Hi,

If I want to add an existing Windows 2000 server into an SBS 2003 domain and
install the SQL Server from SBS onto it, does this a) work and b) have any
licence implications. Or, do I have to upgrade the 2000 server to 2003
server?

The Windows 2000 box is also a terminal server, will the TS clients be
allowed to access the SBS 2003 server from TS session connecting via the
2000 box?

I gets sooo complex!?

Siv

Siv wrote:
No

Well, since you can't do it, I reckon it has no license ramifications at all
:-)

No, you can just buy/install/license SQL server for the existing 2k box.
Eh? I'm lost, son. Clients can't access TS on an SBS2003 box - only admins
(for remote administration only). And I wouldn't want to run SQL on a TS
box. Keep things simple - if you have the need for another SQL server at
all, put it on a dedicated server. If you have a need for TS, keep it on its
own box - not a DC, just a member server running nothing else, ideally.

To explain, I have a client who has just merged with another company and
they are running SBS 2003 on one site, but without SQL Server installed, at
the other site they are running a standard Windows 2000 server that has
Terminal Server running.

What I want to do is add the two boxes together, so I would be adding the
Win2k TS box into the SBS 2003 server domain. Because SBS includes SQL
Server 2000 I wanted to just add SQL to the Win2k box so that they have SQL
Server and TS on the WIn2k box and the existing Win 2003 SBS box does
everything else.

The idea being that the remote clients could TS into the WIn2K box and run
an application on the Win2k box that uses the SQL Server as its back end
database.

If the Win2K box was upgraded to Windows 2003 could the SQL Server be added
to it then?? If it could would that affect the Terminal Services at all?

I am only talking about a max of 25 users so this isn't a huge
installation??

Siv

"Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
<lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmail.aty ahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OGibLN1nEHA.3712@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...

- SBS Allows both member servers and Replica Domain controllers so
you -can- add the Windows 2000 Server as a member server to the SBS
Domain.

- All components of SBS -must- be installed on the SBServer Box.
You -cannot- split them off and install them on separate machines be
they Win2000 or Win 2003 servers, it's a violation of the License
agreement to do so.

- The Member Server will consume 1 SBS CAL in authenticating to the
SBServer and any user of Terminal Services who authenticates to the
SBServer ( i.e. All of them as they would authenticate to the AD Domain
for access) will require both an SBS CAL, and a TS CAL. Client
Connection to the Member Server is covered by the SBS CALs.

HTH

--
Henry Craven {SBS-MVP}
Melbourne Australia

"Siv" <gs@remove.sivill.com> wrote in message
news:O3zcP10nEHA.628@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

Henry,
I thought everything being on the one box had gone away since SBS 2000,
obviously been given duff information. You say that it is a licence
violation, but you don't say it is physically impossible?
It would suit me to put the SQL Server on the TS box rather than the main
SBS box as this is occupied with Exchange and File and print, also the TS
system will probably only be used by about 4 or 5 remote users so shouldn't
be putting too much strain on it. The box is a Dell 2400 with 4 gbytes RAM
and Xeon processors running at 2.0 ghz so it should be able to handle it.
Siv

"Henry Craven" <IUnknown@Dot.Nyet> wrote in message
news:uC%23vOe1nEHA.3324@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...

Sorry Siv, I don't encourage people to go out and steal hubcaps
( or violate license agreements )

There is nothing stopping you installing an appropriately licensed ( per
processor or per user ) Full Packaged Product copy of SQL Server on the
member server if you so wish.

--
Henry Craven {SBS-MVP}
Melbourne Australia

"Siv" <gs@remove.sivill.com> wrote in message
news:eN3Rmj1nEHA.592@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

There are of course free ( and legal ) alternatives, such as MySQL or
PostgreSQL ( depending on your needs ) which will run on the Windows
platform so you should perhaps look to those if your schema truly cannot
accommodate the SBServer Requirements and FPP SQL is too pricy.

--
Henry Craven {SBS-MVP}
Melbourne Australia


"Henry Craven" <IUnknown@Dot.Nyet> wrote in message
news:egP2hU2nEHA.3072@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

I can't see why it should all be installed on the main SBS server, if you
have paid for SBS why does it matter whether you install SQL onto the SBS
Server or another member server??
MS themselves always recommend that each server software be installed on a
separate physical box?

Siv

"Henry Craven" <IUnknown@Dot.Nyet> wrote in message
news:uKS8Vm2nEHA.4068@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

Not with SBServer. It's a Special Product at a Super Special Price.
Having all the Components on the One Box works in SBS and with
a limit of 75 CALs doesn't strain the hardware provided it's specked
right.
100s of thousands of users can attest to this.

If you buy the product you comply with the License. If you don't like
the license, you don't buy the product -simple-.

There are (legal) alternatives as I've pointed out.

--
Henry Craven {SBS-MVP}
Melbourne Australia


"Siv" <gs@remove.sivill.com> wrote in message
news:ulv$Au2nEHA.3908@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

Henry,

Thanks for that. I suppose it boils down to MS not wanting people to set up
bigger systems on the back of SBS and thus ruining sales of the core server
products. I am always looking at it from the small business standpoint, and
they just don't have the funds to fork out for lots of hardware and software
licences, SBS provides them with a neat way to get the "big daddy" apps like
SQL Server without paying "Big Daddy" prices.

Siv

"Henry Craven" <IUnknown@Dot.Nyet> wrote in message
news:erJl$32nEHA.556@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

I think you've got it in one there Siv.

--
Henry Craven {SBS-MVP}
Melbourne Australia

"Siv" <gs@remove.sivill.com> wrote in message
news:#KKE6e8nEHA.4068@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

Henry,
If a Windows 2000 server is added as a member server to a SBS 2003
domain and Terminal Services is run in application mode on the 2000
box are TS CALs required for XP Pro clients or will the desktop OS
equivalency still apply?

Thanks so much,
JenniferB




"Henry Craven" <IUnknown@Dot.Nyet> wrote in message news:<uC#vOe1nEHA.3324@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>...

For Windows Server 2003 Equivalency was dropped and only XP pro systems
purchased and registered before April 24, 2003 were eligible for a free
TS CAL.

However, as this is a Windows 2000 Terminal Server the best I can see is
the following applies:

===========
Q. Do Windows XP and Windows 2000 Professional have built-in
Terminal Services CALs?

A. No, Microsoft desktop operating systems (including Windows XP
and Windows 2000 Professional) do not have a "built-in" Terminal
Services CAL.

For Windows 2000 Terminal Servers, the license server issues
machines running Windows 2000/Windows XP Professional with a "free"
Terminal Services CAL from its built-in pool (and its use is permitted
under the Windows 2000 Server EULA). Windows XP Professional is a
successor to Windows 2000 Professional, and as a result does not need a
Terminal Services CAL to access a Windows 2000 Server running Terminal
Services. However, Windows XP Home Edition is not a successor to Windows
2000 Professional (rather, it is a successor to Windows Millennium
Edition) and therefore does require a Terminal Services CAL in order to
access Windows 2000 Terminal Services..



==========

You should ring your local MS Office and have the Licensing Officer
confirm.

--
Henry Craven {SBS-MVP}
Melbourne Australia


"JenniferB" <deljenniferb@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b67218e9.0409241955.3dc0a124@posting.google.c om...

<still grumbling about that one>

Henry Craven wrote:

Not grumbling so much as scared to death to tell the client he has to
cough up another $500-$1000 for TS CALs, after telling him he has to
buy another box because the SBS2003 we recommended won't run TS in
application mode. I'm just hoping the Server 2000 will work.

Thanks,
Jennifer


"Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" <lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmail.aty ahoo.com> wrote in message news:<#QllwBsoEHA.3396@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>...

"JenniferB" <deljenniferb@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
news:b67218e9.0409250617.5bbef83f@posting.google.c om...
Take a look at www.thinsoftinc.com There WinConnect Server XP 2.00 is what
you want. It can run on a XP box, or on your SBS2003server (maybe not
recomended by all, but why not in a small company?). I have used this
software on some clients now, and it works great.

/Per W.

hi,

"Henry Craven" <IUnknown@Dot.Nyet> wrote in message news:%
Just wondering, how does WinXPHome connect to the WindowsAD
domain - here it's a win2k TS right?
If the PC is at home, I suppose one could dialin, but if in the office LAN
type environment, what's the recommended method? VPN thru ISA?
VPN in a LAN subnet?

TIA,
Eugene Tan

Jennifer,
If the remote users are connecting After Hours, or there are spare
workstations around then maybe RWW would be an option.

--
Henry Craven {SBS-MVP}
Melbourne Australia

"JenniferB" <deljenniferb@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b67218e9.0409250617.5bbef83f@posting.google.c om...

I don't know Eugene,
I've never tried using an XPHome PC on an SBS LAN either to attempt to
use limited resources as it can't authenticate to the Domain, or via a
TS Session from the LAN. I presume you'd just connect to the internal IP
as if you were in a remote/home office with a permanent VPN, but haven't
done that either. Should be the same as doing TS admin of the server
from a workstation.

Don't see why you'd go to the bother instead of having full domain
access using Win2K or XPpro.

--
Henry Craven {SBS-MVP}
Melbourne Australia

"Eugene Tan" <insights-[dropthis]@post1.com> wrote in message
news:eb4gesxoEHA.1668@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...

hi Henry,

I agree it's not worth the bother or cost usually.
Some people have WinXPH at home so was wondering if you had
any experience or issues since you mentioned abt XPH, but I guess
this was solely in context of TS licensing.

Cheers,
Eugene Tan

==================
"Henry Craven" <IUnknown@Dot.Nyet> wrote in message
news:Oz2fr03oEHA.3172@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...