are an issue with a lot of people but think of it as a way to configure the server consistently. Is it that much different from someone that runs a batch of scripts setting up a server? Couldn't running those scripts be called "wizards"? As for failing in weird ways I'm sure David Lum can attest to the fact of what happens when you try to admin a SBS box like a regular Windows Server box. Right Dave? :-) Art -----Original Message----- From: Ben Scott [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 11:42 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: SBS Standard 2011 or Server 2008 R2 On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Jimmy Tran <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm getting ready to purchase a few licenses for a client. The main > difference I see between the two OS's is SBS includes Exchange. The > down side is SBS requires much more resources as seen from my lab. If > there are no plans for on premise exchange, should I be going with > Server 2008 R2? While I haven't touched it in literally years, I've always tried to stay away from SBS. There are various licensing constraints (e.g., must be a DC holding the FSMO roles) that can cause artificial headaches. Worse, there are a bunch of "wizards" and canned configuration and other things designed to help you, and if you deviate from the SBS way of doing things, they can fail in weird ways. SBS mainly seems to be designed for a small company that mostly does their own IT but shouldn't. So if this client is one of those (mostly does their own IT, but shouldn't) SBS may be appropriate. But if their IT is handled by clueful IT professionals, I would steer clear. -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to [email protected] with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to [email protected] with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to [email protected] with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
