Need some help understanding 2k3 CAL's...

[Insane3D]

I need some help understanding the whole CAL deal with the 2k3 server versions. Do you need a CAL for each user if the user machines will just be simply mapped to a shared folder on the server, and acessing a very basic btrieve based database using Pervasive SQL V8 server?

The business is a pharmacy that right now is using Win2K Pro, with 9 2k Pro machines connecting to it.. At some point within a year, that number might increase to 15 or so, which will not work with Win2K IIRC, since it is limited to 10 local connections.

Now, are the CAL's needed for a simple network server use like this, or are the mainly for things like dummy terminals that are run as a client?

It seems silly to me that you can buy a desktop OS and it can handle ten local connections, but if you spend $500+ on a server version, you can only handle half that without buying more licenses?

Any light you guys can shed on this would be appreciated. Also, what are the differences, other than price, between Small Business edition, and the normal Standard Server?

 

[RebateMonger]

All current Windows Servers follow the same basic licensing rule:
Any client that requires Windows Authentication requires a CAL. If a client is accessing a shared folder on a Wndows Server, there'll be a CAL involved.

Microsoft: Licensing overview for Server 2003

Windows Small Business Server 2003 licensing is a bit simpler that Server 2003's, but the principal is the same. A SBS CAL serves as an access license to all other Windows 2003 Servers in the SBS Domain.

While the cost of CALs is an unexpected expense to many prospective purchasers, when you consider that a server typcically has a lifetime of four or five years, that puts the cost for CALs at around $10-$20 per year, depending on the Server system.

Windows Small Business Server 2003 is an all-in-one package offered to businesses with fewer than 75 users. The Standard Edtiion ($500) includes Server 2003, SharePoint, and Exchange 2003, and Outlook 2003 for all clients. The Premium Edition ($1500) adds SQL Server 2000, ISA Server 2004, and a copy of FrontPage 2003. If you purchased Premium Edition separately, it'd cost nearly $6000.

Small Business Server offers wizards for management, automated status reports, automated backups, and a built-in internal web site (CompanyWeb) for setting up shared project areas. Exchange Server works with automatically-installed Outlook 2003 to give the company it's own internal/external email system, including shared contacts, calendars, email, and tasks. SBS also includes full remote access for all employees (Remote Web Workplace), as well as a VPN wizard. There's also built-in FAX management.

The Premium Edition offers an enterprise-class firewall (ISA 2004), which is also commonly used to monitor and control employee Internet access. SQL 2000 is required for many recent accounting and other applications. There's a new, easy-to-use, CRM system built especially for SBS (CRM 3.0 Small Business Edition).

Straight Server 2003 is the basis for SBS. Server 2003 offers Active Directory and its ability to control all client PCs through Group Policies. Server 2003 also includes SharePoint.

 

[Insane3D]

What do you mean by authentication? Just simple access to a network folder? If this is the case, why does 2003 "out of the box" support HALF the connections of the desktop OS's?

From a few people that I have talked to who run it, it seems that local network connections from Windows machines do not require CLA's...

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
What do you mean by authentication? Just simple access to a network folder?

To quote Microsoft:
"A Windows CAL is required when a user or device accesses or uses the server software. However, if access is through the Internet and is unauthenticated (for example, when browsing a public Web site), a Windows CAL is not required."

If this is the case, why does 2003 "out of the box" support HALF the connections of the desktop OS's?

Because that's how Microsoft licenses its Server products. Servers are significantly more expensive to develop than desktop systems and much lower volume. Microsoft needs to charge by the user or the price would have to be outrageously high for the basic Server software.

There's really no comparison between what a non-Server operating system offers and what Windows Server with Active Directory offers. Sharing of folders is just one tiny part of it.

 

[Insane3D]

That's fine. However, this client is not going to be using all those extra features, and is being forced to upgrade to a server OS since MS limits the connections in their desktop OS to 10...I'm sure they could handle more if they were allowed.

I may have to suggest to him to get a second seperate servers with XP or something since it would actually be cheaper than buying 2003 and all the extra license requirements...

Edit:

Regardless of how retarded I think MS's CLA setup is, I appreciate the information. I should not shoot the messenger...

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Regardless of how retarded I think MS's CLA setup is, I appreciate the information. I should not shoot the messenger...

No. You shouldn't. But that's OK.

I'd still recommend that your client consider the benefits that easily shared information might bring. Microsoft's research shows an investment payback within 3-12 months for most small businesses. Not to mention the data loss disasters that frequently occur without an automated and monitored backup system like you get with SBS.

Not to mention that Dell and Gateway frequently have complete SBS 2003 Servers, complete with operating system installed, for as low as $600. Even with CALS, it's a pretty minimal hardware/software investment that can open some huge doors for improving how a company works.

 

[John]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Regardless of how retarded I think MS's CLA setup is, I appreciate the information. I should not shoot the messenger...

It's not CLA.....it's CAL (client access license).

FWIW you can still purchase Win2K server in case you don't want to make the move to 2K3 at the present time. IIRC you can purchase 2003 CAL's and exercise downgrade rights to use them on the 2000 server, and if your client decides to upgrade to server 2003 down the road he can carry them over as long as it's the same server box.

Win2K server w/ 10 CAL @ $745
http://www.computersworth.com/item.cfm?id=87

Win2K server w/ 25 CAL @ $956
http://www.computersworth.com/item.cfm?id=88

 

[Insane3D]

Thanks guys...I think I'm going to avoid 2K3 all together, as well as 2K server....MS prices are insane on these products. I can literally buy him a second system with XP Pro on it for less than the price of 2K3 with the needed number of CAL's.

Oh, and RebateMonger...thanks for your help, but do you work for MS?

I'd still recommend that your client consider the benefits that easily shared information might bring. Microsoft's research shows an investment payback within 3-12 months for most small businesses. Not to mention the data loss disasters that frequently occur without an automated and monitored backup system like you get with SBS.

They can easily share information now with a desktop OS...only thing 2K3 brings to the table for this client is being able to have more than 10 connections... Oh, and MS research shows an investment payback in that time period eh? Wow...I'm surprised that their research shows that, since they are already convincing people to pay hundreds of dollars for a number to allow people who bought their OS to actually use it. :roll: :roll:

My research shows a 1 million dollar per year savings by not going to 2K3...don't ask me for the details.

Oh, and John, how have you been man? Long time no talk... :beer:

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
My research shows a 1 million dollar per year savings by not going to 2K3...don't ask me for the details.

Well, here are some details:

One of many case studies of advantages realized by an actual company switching from Peer-to-Peer to SBS.

Another, where the owner was able to run his law firm from his Mexico vacation site. Business owners typically like this idea.

SBS 2003 Server/MS Office deployment at medical practice saves owner $70K per year.

 

[Insane3D]

Ok...well according to a friend who has SBS 2003 installed at a few of his clients, he DOES NOT need CALs for simple file sharing...

i don't believe it does.. i've got a 2k3 with basic 5 user licenses with 18 computers connected to a "shared" filemaker database and other files on it

It seems like CAL's are ONLY needed when using the server software...NOT for simple file sharing...

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: Insane3D
My research shows a 1 million dollar per year savings by not going to 2K3...don't ask me for the details.

Well, here are some details:

One of many case studies of advantages realized by an actual company switching from Peer-to-Peer to SBS.

Another, where the owner was able to run his law firm from his Mexico vacation site. Business owners typically like this idea.

SBS 2003 Server/MS Office deployment at medical practice saves owner $70K per year.

Do you work for MS? Thanks for your help and all, but of course they are going to tout their software that way. Any links that AREN't from MS?

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Do you work for MS? Thanks for your help and all, but of course they are going to tout their software that way. Any links that AREN't from MS?

No, I don't work for MS. I'm a private IT consultant.

If you wanted to talk to local companies using SBS about their experiences before/after, you could doubtless get some names and phone numbers from a local MS office or from a local Small Business Specialist. Why you wouldn't give the pharmacy owner the opportunity to look at the software? It'd only take an hour or so of his/her time.

 

[Insane3D]

Fair enough...

So, are you still saying CAL's are needed for simple file sharing? It seems that that is not the case...

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Ok...well according to a friend who has SBS 2003 installed at a few of his clients, he DOES NOT need CALs for simple file sharing...

i don't believe it does.. i've got a 2k3 with basic 5 user licenses with 18 computers connected to a "shared" filemaker database and other files on it

It seems like CAL's are ONLY needed when using the server software...NOT for simple file sharing...

Any authenticated access to the Server 2003 or SBS 2003 file system requires a CAL. If data is accessed through another Server (or through SQL Server, for instance), it can get a bit more complicated.

This is from one of most specific MS sites discussing CALS:
"Note the following general exception to Windows CAL requirements: Windows CALs are not required when access to the server software is unauthenticated and conducted through the Internet. Authenticated access is defined as an exchange of user or application credentials between the server software and a user or device. An example of this exception would be if unidentified users browsed your public Web site. Windows CALs would not be required for those users."

Also, remember that SBS allows both Device and User CALs. If somebody only has five computers but has 75 employees, as long as he's using DEVICE CALS, he's legal. Similarly, if you have 75 computers, but only five employees, you're fine if you are using USER CALS.

The fact is, Windows Server 2003 doesn't enforce licensing. You can tell it you have as many licenses as you wish. It's not legal, though.

SBS has its own licensing monitoring, which does enforce licensing rules, but it is pretty lenient and it's not perfect. It really only knows about concurrent access, which is NOT how SBS is licensed.

Ask your friend if he has ever looked at his "Licensing" page on the SBS Server Management screen.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the end, I'd recommend that any company charting its IT future not make the decision of Server/No Server solely based upon a $20 per year licensing fee. For a ten-person company, we're talking $100 a year for SBS. That's the cost of a nice dinner with a bottle of wine.

 

[spikespiegal]

Ok...well according to a friend who has SBS 2003 installed at a few of his clients, he DOES NOT need CALs for simple file sharing...

Because your friend likely has the server in per-seat mode and is ignoring the nasty license warnings showing up every 5 seconds in the event log. If you have 15 people sharing files off a Windows server at the same time, you need 15 cals - period. This is actually the easiest manner of Microsoft licensing. Let me introduce you to Terminal Server sometime.

I fail to see how having two boxes to support -vs- 1 server running SBS is less of a headache. Congratulations - you now have two points of failure.

Windows Server 2003 is a quantum order of magnitude more robust than XP when it comes to doing this kind of stuff. Of course you'll probably set it up on XP with a cheap PC, and then when you have problems down the road everybody will laugh and make Bill Gates jokes when they should be looking to lynch the guy who set it up.

 

[Insane3D]

:roll: @ spikespiegal

We don't support, sell, or build the boxes...only the POS software. I'm simply trying to help a long time customer out...

 

[Insane3D]

rebatemonger -

Thanks for your help. This is not a large company...it's a single independant pharmacy that has been running 9-10 stations on a Win2K machine for over 6 years... The database is EXTREMELY basic, and our application just converted from 16bit to 32bit, and was all DOS based. The database is ~1GB, and Pervasive 2000i is on all the stations. The customer is also upgrading to Pervasive 9, which is already ~$800, and they've already spent quite a bit having a new server built locally, which we advised them against, so 2K3 and al lthe CAL's is quite a bit more. This is all an unexpected outlay for them since the old machine had a RAID controller go down. A server OS for this kind of setup is EXTREME overkill, the ONLY reason we suggested they upgrade is simply because they may need more than 10 connections in the future.

We usually just leave all this up to the customer..we technically only support our POS software, but this is a long time customer who I'm simply trying to do a favor for...

 

[jcmuse]

SBS has its own licensing monitoring, which does enforce licensing rules, but it is pretty lenient and it's not perfect. It really only knows about concurrent access, which is NOT how SBS is licensed.

what is access defined as? if i have my setup configured where all internet traffic is routed through sbs, then to a switch and all the workstations, does a workstation simply browsing the web take up a CAL? nevermind if they're required to have a cal, i am interested in if sbs forces them to have a cal.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
rebatemonger -
We usually just leave all this up to the customer..we technically only support our POS software, but this is a long time customer who I'm simply trying to do a favor for...

OK. Thanks for the explanation.

Many smaller companies don't have any planned IT strategy. Many of my new clients are in the same boat. They call me for help AFTER they've purchased their server and software. Usually, I could have saved them considerable money by helping them with planning BEFORE they buy.

Anyway, if they end up with Server software, do take a hard look at SBS 2003. For a company with ten users, the price is about the same as plain Server 2003, and an SBS server is vastly more usable and easier to manage than a single Server 2003 box.

 

[Insane3D]

Thanks. I am looking at SB2003, but it only comes with 5 CAL's...and for some reason...add on CAL's for SBS are twice as much as normal server. However, SBS by itself is cheaper than normal server by itself...~$450 for SBS...$699 for normal.

 

[jcmuse]

yeah, it does make the whole thing quite expensive. search up on google groups for sbs 2003 cal enforcement. as i understand it, if i have a per user cal i can use as many as my devices as i want with sbs as long as i am operating that device.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
However, SBS by itself is cheaper than normal server by itself...~$450 for SBS...$699 for normal.

SBS $450 + 5 extra CALS $400 = $850
Server 2003 $700 + 5 extra CALS $160 = $860

SBS includes the CALS for Exchange Server (and SQL Server, too, if you get the Premium Ediiton). Additionally, if they ever need an additional Windows Server, with SBS they don't need to buy any more CALS. SBS CALS cover ALL Windows 2003 Severs in the Domain.