Our company is in process to implement Great Plains and MS Solutions Partner suggested next configuration: 1 server - WS 2003 standart (Terminal Server) 2 server - WS 2003 Standart + SQL 2000. Is it possible to use on server 2 Small Business Server 2003 Premium ? What about problems with domain? Regards,
I do not believe it is possible to have two machines running Windows SBS 2003 because each machine will want to be the domain controller. I think you'd be better off with: Machine 1: Windows 2003 with Terminal Services Machine 2: Windows 2003 with SQL Server. This machine can also be your domain controller, file server, print server, etc. However, unless you have a small amount of users, I don't recommend you run Exchange on it. "Olman" <Olman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:2908E3AE-B28C-43C1-9D1A-125CF60B275F@microsoft.com... > Our company is in process to implement Great Plains and MS Solutions > Partner > suggested next configuration: > 1 server - WS 2003 standart (Terminal Server) > 2 server - WS 2003 Standart + SQL 2000. > Is it possible to use on server 2 Small Business Server 2003 Premium ? > What > about problems with domain? > > Regards, >
Thanks, but only SBS would run as application server. After digging around I found answer, I guess: -SBS 2003 as Application server (PDC, SQL) -Server Standart as Terminal server ( possible with Exchange ) and in future I going to install backup server. Only I am not shure what hardware I need. Now I have: Terminal Server - PE1850/2.8GHZ/4G/2x36Gb Application Server - PE2850/3.0GHZ/1G/3x146Gb Is it enought? "Charles Allen" wrote: > I do not believe it is possible to have two machines running Windows SBS > 2003 because each machine will want to be the domain controller. > > I think you'd be better off with: > Machine 1: Windows 2003 with Terminal Services > Machine 2: Windows 2003 with SQL Server. This machine can also be your > domain controller, file server, print server, etc. However, unless you have > a small amount of users, I don't recommend you run Exchange on it. > > "Olman" <Olman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:2908E3AE-B28C-43C1-9D1A-125CF60B275F@microsoft.com... > > Our company is in process to implement Great Plains and MS Solutions > > Partner > > suggested next configuration: > > 1 server - WS 2003 standart (Terminal Server) > > 2 server - WS 2003 Standart + SQL 2000. > > Is it possible to use on server 2 Small Business Server 2003 Premium ? > > What > > about problems with domain? > > > > Regards, > > > > >
I think we're on the same page although I was really recommending Windows 2003 Server, not SBS. The problem with SBS is it wants to be the domain controller. You could always move the SQL Server engine to another machine should circumstances require it. However, no way in the world would I run Exchange Server and Terminal Server on the same machine. No way, no how. If you are going to purchase SBS, I would use that machine for the Domain Controller, SQL Server, and Exchange Server and I would at least have dual processors. The hardware seems good but it all depends on how many SQL users, how many Exchange clients, how many Terminal Server users, etc. "Olman" <Olman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:1FFAFB62-A04B-4992-AFFF-0C14EC15CB5D@microsoft.com... > Thanks, > but only SBS would run as application server. > After digging around I found answer, I guess: > -SBS 2003 as Application server (PDC, SQL) > -Server Standart as Terminal server ( possible with Exchange ) > and in future I going to install backup server. > Only I am not shure what hardware I need. Now I have: > Terminal Server - PE1850/2.8GHZ/4G/2x36Gb > Application Server - PE2850/3.0GHZ/1G/3x146Gb > Is it enought? > > "Charles Allen" wrote: > >> I do not believe it is possible to have two machines running Windows SBS >> 2003 because each machine will want to be the domain controller. >> >> I think you'd be better off with: >> Machine 1: Windows 2003 with Terminal Services >> Machine 2: Windows 2003 with SQL Server. This machine can also be your >> domain controller, file server, print server, etc. However, unless you >> have >> a small amount of users, I don't recommend you run Exchange on it. >> >> "Olman" <Olman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:2908E3AE-B28C-43C1-9D1A-125CF60B275F@microsoft.com... >> > Our company is in process to implement Great Plains and MS Solutions >> > Partner >> > suggested next configuration: >> > 1 server - WS 2003 standart (Terminal Server) >> > 2 server - WS 2003 Standart + SQL 2000. >> > Is it possible to use on server 2 Small Business Server 2003 Premium ? >> > What >> > about problems with domain? >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> >> >>
Thank you, you are right about circumstances. By the way cost of system with two Standart Servers, SQL Server, CALs for Server, SQL, Exchange much higher then one Standart Server, SBS, CALs for SBS 8( We have less than 50 users, 15 of them will use Terminal sessions (Great Plains). I am considering to move two small applications (MS Access) to ASP.NET+SQL I know that we are don't plan to grow more than 75 users in nearest 3 years. How you think, will SBS be enough for this environment? Oleg "Charles Allen" wrote: > I think we're on the same page although I was really recommending Windows > 2003 Server, not SBS. The problem with SBS is it wants to be the domain > controller. You could always move the SQL Server engine to another machine > should circumstances require it. > > However, no way in the world would I run Exchange Server and Terminal Server > on the same machine. No way, no how. > > If you are going to purchase SBS, I would use that machine for the Domain > Controller, SQL Server, and Exchange Server and I would at least have dual > processors. > > The hardware seems good but it all depends on how many SQL users, how many > Exchange clients, how many Terminal Server users, etc. > > "Olman" <Olman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:1FFAFB62-A04B-4992-AFFF-0C14EC15CB5D@microsoft.com... > > Thanks, > > but only SBS would run as application server. > > After digging around I found answer, I guess: > > -SBS 2003 as Application server (PDC, SQL) > > -Server Standart as Terminal server ( possible with Exchange ) > > and in future I going to install backup server. > > Only I am not shure what hardware I need. Now I have: > > Terminal Server - PE1850/2.8GHZ/4G/2x36Gb > > Application Server - PE2850/3.0GHZ/1G/3x146Gb > > Is it enought? > > > > "Charles Allen" wrote: > > > >> I do not believe it is possible to have two machines running Windows SBS > >> 2003 because each machine will want to be the domain controller. > >> > >> I think you'd be better off with: > >> Machine 1: Windows 2003 with Terminal Services > >> Machine 2: Windows 2003 with SQL Server. This machine can also be your > >> domain controller, file server, print server, etc. However, unless you > >> have > >> a small amount of users, I don't recommend you run Exchange on it. > >> > >> "Olman" <Olman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > >> news:2908E3AE-B28C-43C1-9D1A-125CF60B275F@microsoft.com... > >> > Our company is in process to implement Great Plains and MS Solutions > >> > Partner > >> > suggested next configuration: > >> > 1 server - WS 2003 standart (Terminal Server) > >> > 2 server - WS 2003 Standart + SQL 2000. > >> > Is it possible to use on server 2 Small Business Server 2003 Premium ? > >> > What > >> > about problems with domain? > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >
Hi Are the clients local or remote? Is there a reason to have users using GP via TS server. We have many clients using SBS2003 on the following setup, bases on 20plus Great Plains users and PA module (TS cals are not included on SBS): SBS2003 server (mid-point spec with 3GB RAM ) AD Exhange Sharepoints services preinstalls by SBS wizard (Business Portal) Windows 2003 Std Server (mid point spec) SQL 2000 Std Edition (License from SBS2003) SBS2003 is good enought for up to 50 domain users (i think). Regards James "Olman" <Olman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:723FF4B4-FC63-45DC-81A6-1627A24804D6@microsoft.com... > Thank you, > you are right about circumstances. > By the way cost of system with two Standart Servers, SQL Server, CALs for > Server, SQL, Exchange much higher then one Standart Server, SBS, CALs for > SBS > 8( > We have less than 50 users, 15 of them will use Terminal sessions (Great > Plains). > I am considering to move two small applications (MS Access) to ASP.NET+SQL > I know that we are don't plan to grow more than 75 users in nearest 3 > years. > How you think, will SBS be enough for this environment? > > Oleg > > "Charles Allen" wrote: > >> I think we're on the same page although I was really recommending Windows >> 2003 Server, not SBS. The problem with SBS is it wants to be the domain >> controller. You could always move the SQL Server engine to another >> machine >> should circumstances require it. >> >> However, no way in the world would I run Exchange Server and Terminal >> Server >> on the same machine. No way, no how. >> >> If you are going to purchase SBS, I would use that machine for the Domain >> Controller, SQL Server, and Exchange Server and I would at least have >> dual >> processors. >> >> The hardware seems good but it all depends on how many SQL users, how >> many >> Exchange clients, how many Terminal Server users, etc. >> >> "Olman" <Olman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:1FFAFB62-A04B-4992-AFFF-0C14EC15CB5D@microsoft.com... >> > Thanks, >> > but only SBS would run as application server. >> > After digging around I found answer, I guess: >> > -SBS 2003 as Application server (PDC, SQL) >> > -Server Standart as Terminal server ( possible with Exchange ) >> > and in future I going to install backup server. >> > Only I am not shure what hardware I need. Now I have: >> > Terminal Server - PE1850/2.8GHZ/4G/2x36Gb >> > Application Server - PE2850/3.0GHZ/1G/3x146Gb >> > Is it enought? >> > >> > "Charles Allen" wrote: >> > >> >> I do not believe it is possible to have two machines running Windows >> >> SBS >> >> 2003 because each machine will want to be the domain controller. >> >> >> >> I think you'd be better off with: >> >> Machine 1: Windows 2003 with Terminal Services >> >> Machine 2: Windows 2003 with SQL Server. This machine can also be your >> >> domain controller, file server, print server, etc. However, unless you >> >> have >> >> a small amount of users, I don't recommend you run Exchange on it. >> >> >> >> "Olman" <Olman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> >> news:2908E3AE-B28C-43C1-9D1A-125CF60B275F@microsoft.com... >> >> > Our company is in process to implement Great Plains and MS Solutions >> >> > Partner >> >> > suggested next configuration: >> >> > 1 server - WS 2003 standart (Terminal Server) >> >> > 2 server - WS 2003 Standart + SQL 2000. >> >> > Is it possible to use on server 2 Small Business Server 2003 Premium >> >> > ? >> >> > What >> >> > about problems with domain? >> >> > >> >> > Regards, >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
Hi, they are 50/50 - thank you, good point, on local network we don't need to use TS. I like SBS - everything trought one CAL. In case Windows 2003 Std Server I gues we would need: -two of them - CAL for every AD user -SQL 2000 - CAL for every sql users (how many I don't know for Great Plains) - Exchange Server - CAL for every echange user plus TS and CALs for it. Oh, Sharepoint server! I guess it is not included in Standard Server. Am I right? "James" wrote: > Hi > > Are the clients local or remote? Is there a reason to have users using GP > via TS server. We have many clients using SBS2003 on the following setup, > bases on 20plus Great Plains users and PA module (TS cals are not included > on SBS): > > SBS2003 server (mid-point spec with 3GB RAM ) > AD > Exhange > Sharepoints services preinstalls by SBS wizard (Business Portal) > > Windows 2003 Std Server (mid point spec) > SQL 2000 Std Edition (License from SBS2003) > > SBS2003 is good enought for up to 50 domain users (i think). > > > Regards > > James > > > > > "Olman" <Olman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:723FF4B4-FC63-45DC-81A6-1627A24804D6@microsoft.com... > > Thank you, > > you are right about circumstances. > > By the way cost of system with two Standart Servers, SQL Server, CALs for > > Server, SQL, Exchange much higher then one Standart Server, SBS, CALs for > > SBS > > 8( > > We have less than 50 users, 15 of them will use Terminal sessions (Great > > Plains). > > I am considering to move two small applications (MS Access) to ASP.NET+SQL > > I know that we are don't plan to grow more than 75 users in nearest 3 > > years. > > How you think, will SBS be enough for this environment? > > > > Oleg > > > > "Charles Allen" wrote: > > > >> I think we're on the same page although I was really recommending Windows > >> 2003 Server, not SBS. The problem with SBS is it wants to be the domain > >> controller. You could always move the SQL Server engine to another > >> machine > >> should circumstances require it. > >> > >> However, no way in the world would I run Exchange Server and Terminal > >> Server > >> on the same machine. No way, no how. > >> > >> If you are going to purchase SBS, I would use that machine for the Domain > >> Controller, SQL Server, and Exchange Server and I would at least have > >> dual > >> processors. > >> > >> The hardware seems good but it all depends on how many SQL users, how > >> many > >> Exchange clients, how many Terminal Server users, etc. > >> > >> "Olman" <Olman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > >> news:1FFAFB62-A04B-4992-AFFF-0C14EC15CB5D@microsoft.com... > >> > Thanks, > >> > but only SBS would run as application server. > >> > After digging around I found answer, I guess: > >> > -SBS 2003 as Application server (PDC, SQL) > >> > -Server Standart as Terminal server ( possible with Exchange ) > >> > and in future I going to install backup server. > >> > Only I am not shure what hardware I need. Now I have: > >> > Terminal Server - PE1850/2.8GHZ/4G/2x36Gb > >> > Application Server - PE2850/3.0GHZ/1G/3x146Gb > >> > Is it enought? > >> > > >> > "Charles Allen" wrote: > >> > > >> >> I do not believe it is possible to have two machines running Windows > >> >> SBS > >> >> 2003 because each machine will want to be the domain controller. > >> >> > >> >> I think you'd be better off with: > >> >> Machine 1: Windows 2003 with Terminal Services > >> >> Machine 2: Windows 2003 with SQL Server. This machine can also be your > >> >> domain controller, file server, print server, etc. However, unless you > >> >> have > >> >> a small amount of users, I don't recommend you run Exchange on it. > >> >> > >> >> "Olman" <Olman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > >> >> news:2908E3AE-B28C-43C1-9D1A-125CF60B275F@microsoft.com... > >> >> > Our company is in process to implement Great Plains and MS Solutions > >> >> > Partner > >> >> > suggested next configuration: > >> >> > 1 server - WS 2003 standart (Terminal Server) > >> >> > 2 server - WS 2003 Standart + SQL 2000. > >> >> > Is it possible to use on server 2 Small Business Server 2003 Premium > >> >> > ? > >> >> > What > >> >> > about problems with domain? > >> >> > > >> >> > Regards, > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > > >
James, It sounds like you've done several TS installs of GP. I tried installing it on Windows 2003 but keep getting Dexterity Errors because it can't find the dictionaries. It is looking in C:PROGRA~1/MID1AC~1/GREATP~1/nnn.DIC instead of C:\Program Files\Microsoft Business Solutions\Great Plains. Why? Can you tell me how to fix this and where did it get MID1AC~1 ? Thanks, Ray "Olman" wrote: > Hi, > they are 50/50 - thank you, good point, on local network we don't need to > use TS. > I like SBS - everything trought one CAL. > In case Windows 2003 Std Server I gues we would need: > -two of them > - CAL for every AD user > -SQL 2000 > - CAL for every sql users (how many I don't know for Great Plains) > - Exchange Server > - CAL for every echange user > plus TS and CALs for it. > > Oh, Sharepoint server! I guess it is not included in Standard Server. > > Am I right? > > "James" wrote: > > > Hi > > > > Are the clients local or remote? Is there a reason to have users using GP > > via TS server. We have many clients using SBS2003 on the following setup, > > bases on 20plus Great Plains users and PA module (TS cals are not included > > on SBS): > > > > SBS2003 server (mid-point spec with 3GB RAM ) > > AD > > Exhange > > Sharepoints services preinstalls by SBS wizard (Business Portal) > > > > Windows 2003 Std Server (mid point spec) > > SQL 2000 Std Edition (License from SBS2003) > > > > SBS2003 is good enought for up to 50 domain users (i think). > > > > > > Regards > > > > James > > > > > > > > > > "Olman" <Olman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > > news:723FF4B4-FC63-45DC-81A6-1627A24804D6@microsoft.com... > > > Thank you, > > > you are right about circumstances. > > > By the way cost of system with two Standart Servers, SQL Server, CALs for > > > Server, SQL, Exchange much higher then one Standart Server, SBS, CALs for > > > SBS > > > 8( > > > We have less than 50 users, 15 of them will use Terminal sessions (Great > > > Plains). > > > I am considering to move two small applications (MS Access) to ASP.NET+SQL > > > I know that we are don't plan to grow more than 75 users in nearest 3 > > > years. > > > How you think, will SBS be enough for this environment? > > > > > > Oleg > > > > > > "Charles Allen" wrote: > > > > > >> I think we're on the same page although I was really recommending Windows > > >> 2003 Server, not SBS. The problem with SBS is it wants to be the domain > > >> controller. You could always move the SQL Server engine to another > > >> machine > > >> should circumstances require it. > > >> > > >> However, no way in the world would I run Exchange Server and Terminal > > >> Server > > >> on the same machine. No way, no how. > > >> > > >> If you are going to purchase SBS, I would use that machine for the Domain > > >> Controller, SQL Server, and Exchange Server and I would at least have > > >> dual > > >> processors. > > >> > > >> The hardware seems good but it all depends on how many SQL users, how > > >> many > > >> Exchange clients, how many Terminal Server users, etc. > > >> > > >> "Olman" <Olman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > > >> news:1FFAFB62-A04B-4992-AFFF-0C14EC15CB5D@microsoft.com... > > >> > Thanks, > > >> > but only SBS would run as application server. > > >> > After digging around I found answer, I guess: > > >> > -SBS 2003 as Application server (PDC, SQL) > > >> > -Server Standart as Terminal server ( possible with Exchange ) > > >> > and in future I going to install backup server. > > >> > Only I am not shure what hardware I need. Now I have: > > >> > Terminal Server - PE1850/2.8GHZ/4G/2x36Gb > > >> > Application Server - PE2850/3.0GHZ/1G/3x146Gb > > >> > Is it enought? > > >> > > > >> > "Charles Allen" wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> I do not believe it is possible to have two machines running Windows > > >> >> SBS > > >> >> 2003 because each machine will want to be the domain controller. > > >> >> > > >> >> I think you'd be better off with: > > >> >> Machine 1: Windows 2003 with Terminal Services > > >> >> Machine 2: Windows 2003 with SQL Server. This machine can also be your > > >> >> domain controller, file server, print server, etc. However, unless you > > >> >> have > > >> >> a small amount of users, I don't recommend you run Exchange on it. > > >> >> > > >> >> "Olman" <Olman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > > >> >> news:2908E3AE-B28C-43C1-9D1A-125CF60B275F@microsoft.com... > > >> >> > Our company is in process to implement Great Plains and MS Solutions > > >> >> > Partner > > >> >> > suggested next configuration: > > >> >> > 1 server - WS 2003 standart (Terminal Server) > > >> >> > 2 server - WS 2003 Standart + SQL 2000. > > >> >> > Is it possible to use on server 2 Small Business Server 2003 Premium > > >> >> > ? > > >> >> > What > > >> >> > about problems with domain? > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Regards, > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
Hi You need to edit the Dynamics.set file and change the location of the Dic files - example: :C:Program Files/Microsoft Business Solutions/Great Plains/*.dic files. Dynamics.set file is a launch file for Great Plains. Sometimes users share the reports and forms.dic files on the network, double check if thats the case. -- Regards James[MVP] Visit MBS Blog Central http://mbscentral.blogs.com "Ray Barker" <RayBarker@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:701752CC-2996-401F-B9BB-4202BA19EF83@microsoft.com... > James, > It sounds like you've done several TS installs of GP. I tried installing > it > on Windows 2003 but keep getting Dexterity Errors because it can't find > the > dictionaries. It is looking in C:PROGRA~1/MID1AC~1/GREATP~1/nnn.DIC > instead > of C:\Program Files\Microsoft Business Solutions\Great Plains. Why? Can > you > tell me how to fix this and where did it get MID1AC~1 ? > Thanks, > Ray > > "Olman" wrote: > >> Hi, >> they are 50/50 - thank you, good point, on local network we don't need to >> use TS. >> I like SBS - everything trought one CAL. >> In case Windows 2003 Std Server I gues we would need: >> -two of them >> - CAL for every AD user >> -SQL 2000 >> - CAL for every sql users (how many I don't know for Great Plains) >> - Exchange Server >> - CAL for every echange user >> plus TS and CALs for it. >> >> Oh, Sharepoint server! I guess it is not included in Standard Server. >> >> Am I right? >> >> "James" wrote: >> >> > Hi >> > >> > Are the clients local or remote? Is there a reason to have users using >> > GP >> > via TS server. We have many clients using SBS2003 on the following >> > setup, >> > bases on 20plus Great Plains users and PA module (TS cals are not >> > included >> > on SBS): >> > >> > SBS2003 server (mid-point spec with 3GB RAM ) >> > AD >> > Exhange >> > Sharepoints services preinstalls by SBS wizard (Business Portal) >> > >> > Windows 2003 Std Server (mid point spec) >> > SQL 2000 Std Edition (License from SBS2003) >> > >> > SBS2003 is good enought for up to 50 domain users (i think). >> > >> > >> > Regards >> > >> > James >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > "Olman" <Olman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> > news:723FF4B4-FC63-45DC-81A6-1627A24804D6@microsoft.com... >> > > Thank you, >> > > you are right about circumstances. >> > > By the way cost of system with two Standart Servers, SQL Server, CALs >> > > for >> > > Server, SQL, Exchange much higher then one Standart Server, SBS, CALs >> > > for >> > > SBS >> > > 8( >> > > We have less than 50 users, 15 of them will use Terminal sessions >> > > (Great >> > > Plains). >> > > I am considering to move two small applications (MS Access) to >> > > ASP.NET+SQL >> > > I know that we are don't plan to grow more than 75 users in nearest 3 >> > > years. >> > > How you think, will SBS be enough for this environment? >> > > >> > > Oleg >> > > >> > > "Charles Allen" wrote: >> > > >> > >> I think we're on the same page although I was really recommending >> > >> Windows >> > >> 2003 Server, not SBS. The problem with SBS is it wants to be the >> > >> domain >> > >> controller. You could always move the SQL Server engine to another >> > >> machine >> > >> should circumstances require it. >> > >> >> > >> However, no way in the world would I run Exchange Server and >> > >> Terminal >> > >> Server >> > >> on the same machine. No way, no how. >> > >> >> > >> If you are going to purchase SBS, I would use that machine for the >> > >> Domain >> > >> Controller, SQL Server, and Exchange Server and I would at least >> > >> have >> > >> dual >> > >> processors. >> > >> >> > >> The hardware seems good but it all depends on how many SQL users, >> > >> how >> > >> many >> > >> Exchange clients, how many Terminal Server users, etc. >> > >> >> > >> "Olman" <Olman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> > >> news:1FFAFB62-A04B-4992-AFFF-0C14EC15CB5D@microsoft.com... >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > but only SBS would run as application server. >> > >> > After digging around I found answer, I guess: >> > >> > -SBS 2003 as Application server (PDC, SQL) >> > >> > -Server Standart as Terminal server ( possible with Exchange ) >> > >> > and in future I going to install backup server. >> > >> > Only I am not shure what hardware I need. Now I have: >> > >> > Terminal Server - PE1850/2.8GHZ/4G/2x36Gb >> > >> > Application Server - PE2850/3.0GHZ/1G/3x146Gb >> > >> > Is it enought? >> > >> > >> > >> > "Charles Allen" wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> >> I do not believe it is possible to have two machines running >> > >> >> Windows >> > >> >> SBS >> > >> >> 2003 because each machine will want to be the domain controller. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> I think you'd be better off with: >> > >> >> Machine 1: Windows 2003 with Terminal Services >> > >> >> Machine 2: Windows 2003 with SQL Server. This machine can also be >> > >> >> your >> > >> >> domain controller, file server, print server, etc. However, >> > >> >> unless you >> > >> >> have >> > >> >> a small amount of users, I don't recommend you run Exchange on >> > >> >> it. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> "Olman" <Olman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> > >> >> news:2908E3AE-B28C-43C1-9D1A-125CF60B275F@microsoft.com... >> > >> >> > Our company is in process to implement Great Plains and MS >> > >> >> > Solutions >> > >> >> > Partner >> > >> >> > suggested next configuration: >> > >> >> > 1 server - WS 2003 standart (Terminal Server) >> > >> >> > 2 server - WS 2003 Standart + SQL 2000. >> > >> >> > Is it possible to use on server 2 Small Business Server 2003 >> > >> >> > Premium >> > >> >> > ? >> > >> >> > What >> > >> >> > about problems with domain? >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > Regards, >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> >
I have just noticed David reply to your prevouis post. hope all went well. -- Regards James[MVP] Visit MBS Blog Central http://mbscentral.blogs.com "Ray Barker" <RayBarker@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:701752CC-2996-401F-B9BB-4202BA19EF83@microsoft.com... > James, > It sounds like you've done several TS installs of GP. I tried installing > it > on Windows 2003 but keep getting Dexterity Errors because it can't find > the > dictionaries. It is looking in C:PROGRA~1/MID1AC~1/GREATP~1/nnn.DIC > instead > of C:\Program Files\Microsoft Business Solutions\Great Plains. Why? Can > you > tell me how to fix this and where did it get MID1AC~1 ? > Thanks, > Ray > > "Olman" wrote: > >> Hi, >> they are 50/50 - thank you, good point, on local network we don't need to >> use TS. >> I like SBS - everything trought one CAL. >> In case Windows 2003 Std Server I gues we would need: >> -two of them >> - CAL for every AD user >> -SQL 2000 >> - CAL for every sql users (how many I don't know for Great Plains) >> - Exchange Server >> - CAL for every echange user >> plus TS and CALs for it. >> >> Oh, Sharepoint server! I guess it is not included in Standard Server. >> >> Am I right? >> >> "James" wrote: >> >> > Hi >> > >> > Are the clients local or remote? Is there a reason to have users using >> > GP >> > via TS server. We have many clients using SBS2003 on the following >> > setup, >> > bases on 20plus Great Plains users and PA module (TS cals are not >> > included >> > on SBS): >> > >> > SBS2003 server (mid-point spec with 3GB RAM ) >> > AD >> > Exhange >> > Sharepoints services preinstalls by SBS wizard (Business Portal) >> > >> > Windows 2003 Std Server (mid point spec) >> > SQL 2000 Std Edition (License from SBS2003) >> > >> > SBS2003 is good enought for up to 50 domain users (i think). >> > >> > >> > Regards >> > >> > James >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > "Olman" <Olman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> > news:723FF4B4-FC63-45DC-81A6-1627A24804D6@microsoft.com... >> > > Thank you, >> > > you are right about circumstances. >> > > By the way cost of system with two Standart Servers, SQL Server, CALs >> > > for >> > > Server, SQL, Exchange much higher then one Standart Server, SBS, CALs >> > > for >> > > SBS >> > > 8( >> > > We have less than 50 users, 15 of them will use Terminal sessions >> > > (Great >> > > Plains). >> > > I am considering to move two small applications (MS Access) to >> > > ASP.NET+SQL >> > > I know that we are don't plan to grow more than 75 users in nearest 3 >> > > years. >> > > How you think, will SBS be enough for this environment? >> > > >> > > Oleg >> > > >> > > "Charles Allen" wrote: >> > > >> > >> I think we're on the same page although I was really recommending >> > >> Windows >> > >> 2003 Server, not SBS. The problem with SBS is it wants to be the >> > >> domain >> > >> controller. You could always move the SQL Server engine to another >> > >> machine >> > >> should circumstances require it. >> > >> >> > >> However, no way in the world would I run Exchange Server and >> > >> Terminal >> > >> Server >> > >> on the same machine. No way, no how. >> > >> >> > >> If you are going to purchase SBS, I would use that machine for the >> > >> Domain >> > >> Controller, SQL Server, and Exchange Server and I would at least >> > >> have >> > >> dual >> > >> processors. >> > >> >> > >> The hardware seems good but it all depends on how many SQL users, >> > >> how >> > >> many >> > >> Exchange clients, how many Terminal Server users, etc. >> > >> >> > >> "Olman" <Olman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> > >> news:1FFAFB62-A04B-4992-AFFF-0C14EC15CB5D@microsoft.com... >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > but only SBS would run as application server. >> > >> > After digging around I found answer, I guess: >> > >> > -SBS 2003 as Application server (PDC, SQL) >> > >> > -Server Standart as Terminal server ( possible with Exchange ) >> > >> > and in future I going to install backup server. >> > >> > Only I am not shure what hardware I need. Now I have: >> > >> > Terminal Server - PE1850/2.8GHZ/4G/2x36Gb >> > >> > Application Server - PE2850/3.0GHZ/1G/3x146Gb >> > >> > Is it enought? >> > >> > >> > >> > "Charles Allen" wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> >> I do not believe it is possible to have two machines running >> > >> >> Windows >> > >> >> SBS >> > >> >> 2003 because each machine will want to be the domain controller. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> I think you'd be better off with: >> > >> >> Machine 1: Windows 2003 with Terminal Services >> > >> >> Machine 2: Windows 2003 with SQL Server. This machine can also be >> > >> >> your >> > >> >> domain controller, file server, print server, etc. However, >> > >> >> unless you >> > >> >> have >> > >> >> a small amount of users, I don't recommend you run Exchange on >> > >> >> it. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> "Olman" <Olman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> > >> >> news:2908E3AE-B28C-43C1-9D1A-125CF60B275F@microsoft.com... >> > >> >> > Our company is in process to implement Great Plains and MS >> > >> >> > Solutions >> > >> >> > Partner >> > >> >> > suggested next configuration: >> > >> >> > 1 server - WS 2003 standart (Terminal Server) >> > >> >> > 2 server - WS 2003 Standart + SQL 2000. >> > >> >> > Is it possible to use on server 2 Small Business Server 2003 >> > >> >> > Premium >> > >> >> > ? >> > >> >> > What >> > >> >> > about problems with domain? >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > Regards, >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> >
Yes, thank you to both you and David. "James[MVP]" wrote: > I have just noticed David reply to your prevouis post. hope all went well. > > -- > Regards > > James[MVP] > Visit MBS Blog Central > > http://mbscentral.blogs.com > > "Ray Barker" <RayBarker@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:701752CC-2996-401F-B9BB-4202BA19EF83@microsoft.com... > > James, > > It sounds like you've done several TS installs of GP. I tried installing > > it > > on Windows 2003 but keep getting Dexterity Errors because it can't find > > the > > dictionaries. It is looking in C:PROGRA~1/MID1AC~1/GREATP~1/nnn.DIC > > instead > > of C:\Program Files\Microsoft Business Solutions\Great Plains. Why? Can > > you > > tell me how to fix this and where did it get MID1AC~1 ? > > Thanks, > > Ray > > > > "Olman" wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> they are 50/50 - thank you, good point, on local network we don't need to > >> use TS. > >> I like SBS - everything trought one CAL. > >> In case Windows 2003 Std Server I gues we would need: > >> -two of them > >> - CAL for every AD user > >> -SQL 2000 > >> - CAL for every sql users (how many I don't know for Great Plains) > >> - Exchange Server > >> - CAL for every echange user > >> plus TS and CALs for it. > >> > >> Oh, Sharepoint server! I guess it is not included in Standard Server. > >> > >> Am I right? > >> > >> "James" wrote: > >> > >> > Hi > >> > > >> > Are the clients local or remote? Is there a reason to have users using > >> > GP > >> > via TS server. We have many clients using SBS2003 on the following > >> > setup, > >> > bases on 20plus Great Plains users and PA module (TS cals are not > >> > included > >> > on SBS): > >> > > >> > SBS2003 server (mid-point spec with 3GB RAM ) > >> > AD > >> > Exhange > >> > Sharepoints services preinstalls by SBS wizard (Business Portal) > >> > > >> > Windows 2003 Std Server (mid point spec) > >> > SQL 2000 Std Edition (License from SBS2003) > >> > > >> > SBS2003 is good enought for up to 50 domain users (i think). > >> > > >> > > >> > Regards > >> > > >> > James > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > "Olman" <Olman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > >> > news:723FF4B4-FC63-45DC-81A6-1627A24804D6@microsoft.com... > >> > > Thank you, > >> > > you are right about circumstances. > >> > > By the way cost of system with two Standart Servers, SQL Server, CALs > >> > > for > >> > > Server, SQL, Exchange much higher then one Standart Server, SBS, CALs > >> > > for > >> > > SBS > >> > > 8( > >> > > We have less than 50 users, 15 of them will use Terminal sessions > >> > > (Great > >> > > Plains). > >> > > I am considering to move two small applications (MS Access) to > >> > > ASP.NET+SQL > >> > > I know that we are don't plan to grow more than 75 users in nearest 3 > >> > > years. > >> > > How you think, will SBS be enough for this environment? > >> > > > >> > > Oleg > >> > > > >> > > "Charles Allen" wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> I think we're on the same page although I was really recommending > >> > >> Windows > >> > >> 2003 Server, not SBS. The problem with SBS is it wants to be the > >> > >> domain > >> > >> controller. You could always move the SQL Server engine to another > >> > >> machine > >> > >> should circumstances require it. > >> > >> > >> > >> However, no way in the world would I run Exchange Server and > >> > >> Terminal > >> > >> Server > >> > >> on the same machine. No way, no how. > >> > >> > >> > >> If you are going to purchase SBS, I would use that machine for the > >> > >> Domain > >> > >> Controller, SQL Server, and Exchange Server and I would at least > >> > >> have > >> > >> dual > >> > >> processors. > >> > >> > >> > >> The hardware seems good but it all depends on how many SQL users, > >> > >> how > >> > >> many > >> > >> Exchange clients, how many Terminal Server users, etc. > >> > >> > >> > >> "Olman" <Olman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > >> > >> news:1FFAFB62-A04B-4992-AFFF-0C14EC15CB5D@microsoft.com... > >> > >> > Thanks, > >> > >> > but only SBS would run as application server. > >> > >> > After digging around I found answer, I guess: > >> > >> > -SBS 2003 as Application server (PDC, SQL) > >> > >> > -Server Standart as Terminal server ( possible with Exchange ) > >> > >> > and in future I going to install backup server. > >> > >> > Only I am not shure what hardware I need. Now I have: > >> > >> > Terminal Server - PE1850/2.8GHZ/4G/2x36Gb > >> > >> > Application Server - PE2850/3.0GHZ/1G/3x146Gb > >> > >> > Is it enought? > >> > >> > > >> > >> > "Charles Allen" wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> I do not believe it is possible to have two machines running > >> > >> >> Windows > >> > >> >> SBS > >> > >> >> 2003 because each machine will want to be the domain controller. > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> I think you'd be better off with: > >> > >> >> Machine 1: Windows 2003 with Terminal Services > >> > >> >> Machine 2: Windows 2003 with SQL Server. This machine can also be > >> > >> >> your > >> > >> >> domain controller, file server, print server, etc. However, > >> > >> >> unless you > >> > >> >> have > >> > >> >> a small amount of users, I don't recommend you run Exchange on > >> > >> >> it. > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> "Olman" <Olman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > >> > >> >> news:2908E3AE-B28C-43C1-9D1A-125CF60B275F@microsoft.com... > >> > >> >> > Our company is in process to implement Great Plains and MS > >> > >> >> > Solutions > >> > >> >> > Partner > >> > >> >> > suggested next configuration: > >> > >> >> > 1 server - WS 2003 standart (Terminal Server) > >> > >> >> > 2 server - WS 2003 Standart + SQL 2000. > >> > >> >> > Is it possible to use on server 2 Small Business Server 2003 > >> > >> >> > Premium > >> > >> >> > ? > >> > >> >> > What > >> > >> >> > about problems with domain? > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > Regards, > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >
You should setup the client in install mode. Then make sure you reboot the machine and login as the same account you installed it with. /:> "James[MVP]" wrote: > Hi > > You need to edit the Dynamics.set file and change the location of the Dic > files - example: > > :C:Program Files/Microsoft Business Solutions/Great Plains/*.dic files. > > Dynamics.set file is a launch file for Great Plains. > > Sometimes users share the reports and forms.dic files on the network, > double check if thats the case. > > -- > Regards > > James[MVP] > Visit MBS Blog Central > > http://mbscentral.blogs.com > > > "Ray Barker" <RayBarker@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:701752CC-2996-401F-B9BB-4202BA19EF83@microsoft.com... > > James, > > It sounds like you've done several TS installs of GP. I tried installing > > it > > on Windows 2003 but keep getting Dexterity Errors because it can't find > > the > > dictionaries. It is looking in C:PROGRA~1/MID1AC~1/GREATP~1/nnn.DIC > > instead > > of C:\Program Files\Microsoft Business Solutions\Great Plains. Why? Can > > you > > tell me how to fix this and where did it get MID1AC~1 ? > > Thanks, > > Ray > > > > "Olman" wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> they are 50/50 - thank you, good point, on local network we don't need to > >> use TS. > >> I like SBS - everything trought one CAL. > >> In case Windows 2003 Std Server I gues we would need: > >> -two of them > >> - CAL for every AD user > >> -SQL 2000 > >> - CAL for every sql users (how many I don't know for Great Plains) > >> - Exchange Server > >> - CAL for every echange user > >> plus TS and CALs for it. > >> > >> Oh, Sharepoint server! I guess it is not included in Standard Server. > >> > >> Am I right? > >> > >> "James" wrote: > >> > >> > Hi > >> > > >> > Are the clients local or remote? Is there a reason to have users using > >> > GP > >> > via TS server. We have many clients using SBS2003 on the following > >> > setup, > >> > bases on 20plus Great Plains users and PA module (TS cals are not > >> > included > >> > on SBS): > >> > > >> > SBS2003 server (mid-point spec with 3GB RAM ) > >> > AD > >> > Exhange > >> > Sharepoints services preinstalls by SBS wizard (Business Portal) > >> > > >> > Windows 2003 Std Server (mid point spec) > >> > SQL 2000 Std Edition (License from SBS2003) > >> > > >> > SBS2003 is good enought for up to 50 domain users (i think). > >> > > >> > > >> > Regards > >> > > >> > James > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > "Olman" <Olman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > >> > news:723FF4B4-FC63-45DC-81A6-1627A24804D6@microsoft.com... > >> > > Thank you, > >> > > you are right about circumstances. > >> > > By the way cost of system with two Standart Servers, SQL Server, CALs > >> > > for > >> > > Server, SQL, Exchange much higher then one Standart Server, SBS, CALs > >> > > for > >> > > SBS > >> > > 8( > >> > > We have less than 50 users, 15 of them will use Terminal sessions > >> > > (Great > >> > > Plains). > >> > > I am considering to move two small applications (MS Access) to > >> > > ASP.NET+SQL > >> > > I know that we are don't plan to grow more than 75 users in nearest 3 > >> > > years. > >> > > How you think, will SBS be enough for this environment? > >> > > > >> > > Oleg > >> > > > >> > > "Charles Allen" wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> I think we're on the same page although I was really recommending > >> > >> Windows > >> > >> 2003 Server, not SBS. The problem with SBS is it wants to be the > >> > >> domain > >> > >> controller. You could always move the SQL Server engine to another > >> > >> machine > >> > >> should circumstances require it. > >> > >> > >> > >> However, no way in the world would I run Exchange Server and > >> > >> Terminal > >> > >> Server > >> > >> on the same machine. No way, no how. > >> > >> > >> > >> If you are going to purchase SBS, I would use that machine for the > >> > >> Domain > >> > >> Controller, SQL Server, and Exchange Server and I would at least > >> > >> have > >> > >> dual > >> > >> processors. > >> > >> > >> > >> The hardware seems good but it all depends on how many SQL users, > >> > >> how > >> > >> many > >> > >> Exchange clients, how many Terminal Server users, etc. > >> > >> > >> > >> "Olman" <Olman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > >> > >> news:1FFAFB62-A04B-4992-AFFF-0C14EC15CB5D@microsoft.com... > >> > >> > Thanks, > >> > >> > but only SBS would run as application server. > >> > >> > After digging around I found answer, I guess: > >> > >> > -SBS 2003 as Application server (PDC, SQL) > >> > >> > -Server Standart as Terminal server ( possible with Exchange ) > >> > >> > and in future I going to install backup server. > >> > >> > Only I am not shure what hardware I need. Now I have: > >> > >> > Terminal Server - PE1850/2.8GHZ/4G/2x36Gb > >> > >> > Application Server - PE2850/3.0GHZ/1G/3x146Gb > >> > >> > Is it enought? > >> > >> > > >> > >> > "Charles Allen" wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> I do not believe it is possible to have two machines running > >> > >> >> Windows > >> > >> >> SBS > >> > >> >> 2003 because each machine will want to be the domain controller. > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> I think you'd be better off with: > >> > >> >> Machine 1: Windows 2003 with Terminal Services > >> > >> >> Machine 2: Windows 2003 with SQL Server. This machine can also be > >> > >> >> your > >> > >> >> domain controller, file server, print server, etc. However, > >> > >> >> unless you > >> > >> >> have > >> > >> >> a small amount of users, I don't recommend you run Exchange on > >> > >> >> it. > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> "Olman" <Olman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > >> > >> >> news:2908E3AE-B28C-43C1-9D1A-125CF60B275F@microsoft.com... > >> > >> >> > Our company is in process to implement Great Plains and MS > >> > >> >> > Solutions > >> > >> >> > Partner > >> > >> >> > suggested next configuration: > >> > >> >> > 1 server - WS 2003 standart (Terminal Server) > >> > >> >> > 2 server - WS 2003 Standart + SQL 2000. > >> > >> >> > Is it possible to use on server 2 Small Business Server 2003 > >> > >> >> > Premium > >> > >> >> > ? > >> > >> >> > What > >> > >> >> > about problems with domain? > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > Regards, > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >
Ray, did you ever get an answer to your actual question? The question being, where does MID1AC~1 come from? I've found that on some of the XP computers that were setup by my predecessor, you can actually browse to MID1AC~1 from the command prompt and get to the files in the "Microsoft Business Solutions" folder. There's no folder on those computers named anything close to MID1AC~1 though. I'm confused. -- Hos "Ray Barker" wrote: > James, > It sounds like you've done several TS installs of GP. I tried installing it > on Windows 2003 but keep getting Dexterity Errors because it can't find the > dictionaries. It is looking in C:PROGRA~1/MID1AC~1/GREATP~1/nnn.DIC instead > of C:\Program Files\Microsoft Business Solutions\Great Plains. Why? Can you > tell me how to fix this and where did it get MID1AC~1 ? > Thanks, > Ray > > "Olman" wrote: > > > Hi, > > they are 50/50 - thank you, good point, on local network we don't need to > > use TS. > > I like SBS - everything trought one CAL. > > In case Windows 2003 Std Server I gues we would need: > > -two of them > > - CAL for every AD user > > -SQL 2000 > > - CAL for every sql users (how many I don't know for Great Plains) > > - Exchange Server > > - CAL for every echange user > > plus TS and CALs for it. > > > > Oh, Sharepoint server! I guess it is not included in Standard Server. > > > > Am I right? > > > > "James" wrote: > > > > > Hi > > > > > > Are the clients local or remote? Is there a reason to have users using GP > > > via TS server. We have many clients using SBS2003 on the following setup, > > > bases on 20plus Great Plains users and PA module (TS cals are not included > > > on SBS): > > > > > > SBS2003 server (mid-point spec with 3GB RAM ) > > > AD > > > Exhange > > > Sharepoints services preinstalls by SBS wizard (Business Portal) > > > > > > Windows 2003 Std Server (mid point spec) > > > SQL 2000 Std Edition (License from SBS2003) > > > > > > SBS2003 is good enought for up to 50 domain users (i think). > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > James > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Olman" <Olman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > > > news:723FF4B4-FC63-45DC-81A6-1627A24804D6@microsoft.com... > > > > Thank you, > > > > you are right about circumstances. > > > > By the way cost of system with two Standart Servers, SQL Server, CALs for > > > > Server, SQL, Exchange much higher then one Standart Server, SBS, CALs for > > > > SBS > > > > 8( > > > > We have less than 50 users, 15 of them will use Terminal sessions (Great > > > > Plains). > > > > I am considering to move two small applications (MS Access) to ASP.NET+SQL > > > > I know that we are don't plan to grow more than 75 users in nearest 3 > > > > years. > > > > How you think, will SBS be enough for this environment? > > > > > > > > Oleg > > > > > > > > "Charles Allen" wrote: > > > > > > > >> I think we're on the same page although I was really recommending Windows > > > >> 2003 Server, not SBS. The problem with SBS is it wants to be the domain > > > >> controller. You could always move the SQL Server engine to another > > > >> machine > > > >> should circumstances require it. > > > >> > > > >> However, no way in the world would I run Exchange Server and Terminal > > > >> Server > > > >> on the same machine. No way, no how. > > > >> > > > >> If you are going to purchase SBS, I would use that machine for the Domain > > > >> Controller, SQL Server, and Exchange Server and I would at least have > > > >> dual > > > >> processors. > > > >> > > > >> The hardware seems good but it all depends on how many SQL users, how > > > >> many > > > >> Exchange clients, how many Terminal Server users, etc. > > > >> > > > >> "Olman" <Olman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > > > >> news:1FFAFB62-A04B-4992-AFFF-0C14EC15CB5D@microsoft.com... > > > >> > Thanks, > > > >> > but only SBS would run as application server. > > > >> > After digging around I found answer, I guess: > > > >> > -SBS 2003 as Application server (PDC, SQL) > > > >> > -Server Standart as Terminal server ( possible with Exchange ) > > > >> > and in future I going to install backup server. > > > >> > Only I am not shure what hardware I need. Now I have: > > > >> > Terminal Server - PE1850/2.8GHZ/4G/2x36Gb > > > >> > Application Server - PE2850/3.0GHZ/1G/3x146Gb > > > >> > Is it enought? > > > >> > > > > >> > "Charles Allen" wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> >> I do not believe it is possible to have two machines running Windows > > > >> >> SBS > > > >> >> 2003 because each machine will want to be the domain controller. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> I think you'd be better off with: > > > >> >> Machine 1: Windows 2003 with Terminal Services > > > >> >> Machine 2: Windows 2003 with SQL Server. This machine can also be your > > > >> >> domain controller, file server, print server, etc. However, unless you > > > >> >> have > > > >> >> a small amount of users, I don't recommend you run Exchange on it. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> "Olman" <Olman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > > > >> >> news:2908E3AE-B28C-43C1-9D1A-125CF60B275F@microsoft.com... > > > >> >> > Our company is in process to implement Great Plains and MS Solutions > > > >> >> > Partner > > > >> >> > suggested next configuration: > > > >> >> > 1 server - WS 2003 standart (Terminal Server) > > > >> >> > 2 server - WS 2003 Standart + SQL 2000. > > > >> >> > Is it possible to use on server 2 Small Business Server 2003 Premium > > > >> >> > ? > > > >> >> > What > > > >> >> > about problems with domain? > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > Regards, > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >