Phillip Partipilo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 11/13/2008 12:18:43 AM:
> I mean for real, you dont see Linux vomiting over certain > requirements, it'll be perfectly happy to install on incredibly, > totally substandard hardware, where it will be doing nothing but swap > the entire time. To be so draconian is really disturbing. On the flip side, look at the market MS is targeting - non-technical users. Now I know it's a little absurd to expect a non-technical person to install SBS, but that is part of their target audience. If MS didn't cut off the requirements somewhere, they could go through the whole "vista capable" fiasco all over again, so they drew a line in the sand and said "here are the requirements". Either way they can't win. Now if they had a way for you to push F6 or something on install and basically acknowledge you knew what you were doing and to turn the sanity checks off, then that would make some folks happy... until some consultant did that in a production environment at a clients demand and then they were subject to complaints about SBS "sucking".... I dunno. Tough call - I don't blame them, though. The 64-bit requirements and the lack of an in place upgrade option aren't putting me in a hurry to upgrade any time soon. That and I'm keeping an eye on: http://www.bilal.ca/ Their appliance has some pretty compelling features - esp for hardware recovery, is cost competitive to SBS (esp. after the 2008 price hike) and with Symphony I could probably eliminate Office for further cost savings. Either way I'm not in a hurry to touch my SBS 2003 installs. Eric Eskam =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= The contents of this message are mine personally and do not reflect any position of the U.S. Government "The human mind treats a new idea the same way the body treats a strange protein; it rejects it." - P. B. Medawar ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
