Second hand server 2003 or Windows 7 Pro?

[4ycr]

I have a client that needs to share an access database, he is about to start a small call centre and previously only one person edited the database but now up to 14 will be editing it.

He went to see a recycling place to get a server for about £80 which should be server 2003. My understanding is the OEM licence is for 5 cal so he would need to buy a further 10 which I estimate to be about £200, if I looked at the correct ones as they ranged in price from £80+VAT to £300 for 5.

So as Windows 7 Pro allows 20 connections it might be cheaper to get a new windows 7 computer and use that.

Anyone got any thoughts?

 

[BryanVest]

I have a client that needs to share an access database, he is about to start a small call centre and previously only one person edited the database but now up to 14 will be editing it.

He went to see a recycling place to get a server for about £80 which should be server 2003. My understanding is the OEM licence is for 5 cal so he would need to buy a further 10 which I estimate to be about £200, if I looked at the correct ones as they ranged in price from £80+VAT to £300 for 5.

So as Windows 7 Pro allows 20 connections it might be cheaper to get a new windows 7 computer and use that.

Anyone got any thoughts?

Windows 7 pro would probably be the best way since it is much cheaper. You can get license off MSDN for free if you have it.

 

[NETWizz]

Windows 7 pro would probably be the best way since it is much cheaper. You can get license off MSDN for free if you have it.

No he cannot get it for free from MSDN and use it for a customer. The business (customer) would have to be a member of MSDN and use their licence. MSDN is NOT a place for people to download software and just give it away to other people free of charge. That would be software piracy.

 

[ATS]

If he has 14 people now, what if he hires more than 20 at some point in the future?

 

[wimwauters]

I would opt for a Windows 7 box, especially if their other computers are Vista or later.

You can always upgrade to a SQL server later.

 

[Paul Rodgers]

I would be concerned with the connection limits of Win 7. SBS 2003 would be a better solution but a real server OS would be the best idea.

 

[NETWizz]

Windows 7 WILL allow up to 20 people to access that share. Windows Server will allow almost an unlimited amount of connections even without the CALS to just a simple file share.

That said, you would be severely limited if you run a Domain with 5 CALs.

*Please double-check what i said, but it should work. If this is a real server, doesn't it have a Server licence/product-key on the side?

 

[4ycr]

Thanks guys, it will only be a file share as the other computers are going to be second hand and I have no control over the OS's installed but I think most will be XP home.

I didn't realise you don't need CALs if you are only sharing a file.

 

[Knightsman]

Im working on a clients network now, and they currently share a Access file. None of the systems had cals when I came into it. Its shared on a secondary drive.

Id go with server 2003

 

[wimwauters]

Thanks guys, it will only be a file share as the other computers are going to be second hand and I have no control over the OS's installed but I think most will be XP home.

I didn't realise you don't need CALs if you are only sharing a file.

Yep, you will need CALs for the Windows 2003 server. Charities are eligible for discounts though, check with your Microsoft license supplier.

In your case, I'd stick to a new (because of reliability-productivity concerns) Windows 7 box.

But if this were my client, I'd just setup a 1U Samba fileserver or a Linux-based NAS box.

 

[MobileGeeks]

People who recycle old servers/computers you should stay away from.

My experience it always goes pear shaped..

Thanks,

mobilegeeks

 

[4ycr]

Yep, you will need CALs for the Windows 2003 server. Charities are eligible for discounts though, check with your Microsoft license supplier.

In your case, I'd stick to a new (because of reliability-productivity concerns) Windows 7 box.

But if this were my client, I'd just setup a 1U Samba fileserver or a Linux-based NAS box.

My first thought was a linux server or NAS but after asking in an access forum was told it should be on a windows system

A Linux NAS used as a file Server will not handle MS Access locking files and may and probably will cause issues. I would recommend only using a Win based NAS. The same problem occurs when the BE data is stored on a full Linux server.

Well an update it is looking like he will either need to buy server licence or go with linux as he bought a server that was under spec even though I told him not to and it only have a server 2000 COA on it. So it could end up costing him a fair bit.

 

[wcbond4]

ehh

It depends on if you are looking long term or not.

A new box with server 2003 would be optimal. If its going to be a basic file server you dont have to have a real beefy machine. A $200 barebones kit + Windows Server would be a relatively cheap option.

As for the future, if you client ever wants to set up a VPN for his 14 employees so they could work out of the office (not far fetched these days) he would have to upgrade to server software of some flavor. Windows 7 will only allow one client connection at one time.

 

[4ycr]

As for the future, if you client ever wants to set up a VPN for his 14 employees so they could work out of the office (not far fetched these days) .

This is defiantly not an option for his employees as it will be a small call centre but thanks for the info