Hello to all the people.
I work in an organization, We have 60 clients pc and 45 users on the
lan
I read in many sites that windows 2003 for Small business server can
handle 75 users and device and if my organization has more users or
device, the transition pack is needed.

Does the "windows 2003 server standard edition" has the same limits?

Other problem is that someone told me that the 2003 sbs and the 2003
standard edition come both with 5 cal and anyway with our numbers (60
pcs and 45 users) whe should buy extra cal. Is it right?

Tnx to all for the answers.
Roberto Gerlando

robix73 <robix73@libero.it> wrote:
> Hello to all the people.
> I work in an organization, We have 60 clients pc and 45 users on the
> lan
> I read in many sites that windows 2003 for Small business server can
> handle 75 users and device

Not "users and devices" - users. And users as in actual people, not accounts
you set up for resource mailboxes, etc.

> and if my organization has more users or
> device, the transition pack is needed.

Yes.
>
> Does the "windows 2003 server standard edition" has the same limits?

No.

But SBS is a software suite, including Exchange, etc - Windows is just
Windows.
>
> Other problem is that someone told me that the 2003 sbs and the 2003
> standard edition come both with 5 cal and anyway with our numbers (60
> pcs and 45 users) whe should buy extra cal. Is it right?

You will need extra CALs regardless. Whether you buy "per user" or "per
device" really is up to you, but you can't mix and match.
>
> Tnx to all for the answers.
> Roberto Gerlando

robix73 <robix73@libero.it> wrote:
> Hello to all the people.
> I work in an organization, We have 60 clients pc and 45 users on the
> lan
> I read in many sites that windows 2003 for Small business server can
> handle 75 users and device

Not "users and devices" - users. And users as in actual people, not accounts
you set up for resource mailboxes, etc.

> and if my organization has more users or
> device, the transition pack is needed.

Yes.
>
> Does the "windows 2003 server standard edition" has the same limits?

No.

But SBS is a software suite, including Exchange, etc - Windows is just
Windows.
>
> Other problem is that someone told me that the 2003 sbs and the 2003
> standard edition come both with 5 cal and anyway with our numbers (60
> pcs and 45 users) whe should buy extra cal. Is it right?

You will need extra CALs regardless. Whether you buy "per user" or "per
device" really is up to you, but you can't mix and match.
>
> Tnx to all for the answers.
> Roberto Gerlando

Thank you for your answer.
Then with my numbers, should I install the standard edition?
And how many extra Cal should I Buy (~ 60 pcs and ~ 45 users ~ 3 or 4
printer on the lan and ~ 5 - 6 file servers - all working at the same
time) ?
I forget: sorry for my poor english.
thank you
Best regards
Roberto Gerlando

I forget:
If sbs can handle up to 75 users (as in actual people) but it come
with 5 CAL, if I have 45 users working all at the same time, should I
buy 40 extra Cal?
Thanks
Roberto Gerlando

robix73 <robix73@libero.it> wrote:
> Thank you for your answer.
> Then with my numbers, should I install the standard edition?

I can't answer that for you. It isn't a reasonable comparison - they're not
the same thing. If you need more than just Windows (such as Exchange,
SQL,etc) then go with SBS. If all you need is Windows server, then go with
Windows server.

> And how many extra Cal should I Buy (~ 60 pcs and ~ 45 users ~ 3 or 4
> printer on the lan and ~ 5 - 6 file servers - all working at the same
> time) ?

I can't answer that either, sorry. I don't know what your expected or
current network usage is like, or what your needs are.

> I forget: sorry for my poor english.

Your English is fine.

> thank you
> Best regards
> Roberto Gerlando

All I need are two file server, where people can save or edit office
files. Due to a great number of file, I need at least 2 file servers,
a domain, at least 45 users working all together, users should be able
to use some lan printers, indexing service should be on, let people do
searches (using indexing service) on a catalog built over the files
contained on the file file servers. Searches will be done via a html
page (web server).
In this scenario I saw a Sbs premium edition that in the license
management says:
installed Cal : 5
maximum usage 25
and it doesn't say if the 20 extra cal used are "per device" or "per
user"
Anyway, in this case; what's the best? Is needed to buy extra cal? 20?
per device or per user? If license management doens't say what it
needs, should the administrator buy 10 cal per device and 10 cal per
users?. This is very strange and Incomprehensible
Thank you for answering me
Regards
Roberto Gerlando

robix73 wrote:
> All I need are two file server, where people can save or edit office
> files. Due to a great number of file, I need at least 2 file servers,
> a domain, at least 45 users working all together, users should be able
> to use some lan printers, indexing service should be on, let people do
> searches (using indexing service) on a catalog built over the files
> contained on the file file servers. Searches will be done via a html
> page (web server).
> In this scenario I saw a Sbs premium edition that in the license
> management says:
> installed Cal : 5
> maximum usage 25
> and it doesn't say if the 20 extra cal used are "per device" or "per
> user"
> Anyway, in this case; what's the best? Is needed to buy extra cal? 20?
> per device or per user? If license management doens't say what it
> needs, should the administrator buy 10 cal per device and 10 cal per
> users?. This is very strange and Incomprehensible
> Thank you for answering me
> Regards
> Roberto Gerlando

User and Device CAL licensing *can* get tricky, but as a general rule, User
CALs are most often used. So, for every *"Person"* that will be accessing
anything on your SBS server, acquire a CAL for them. In your case, you would
need 40 more *SBS* CALs to achieve current licensing usage. (Windows 2003
CALs do not apply, nor are they needed for additional Windows 2003 servers
(file&print).

The "maximum usage" is an attempted peak meter, and not at all accurate.



--
/kj