Good Idea, Bad Idea

[ptstech.livejournal.com]

Good idea: Replacing two aging servers with new kit (to the tune of about 15K).
Bad idea: Refraining from purchasing licensing for Server 2003 in favor of reusing 2000 Server (saving a whopping $1400.00).

:headdesk::headdesk::
headdesk::headdesk:
:headdesk::headdesk:
:headdesk::headdesk:

Comments

[mouser.livejournal.com]

I assume you tried to explain "Microsoft plans to stop supporting it in 2008/2009!"

Man, even MY management isn't that stupid! (Only because we tell them "Sorry - impossible!")

[spooforbrains.livejournal.com]

Argh! Kill kill kill!

On a similar note? Centralising all your services on a Terminal server? Great idea. Forgetting the TSCALs? BAD. I've had to deal with this problem TWICE.

[zzyzx.livejournal.com]

I choose OS/2 Warp Server as it is endorsed by Kate Mulgrew.

[darkrose.livejournal.com]

We still have clients who insist on using Windows NT 4.

...On machines hosting our mail server product. Which means they're connected to the Internet..and vulnerable to any one of the couple of dozen huge security issues out there for NT4..and of course when they get their box pwn3d by some script kiddie, we get biatched out about it.

[mogaribue.livejournal.com]

I always thought Microsoft demands you pay for the license to the latest version of the OS, even if you're using the older version? At that's what our MS weenies have told us. Maybe they are secretly hording the money.

[ptstech.livejournal.com]

Well, as mouser pointed out, support for the old OS is scheduled to halt in the near future. As a general rule, in network architecture, you don't spend new money (on hardware) only to put an old (and soon to be unsupported) OS on it. You have to look at your needs going forward. We already have a majority of our servers running 2003 within an Active Directory environment; in light of that, not placing new kit on the same OS makes no sense.

The real problem here is that the money guys have no idea about any of this; the only reason the money for the new hardware got approved (after the manager spent much of the last 4 years asking for it) is because of a server crash that occurred just before I became responsible for day-to-day ops. They think they saved money by not buying before; diminished capacity over the length of time it took to restore everything made the hardware purchase look like change in the couch by comparison. And now they're balking over OS licenses. Unbelievable...

[billysapphire.livejournal.com]

This TOTALLY sounds like something that would occur in my office.