Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Microsoft Recalls Small Business Server 237

dasButcher writes to tell us VarBusiness is reporting that hot on the heels of many other delays, Microsoft has recalled their Small Business Server 2003 R2. The operating system started shipping to OEMs, distributors, and systems builders in July but was immediately recalled after a recent audit.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Recalls Small Business Server

Comments Filter:
  • I feel your pain (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SpooForBrains ( 771537 ) on Monday August 21, 2006 @08:03AM (#15947623)
    I've recently been butting heads with SBS. Put in a samba server and a terminal server for a client to expand their business and bring some sanity to their IT setup. Their existing database app is hosted on a machine running Windows 2000 SBS, and I'm not allowed to move it. The server can't join their new domain - it's not even allowed to be part of a domain trust. The whole situation is hideous. I want to meet the person who recommended it and smack them round the face with the installation media.
  • You're definitely right about the "all eggs in one basket" risk, but what are the alternatives? A lot of the places that run SBS have no full time IT staff. With SBS they get an out-of-the box file server, domain controller, exchange server. There's a risk it may blow up and they'll lose those things, but for most of these places the alternative is not to have them in the first place.

    It's too expensive to buy multiple boxes and too complicated (for these places where the controller/accountant does double-duty as IT guy). Don't even get me started on Linux. I'm sure it's great if you happen to have an open source guru around, but it's just not a viable option for setting up a back-end where no one has any serious tech experience. Then of course they could always just be a Mac shop - if they want to double or triple their IT infrastructure costs (ha!). Not to mention the prevalence of MS Access in small business areas.

    I think you've got to hand it to MS. For about $400 you get all the software you need to run your business server, and it pretty much works out of the box. It's a whole lot better than not having anything, and as companies grow they will eventually build out the infrastructure and implement more redundancy. The "all eggs in one basket" isn't unique to just Windows SBS - it pretty much characterizes how small business works.

    -stormin
  • by TigerPaw ( 986058 ) on Monday August 21, 2006 @08:21AM (#15947688) Journal
    umm...

    5. Profit!
  • by kjart ( 941720 ) on Monday August 21, 2006 @08:37AM (#15947742)

    I mean, it's only software, how dangerous could it have been?

    Yeah, I guess the software used in airplane avionics isn't too important. Hopefully Boeing doesn't use SBS ;)

  • by afabbro ( 33948 ) on Monday August 21, 2006 @08:48AM (#15947795) Homepage
    Not to defend MSFT, but...SQL Server 2005 was "significant".
  • by BinaryCodedDecimal ( 646968 ) on Monday August 21, 2006 @08:48AM (#15947797)
    No, you're not wrong, unfortunately.

    One of my clients doesn't change their backup tapes because they can't be bothered with the hassle. They just leave the same backup tape in all the time. You just can't talk to these people. Not that I need to care anymore anyway.

    The rest of the clients do have properly configured backups, but again, I just don't like the idea of sticking backups of an Exchange Mail Store, SQL Databases, fileshares and the system state data all on one tape (if it will fit, and if it doesn't, tough luck because they won't pay for an upgraded tape drive).

    I guess I'm more frustrated with the type of company that goes hand-in-hand with an SBS server.
  • by rs232 ( 849320 ) on Monday August 21, 2006 @08:48AM (#15947799)
    sounds like no end user organizations are using it yet' - dreamchaser

    No it doesn't actually say *no* end users it says *most* and most does not equate to all. You should realize that most PR statements don't actually mean what the words mean.

    "it basically said that in the part you left out:" - kjart

    "None went to end users" - dreamchaser

    The actual words are:

    "Most of Microsoft's voluminous partner base did not have copies of SBS 2003 R2 in hand yet"

    In other words some of Microsoft's voluminous partner base did have it. And seeing its a PR statement out of Redmond we can assume the reality is a lot more than a few got copies got out.

    This fella seems to think he bought a new server that has the R2 edition on it.
    http://snipurl.com/v9i1 [snipurl.com]
    http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.wi ndows.server.active_directory/msg/f797472b226c029d ?dmode=source&hl=en [google.com]

    No one has still replied to my request for an explanation of what non-final core components mean. Is this the same as bugs?
  • by D4MO ( 78537 ) on Monday August 21, 2006 @08:53AM (#15947822)
    I'd like to add VS2003, .Net2.0, VS2005, Team System and xbox360 to that.
  • by chthon ( 580889 ) on Monday August 21, 2006 @09:15AM (#15947922) Journal

    How do you define a small business ?

    I think you can consider a business with only one person a small business, but where do you draw the line ? 5 people ? 10 people ? 20 people ?

    I ask, because I worked for a business of twenty people as the full-time IT staff, from 1997 to 1998.

    We had a WANG VS system, running our own custom software, based upon the PACE RDBMS.

    The support costs every year where about 25000EUR/year I think, but this computer system never failed.

    Peripherals, like line printers and terminals needed some replacements and service every year, but that was included in the support costs.

    The database consisted of about 350 tables for the operational work, 180 tables for financial reporting, and in addition to that the bookkeeping software.

    I could spend about 95% of my time programming and enhancing the system.

    Why do I tell all this ?

    Because I think that a system like SBS, with all its different features, cannot be optimally used by a company which does not have a good IT staff.

    What I mean is that from a certain size you should be able to also hire a good programmer, which is able to service the SBS and start making use of features of SBS specifically tailored to the business.

    If you cannot afford such a person, then SBS is no use to a business (except maybe in a bragging 'me too' way), because only the easiest and simplest features will be used.

  • by Shannon Love ( 705240 ) on Monday August 21, 2006 @10:23AM (#15948338) Homepage
    Yeah, monopolies are pretty cozy


    Microsoft's profitability has little to do with its monopoly and more to do with the fact that Microsoft, virtually alone of all software vendors has created the means to insure that they get reliably paid for their software. Microsoft's trick is to make large institutions purchase their software and to aggressively make sure that the institutions pay. CPU manufactures pay for the OS and companies, schools and the government pay for Office. Suing millions of consumers for "piracy" is a major task but suing a CPU manufacture is easy. Microsoft gets a far higher rate of return for every dollar it spends on its products than does any other software vendor. It is this ability to get paid at far higher rates than others that lets Microsoft maintain it monopoly in the first place.

    Those Exxon/BP/Shell/Total guys have not released a new product in 50 years but still haul in record profits.

    Lets not forget farmers. How long has it been since they came up with a truly new food crop? There is nothing wrong or even undesirable about companies reliably and efficiently providing needed products year after year like clockwork and making a good return doing so. Everyone bitches when oil companies get a boom time but no one feels any sympathy when they go through a bust.

  • by EXTomar ( 78739 ) on Monday August 21, 2006 @10:58AM (#15948609)
    A lot of software, Microsoft, BSD, GPL, are all sold and used "as is". That is if it malfunctions, corrupts data, destroys the machine, causes cancer, or whatever, it isn't the author's fault. The author is not under any obligation to recoop costs of the damage or even fix the software. It is a pretty standard thing even for those that offer "high reliability/recovery".

    This has been something I've tried to point out quite a bit: If Microsoft claims the same level of "It is not my problem" then why is their closed solution so much better? It isn't like you are going to get your money back from anyone if your machine dies from installed software.
  • by jimicus ( 737525 ) on Monday August 21, 2006 @11:36AM (#15948918)
    And this is how millions of small businesses around the world get their IT support - be it Windows or Linux based, as soon as the company using the system needs any infrastructure beyond "2 standalone desktop PCs" the setup & support is outsourced. Yet still CNET, /.'ers and recently digg'ers harp on about how "Linux must become as easy to configure and install as Windows!"

    No it doesn't. For a lot of uses, it just needs to be easy enough, and customisable enough that a company with the right expertise can seriously consider offering services based on it.

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Working...