Home Forums Discussions General Discussion 6.5 Requirements

I noticed from the 6.5 announcement that the main computer should be more advanced than XP in order to take advantage of SQL 2012. Do any of you computer gurus know if Windows Server 2003 will be adequate for this upgrade?
Thanks

Those who have 6.5 already why the big deal to have tech involved from AC?

And if in fact dedicated AC tech time is required during reg working hours to do it guess it will be a while for roll out for all practices

SQL Server 2012 is not supported on Windows XP or Windows Server 2003.

In fact, Windows Server 2003 is the same as XP, just the server version.

As I and others have pointed out on this forum, Windows XP/Windows Server 2003/Office 2003 are end-of-life as of April 2014. Everyone should begin planning their upgrades now rather than later. If you upgrade to Windows Server 2008 R2/Windows 7 you can run the version of Amazing Charts you have now, then later move to Amazing Charts 6.5.

Proper planning and proper budgeting are the answer.

JamesNT

Spoke with tech today. SQL2012 is the reason why. Server 2003 does not support it, so the server will not be so fast. Upgrading to Server 2008 is what they are recommending. Warning though: upgrading to server 2008 requires completely new install and reinstalling everything on the server. If you can do it yourself it will take quite a few hours to do. So between installing server 2008 and having tech from Amazing Charts installing AC on the server you are talking quite a lot of down time. I am going to have to ask for weekend appointment.

You should split this up. Upgrade your server to Windows Server 2008 R2 one month soon, and then a month or two after than or when comfortable, upgrade Amazing Charts.

No need to do it all at once.

JamesNT

will it matter as much for peer to peer network

I have server 2008 not R2. Will it work? M Weiss

Make sure you update to Service Pack 2 if you have Server 2008. I know a lot of times the server goes by without getting updated.

SQL 2012 Express Supported Operating Systems:

Will windows update recommend or Do update to sp2 in windows server 2008?

Yes. Or you can download it from here:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/dd262148.aspx

JamesNT

Is SBS server 2011 Essentials supported by SQL express 2012? It is not in the list that Sanddep provided. Thanks.

Rene

SBS Essentials 2011 = Server 2008R2. Same with Standard 2011.

Do I NEED to upgrade my server 2003? Just because "Windows Server 2003/Office 2003 are end-of-life" And "it will be slower"... How much so?

The reason why is that there will be no more security updates for those Operating Systems. Say a critical issue is found in XP. Microsoft is under no obligation to patch that and you be exposed unless some third party patched it (unlikely) or you upgrade to Windows 7/8.

MS Releases security updates almost daily so it's not unrealistic to see that happening. Strongly recommend you make the move. Obviously, you don't have to do it all at once. Some people are looking into cloud or "private cloud" instead of buying new desktops/upgrading/servers. It can be a lot less hassle and a lot cheaper. Nowadays, it's frequently the case where we have more processing power than we actually need. Even in my office, employees hardly push a i5 processor past 10%. This is what cloud providers capitalize on but you can do it in your own office too.

But it's not for everyone like power users who use a lot of resources. But these people are the minority

I have a Dell server with SBS 2003. I plan to purchase a new server from Dell with the OS preinstalled. My question is should I have SBS 2011 or Server 2012 installed?

That is going to depend on what you want the server to do.
If you are going to use it for AC, you are probably going to also use it for file sharing.

For example, do you want to use and administrate Exchange?
How many users will be on the system?

The feature set you need and the number of licenses you want to pay for will drive the decision.

btw, spoke with tech support... upgrade is MANDATORY as it won't work otherwise..


confused as on ac web site...

* You can choose to not update the Main computer, but you won't get the increase in database size and performance of SQL 2012.

How about hard drive space? I am running windows 7 pro, 64 bit on a computer with a SSD, and I only have about 17 GB free. I will have to upgrade to SQL espress 2012, plus new version of AC.

Can I fit this in? Do I have to get a new puter?

BTW running AC on a SSD is very, very fast.

Worse cae to me would be a larger SSD. If you have room/cables, make the smaller your in-case backup.


Yes it is. You have to experience it to understand. We are moving a practice with ~150G of imported items to a server with RAIDed SSDs. Can't wait to see how fast some of these patients with 220+ imported items per patient opens.

Ah, I should have been more clear.

I am running AC on a LAPTOP that I carry with me...it's a totally wireless setup, with this the "main" computer, then others tie in through the network. So I can't attach a second HDD...and I am not sure if I have the technical ability to put a larger one in, if that's possible with the laptop I have.

Indy,

We have 16 users and we do use Exchange. Our practice management system is Medware which is on the server. I also use RWW.
Current hardware is Dell Poweredge T300
SBS 2003
Three 500GB HD
RAID 5
~20 client computers (XP and 7)

So, is there any advantage to Server 2012 over SBS 2011?

You can change the hard drive on a laptop pretty easily usually. Almost all manufacturers have easy access cover on the bottom usually with 2-4 screws to access the hard drive/ssd. Unless you have one of those unibody laptops (e.g. macbooks). I hope you are using disk encryption on there. Actually there's quite a few disk imaging software programs that will let you transfer it live to a new ssd before you even hook up the new one. (Macrium Reflect for example). I've had to move my SSD two times already. 64GB -> 128GB -> 256GB now. Works pretty well. After 500GB, the prices get pretty high. I can only think of one player that offers an affordable SSD at 500GB+. It was just released a few days ago too. The Crucial M500 at 960GB for $600 USD. In the sub 500GB range, there are lots of good choices: Intel 520, Samsung 840 Pro, Plextor M5 Pro.

SBS 2011 is not longer for sale. You will need to get Windows Server 2012 Essentials and a separate copy of Exchange.

http://blogs.technet.com/b/sbs/archive/2012/08/24/migrating-to-windows-server-2012-essentials.aspx

http://blogs.technet.com/b/sbs/arch...d-by-windows-server-2012-essentials.aspx

JamesNT

Whoops! I spoke to soon. SBS 2011 is available for purchase through December 31, 2013. I thought it was 2012.

http://blogs.technet.com/b/sbs/arch...-server-2012-essentials.aspx?PageIndex=2

JamesNT

Not if you're coming from SBS. You don't get Exchange for free and you will have to buy Exchange CALs as well as Exchange CALs. It will be very expensive for you to operate on the Server 2012 Layout.

Let me give you an idea:
Server 2012 20 CALs - $1500
Exchange 2013 - ($1700)

Will require more resource usage than SBS 2011 alone and a more complex setup procedure.

Plus all of the setup and migration costs to move that.

So if I were you, I would grab SBS 2011 while I can. You would be looking at roughly $1400-1500 for SBS Standard with 20 CALs.

You will need to add a copy of Server 2012 to that basket. Running Exchange 2013 on Server 2012 Essentials isn't supported. It's also unclear if you need Server CALs for Server 2012 in that configuration.

Speaking for the group, all of this free tech expertise and support is much appreciated. (Seriously).

But how come no one is talking about all of the requirements for us peer-to-peer folks? (Not so seriously).

Because the original question was about a server. If the original question was, "How will SQL 2012 Express work in a peer to peer environment, then it would all be peer to peer, and I would be asking your question.

Basically running in Exchange in house will become prohibitively expensive for small businesses after SBS 2011. This is Microsoft's incentive to get all SMB users on Office 365/Exchange Online.

I've been having words with a few MS Executives and it seems like that have no interest in bringing back the SBS Package or any sort of reduced pricing for small business. However, I will keep trying. Some of the top IT Gurus/Partners are lobbying for the same reduced pricing for SMB. Might be a few years until we get through to them. Many partners are threatening to go with third party solutions for roughly the same price as SBS 2011.

P2P will support Vista SP2, Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8
http://amazingcharts.com/ub/ubbthreads.php/topics/53459/Re_6_5_Requirements#Post53459

Anyone with XP Main Computers will need to upgrade. XP and Server 2003 on built on the same core.


Also, bear in mind, a lot of the people who were on XP 32 Bit/Server 2003 32 Bit, you may find the printers/peripherals you use in your practice are no longer compatible with the newer 64 bit Operating Systems. Perhaps even some programs. I recommend you guys get Windows 7 as it has XP Mode for free included which should mitigate any potential software incompatibility issues.

Thanks, Sandeep. Just it was just a little poke at you guys...I was making a subtle reference to the fact that if you are on peer-to-peer, you probably don't have to do anything (unless your main computer is running XP, and then you take it to 7). You may need a service pack for your Win7 main machine.

This in the face of large organizations (50,000+ users) going over to Google Apps; the hubris of usta-be monopoly. Regardless of what you think of Exchange and/or Outlook, the business math is against staying with Microsoft if you are a small business with limited money to spend on technology. For the folks who like it, want it, and can afford to continue paying for it, the licensed product will be there.

On the other hand, every practice that is replacing their aging SBS server is doing the math, and most are choosing to go away from Microsoft based on $$$. We are advocates for what the practice decides is best for them, so they decide and we implement. Even though it will mean less revenue if they move away from Outlook/Exchange, we want what is best for them.

Long live Win7 ! Seriously.

It's about the same. Only have to do something if you're on Server 2003 or lower. (Came out the same time as XP.) If they are still running Server 2003, they obviously got their money's worth with 10 years of usability. If you're on Server 2008/Vista, just need Service Pack 2. In fact, they are bundled under the same download.

What's complicated in this case is that Ted needs to migrate 20 Users with full email, Medware, etc. Many features that aren't available on Windows 7/P2P. Also I think 20 Users/devices is the limit for Windows 7 Pro. He's definitely out of the the P2P zone. Managing 20 user accounts separately on each computer isn't something that's worthwhile. This is where Active Directory is much better.

I totally agree. Lots of offices are saving thousands by using OpenOffice/LibreOffice in place of Microsoft Office. There are also many Exchange alternatives out there that we are trying to bundle into one package for users. Matching the Price of the Old SBS Standard.

I appreciate the input from all who have commented.

Dell server with:

Four 7200rpm 500GB SATA drives to be placed in a RAID 5 array
Windows Server 2012 Standard
One Intel Xeon 1.8GHz quad core processor
24G of RAM

$2,427.15

Windows Server 2012 Essentials for a maximum of 25 users:
$517

Exchange 2013 with 10 CALS:
$1246.90

5 Terminal Server CALS:
$639.99

GRAND TOTAL: $4831.04

This is less than what clients were paying for SBS 2003 Standard and a Terminal Server a few years back.

NOTE: No CALS are required for Windows Server 2012 Standard

NOTE: Windows Server 2012 Essentials counts as its own virtual license. Exchange Server would take up one virtual license. Windows Server 2012 Standard comes with two virtual licenses so that would be one remaining. That would be your Terminal Server installation.

JamesNT

I absolutely agree. I just can't skip any opportunity to annoyingly needle you guys about the simple joys of P2P.

The longer I do this, the more and more I find it time consuming to work on P2P. Having to maintain users accounts, backups, programs, etc. on each individual workstation one at a time can get annoying, especially remotely. Actually had to work with a practice who had 17 computers. Each one with 3-4 different user accounts with different passwords. Now they have Active Directory with folder redirection and centralized backup of all 17 computers. Makes my job a lot easier as well documenting a backup plan. SBS/Server 2012 Essentials is truly quite amazing. You can have full image backups of each and every computer on the LAN. Also, the folder redirection allows a simple file backup of all the files on people's desktops, documents, favorites, etc. With that kind of system, you only need to spend an hour or two a month to maintain the system.

The better the initial setup is the less work has to be done in the long run. Almost all of my setups are self-maintaining as well. I just read the report every now and then to make sure things are going as planned. However, if you're planning on doing your own IT, P2P is probably better for you. If you want someone from the outside, it's better to use Active Directory.