My suggestion, hire a consultant.  With 2600 users there has to be a number of 
technologies being used which would require licensing of various types.

Server, Exchange, SQL, just to name a few.

Who was managing those stations prior to you?  If you don’t have any of that 
information you would do yourself good to contact MS or a MS Partner to have 
them lookup if there is any current licenses owned.
You said "start"  I have never seen a 2600 node network just start up before, 
but if that’s the case you can negotiate one heck of a deal with your vendor.  
Dell, HP for the workstation and servers and a MS Partner could work up the 
licensing costs for you.

When you purchase an computer from HP, Dell, IBM it comes with an OEM XP Pro 
license that is only to be used on that physical box.  That license has nothing 
to do with Server licenses, Exchange licenses, or other products.

Let us know.  Sounds like fun.

Thanks

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Juned Shaikh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 11:37 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Building a new instrastructure

Hi,

I am sure many of you have been through this before. How to do you deal with 
licensing part (CALs purchase) if one has to start the following 
instrastructure:

2600 users
10 servers - mostly file and print
2600 workstations

I was thinking in the following line - help me add / deduce some of the items:

Order 2600 workstations with WinXP Pro licenses 
Order 10 server bare with no OS
Get 10 licenses for Win2k3 STD server. 
How many CALs do I need to procure? and what type? 

I understand the WinXP Proalready contains Device CALs? So does that mean only 
Users CALs need to be procurred? How much is the street price for user CALs? 
any idea?

Thanks

 


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

Reply via email to