Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 96203	2009-01-02 06:53:00	Does a small business need their own Exchange Server / Terminal Server?	Chilling_Silence (9)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
734374	2009-01-02 10:15:00	So Ive just spoken with some more friends who run a small business, they've just spent a bucketload of cash getting their own Exchange Server, their own Terminal Server (Both separate hardware) and there's only about 5-6 users. Is it really worth it? Or are there some benefits here Im missing? Basically, Ive been friends with another fella for a while who runs two small businesses. One has been running for several years now, and he signed up with an IT company a few years back who gave him a similar setup: 7x Thin Clients Terminal Server Exchange Server 24-Port Switch Proxying all internet out some super-expensive Cisco router All in a massive 40U rack! I went and setup his second business around 6 months ago with: A Linksys Router & a pfSense box 5x Toshiba Laptops 8-Port PoE Switch (To power the SIP Phones) Cost is 30-40K (Im not sure of the whole cost, the owner didnt want to say, plus it was around 18 months ago so might not be accurate in todays market) vs $6.5 to 7K I s'pose what Im getting at: Why would a small business want to host their own Email server? Does a small business really NEED a Terminal Server? What benefits do they offer that I've missed? Not really wanting to take a big dig at businesses that base their business around selling / supporting Microsoft etc, but Im just curious, having seen a few small businesses (<20 employees) in the last couple of years fork out big bucks for it, and I s'pose Im not sure why they would. Thoughts / Comments / Insults / Insights appreciated Chill. Well, you should never run a TS on SBS server, RIGHTS!!!!...what they could have done is virtualise the 2 servers on the main server if it was grunty enough...however they may have had to go 64bit for RAM issues.... As for hosting your own e-mail, i would imagine they wanted calendar sharing, contact sharing etc....they may even of wanted to expand to a WAN...	SolMiester (139)
734375	2009-01-02 10:18:00	Hell NO!!!! Exchange and Terminal Server is best suited for 150 - 200+ user base. Terminal Server would be an option if you had more users than computers... it is easier to user a TS than buy a PC for each user especially if the user rewirements are minimal such as email and Internet access. Definitely not the best move they have made... unless they're expecting huge growth in this time of economic stagnation. Oh please......150+...LOL......TS will handle 20-30 users, NOT 150...	SolMiester (139)
734376	2009-01-02 18:34:00	Oh please......150+...LOL......TS will handle 20-30 users, NOT 150... Yea that's right. You would need to look at a Citrix system for that many users!	CYaBro (73)
734377	2009-01-02 19:27:00	Is there any instance where a generic small business (Not something specialist) would want something like that? There must be, coz MS created the "Small Business Server" :p But MSs idea of a small business and the average NZ small business are miles apart. Me - I'm a big fan of K.I.S.S	pctek (84)
734378	2009-01-02 19:57:00	Mmmmm... I definitely agree with pctek here. Yeah they like the shared calendar, but surely thats not the only reason somebody would go with a local exchange server. Heck, you can do all that from Gmail ;) Interesting to get some other peoples feelings on the subject though :)	Chilling_Silence (9)
734379	2009-01-02 21:55:00	I think some one got ripped off some how - maybe using a full server with Exchange and Terminal Services may be OK if the Business was going to grow to the point of needing it - maybe the rep had the "gift of the Gab" and convinced the people to " future proof" ?? Dont laugh at this - I did have to think twice, BUT a Place I do the IT work for they have 6 people, all needing access to the same files -They are a charity organization, they had a call from HP a few months before - HP were doing its "charity promotion" - HP said if they could help then ask -- Hmmm I suggested they ask for a server - HP GAVE then a New Server, but they couldn't get a server OS cheap - Soooooo I dropped Windows Home Server into it - WHS- Built from Server 2003-Has a 10 User client license - remote connection so they can get to there files from any where in the world from a web Browser - security is excellent - It stores all there working files - only time its caused a problem is when the router played silly buggers. The most they have had on it at once is 8 people accessing it at once (2 remotely) - sweeeeeet as, keeps ticking along nice, does auto back ups of all the PC's every day - and I do regular off site backups to my server from home, as well it does a additional backup to a NAS in the building - the server is outside in a secure building separate to the main building. For email they simply use Paradise.	wainuitech (129)
734380	2009-01-03 02:42:00	That was nice of HP wasnt it! :D Sounds like they have been over-sold then ... 'tis sad how Im seeing more and more businesses without a clue trusting their IT to a company like these few small businesses I know of, and each IT crowd (All 3 that come to mind are different) abuses that "position of power" just to make a quick buck ... :mad: :mad: :mad:	Chilling_Silence (9)
734381	2009-01-03 03:10:00	Chill - just a bit of a side issue - suggestion - if any of the places you do work for are charity / non profit based - they can get MS software at dirt cheap prices. They have to be registered as a charity or non profit organization - then When you apply for the software/licenses at places like Ingram Micro - they check them out and as long as every thing is legit - its sweet as - Last time I got some- Example: Microsoft Office 2007 PRO - Media around $50.00 Licenses around $95 - $120 each. There is a Min of 5 user licenses, BUT if you only want 1 or two you buy how ever many you need - then get whats called Place Holders at about $6.00 each to make up the 5 users. Then if you want to add more users at a later date simply pay for an additional license.	wainuitech (129)
734382	2009-01-03 03:31:00	Thanks for that info, WT. May be of use for an organization I know.	linw (53)
734383	2009-01-03 03:46:00	Oh please......150+...LOL......TS will handle 20-30 users, NOT 150... I wasn't referring to 150+ concurrent user sessions, I was merely stating that if you have a large user base where deploying a PC for each user isn't sensible... a terminal server provides a good option. The organisation I work for has a user base of 450+ users... I would say half of those users do not have access to their own PC's (this is due to shift work etc) So we run a Terminal Server... all our common use and in-house developed applications are installed on this server and all users can access it. We have been running it as a virtual server for the last 8 months or so as well. Cheers,	chiefnz (545)
1 2 3