Licensing 1

[Ducatista]

I currently have a W2k SBS and need to add an additional fileserver server to my network. I would like to make the additional fileserver a W2003 standard edition server - my question is I already have 25 licenses for the W2k server, when I add the W2003 server as a secondary server to my domain inwich the W2k server is the primary domain server, do I have to buy additional licenses for the w2003 server?

In appreciaiton,
Ryan

 

[captaincrunch00]

Aye, you do.

Easiest way for any licensing questions is to call 1-800-MICROSOFT and tell them your situation.

You'll also need Exchange licenses if you dont have those yet.

 

[58sniper]

No - you don't, assuming that you're using PER USER CALs. A user CAL covers the user regardless of how many servers you have. As CaptainCrunch00 said, you'll need Exchange CALs if you're using Exchange, and the same with SQL. But just Windows file servers, no - no extra CALs needed.

Pat Richard, MCSE(2) MCSA:Messaging, CNA(2)

 

[captaincrunch00]

Yes you will.

Windows 2000 CALs do not work for Windows 2003.
They work from 2003 to 2000, but not from 2000 to 2003.

If they worked the way you said it, my CALs from Windows NT would work just fine.

 

[58sniper]

You don't. I asked Microsoft, and they said you'd need more SBS licenses if you increased the number of users, but you'd be ok with just those.

Now - if you were pulling out of SBS and migrating to 2003, then you would need them.

Pat Richard, MCSE(2) MCSA:Messaging, CNA(2)

 

[captaincrunch00]

Yeah, his users will be fine and dandy if they never touch the 2003 server.
I agree on that.

However, you need a different set of licenses for 2003 than you do for 2000. They are not backwards compatible, you have to get new ones if you are going to touch a 2003 server.

I just had to do this myself the other day. I called that number and they said that even though I had 2000 licenses for my domain controller, the computers were still going to access the 2003 server for which I had 0 CALs. Without those CALs I was in the wrong, so I had to buy a bunch of 2003 CALs just for this reason.

If he's installing a 2003 box and then setting it in the closet with no network connection then no, he wouldnt need licenses because nothing is touching the server.

 

[captaincrunch00]

If Microsoft lied to me and made me buy $4000 worth of licenses for no reason, then I am going to be very angry.

Can you get it in writing faxed to me that I should not need 2003 licenses?

Call the number, they'll tell you exactly what I am telling you.

 

[58sniper]

I did call the number about three months ago before adding a new server for a good sized company. I was told we didn't need the additional CALs.

Pat Richard, MCSE(2) MCSA:Messaging, CNA(2)

 

[captaincrunch00]

You already had 2003 CALs though, right? This wasnt your first 2003 server.

This guy does not have any 2003 CALs. He needs some.

 

[Ducatista]

I just called Microsoft and the representative said that yes I DO need to buy user CALS for the 2003 server b/c the 25 user CALS I have for W2k do not work upstream to 2003 - now if I already a 2003 primary domain server I would not have to buy additional CALS, or if I make the new server W2k I would not have to buy additional CALS.

Now I'm working on the economics: should I get with the times and upgrade my SBS to 2003 and at the same time buy an additional 2003 standard edition for my fileserver thus able to save $$ overall by joining the licensing program or just by the W2k server standard edition license and not have to by the CALS at this time.

Optimally I would like to upgrade my entire domain to 2003, but since I work for a small business we cannot just pull money out of thin air (I just spent over $1,200 on Microsoft Office upgrades!).

Thanks everyone for your input.

- Ryan

 

[58sniper]

CaptainCrunch00 - no - there was a 2000 box running AD, and we were adding a 2003 box for an application. We were told we didn't need to upgrade, as long as we had the correct number of CALs to cover the users. Whether that's right or wrong seems to be an issue based on Ducatista's response above. Next time I have to add another newer box at a client site, I'll call MS again. No biggie...


Ducastista - to answer your question: there are a LOT of nice features in SBS 2003 that make it worth the upgrade costs. I'd look at long term supportability of the 2000 solution you have now (compare it to Microsoft's product life info) and wonder if continuing to add 2000 boxes, which are already one product line behind, is worth it.

Pat Richard, MCSE(2) MCSA:Messaging, CNA(2)

 

[Ducatista]

58sniper, yes, the advantages to 2003 plus the life of our current w2k domain is what I'm trying to get my managers to understand. Unfortunately, they are not very technically concious and the big $$ is what makes it hard for them to understand/swallow.

Thanks,
Ryan

 

[58sniper]

Dig up a list of the new features in 2003, and figure out how much money having those features will save. Shadow Copy, for one. Let the users restore their own files.

Exchange disaster recovery & restoring emails.

The actual cost of the software is only about 40% of the TCO. If your administrative costs go down, there is a savings.

Pat Richard, MCSE(2) MCSA:Messaging, CNA(2)

 

[PJONJACK]

I agree with the captain based on what the original post says.
Look at the licensing pages of microsoft.com.
Ducatista's original post says he is adding a 'W2K3 standard edition' to a 'SBS 2000' environment. Assuming it is not a typo, that kind of move would require 2K3 CAL's for the 2K3 server to be legal. If he is really adding a '2K3 SBS'(and migrating to it) then they allow the CAL's to carry over. Later on they get you if you have to go to W2K3 stan or ent by making you buy so-called 'transition' CAL's.
It's a question of wording.

 

[PJONJACK]

And of course whilst submitting the post, the issue got answered. Ha.