Migrating from SBS 2003 to SBS 2008

Hi Guys,

Is a migration from sbs 2003 to sbs 2008 possible?  and should I even 
attempt this?

If so, does any one have a basic migration guide and any things to aviod?

Thanks for any help. 


0
JohnG
5/15/2010 4:50:56 AM
windows.server.sbs 1975 articles. 0 followers. Follow

9 Replies
972 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 19

JohnG wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> Is a migration from sbs 2003 to sbs 2008 possible?  and should I even 
> attempt this?
>
> If so, does any one have a basic migration guide and any things to aviod?
>
> Thanks for any help. 
>
>
>   
http://msmvps.com/blogs/bradley/archive/tags/Migration/default.aspx
http://msmvps.com/blogs/bradley/archive/tags/Migration+Extras/default.aspx
http://msmvps.com/blogs/bradley/archive/tags/migration+tips/default.aspx
http://www.sbsmigration.com
http://www.sbsmigrationtips.com

Nope sorry.  No information whatsoever on migration.  None at all.

Of course it's possible.

sbs 2008 migration - Google Search:
http://www.google.com/search?q=sbs+2008+migration&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1
0
Susan
5/15/2010 5:03:42 AM
JohnG wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> Is a migration from sbs 2003 to sbs 2008 possible?  and should I even 
> attempt this?
>
> If so, does any one have a basic migration guide and any things to aviod?
>
> Thanks for any help. 
>
>
>   
http://blog.mpecsinc.ca/2009/06/sbs-2003-to-sbs-2008-migration-guide.html

Nope no one has ever done them at all.
0
Susan
5/15/2010 5:05:17 AM
Hi John:

As Susan has pointed out, it is certainly possible.  In (partial) answer 
to the "should I even attempt this"  part of your post, there are a great 
many variables.

For some, it is either beyond their skill level or beyond their agrovation 
tolerance and they should not attempt it.  They should contract with a skilled 
SBS professional in their area.  In spite of making all the tools available 
and hyping SBS as a DYI project, it is not a DYI project in many cases if 
one expects it to work propertly, just as building and maintaining an automobile 
is not a DYI project for most.

Some/most think that for "about 10" or less workstations it is less work 
to start fresh.

Some/many think that the MS developed method, while producing the end result 
of a functioning SBS 2008 is too much work and a pain to prep for, not to 
mention that it destroys the SBS 2003 in the process with no path to start 
over.  

If you go down that road, be sure it starts with changing the oil, checking 
the tires, and so on.  You MUST meet all the pre migration checks or it will 
surely fail.  The biggest one is to put gas in the tank, or, in the case 
of a migration, to have not one but several known good backups and one or 
two good images and document the condition of the SBS 2003 at that moment 
so if you have to fall back you fall back to a known condtion/position on 
the 03.

There are two other paths to a sucessful migration from 03 to 08, both work, 
both have their fans, and both are supported by their respective authors. 
 Check out www.sbsmigration.com, by long time MVP Jeff Middleton, and also 
Zero Down Time Migration by well known author Karl Palachuk.

www.sbsmigration.com

www.zerodowntimemigration.com or http://networkmigrationworkbook.com/


-
Larry
Please post the resolution to your
issue so others may benefit
-
Get Your SBS Health Check at
www.sbsbpa.com


> Hi Guys,
> 
> Is a migration from sbs 2003 to sbs 2008 possible?  and should I even
> attempt this?
> 
> If so, does any one have a basic migration guide and any things to
> aviod?
> 
> Thanks for any help.
> 


0
Larry
5/15/2010 12:23:46 PM
John,

Susan mentioned my website, I thought I would add a sentance.

I provide a single source for a completely organized step by step migration 
project outline which includes detailed end-to-end support so that you don't 
have to research or troubleshoot all of this yourself, I am happy to help 
you complete your project or answer your questions on planning.


Jeff Middleton SBS-MVP
www.SBSmigration.com


"JohnG" <jgiokari@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:4bee282f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Hi Guys,
>
> Is a migration from sbs 2003 to sbs 2008 possible?  and should I even 
> attempt this?
>
> If so, does any one have a basic migration guide and any things to aviod?
>
> Thanks for any help.
> 


0
Jeff
5/15/2010 12:46:05 PM
Thanks Larry. Despite Susan's comments ;) I new it 'could' be done as I had 
researched it before posting.

What I really wanted is people's experiences that have actually been through 
it and the method they used.

Normally we would just rebuild, buts its about 38 users, so there is merit 
in migrating.

So its a trade off between the time saved and rebuilding. I've be using SBS 
for a long time, however I wouldn't call myself an AD expert.

I will be taking a snapshot (storagecraft) of the system before moving 
ahead, I would never attempt it otherwise.

I'm not really concerned if  the SBS 2003 is destroyed in the process as per 
above.

Thanks for the other options and all comments, I will consider these as 
well.

"Larry Struckmeyer[SBS-MVP]" <lstruckmeyer@mis-wizards.com> wrote in message 
news:4e683515fab68ccc21f127c86d5@news.microsoft.com...
>
> Hi John:
>
> As Susan has pointed out, it is certainly possible.  In (partial) answer 
> to the "should I even attempt this"  part of your post, there are a great 
> many variables.
>
> For some, it is either beyond their skill level or beyond their agrovation 
> tolerance and they should not attempt it.  They should contract with a 
> skilled SBS professional in their area.  In spite of making all the tools 
> available and hyping SBS as a DYI project, it is not a DYI project in many 
> cases if one expects it to work propertly, just as building and 
> maintaining an automobile is not a DYI project for most.
>
> Some/most think that for "about 10" or less workstations it is less work 
> to start fresh.
>
> Some/many think that the MS developed method, while producing the end 
> result of a functioning SBS 2008 is too much work and a pain to prep for, 
> not to mention that it destroys the SBS 2003 in the process with no path 
> to start over.
> If you go down that road, be sure it starts with changing the oil, 
> checking the tires, and so on.  You MUST meet all the pre migration checks 
> or it will surely fail.  The biggest one is to put gas in the tank, or, in 
> the case of a migration, to have not one but several known good backups 
> and one or two good images and document the condition of the SBS 2003 at 
> that moment so if you have to fall back you fall back to a known 
> condtion/position on the 03.
>
> There are two other paths to a sucessful migration from 03 to 08, both 
> work, both have their fans, and both are supported by their respective 
> authors. Check out www.sbsmigration.com, by long time MVP Jeff Middleton, 
> and also Zero Down Time Migration by well known author Karl Palachuk.
>
> www.sbsmigration.com
>
> www.zerodowntimemigration.com or http://networkmigrationworkbook.com/
>
>
> -
> Larry
> Please post the resolution to your
> issue so others may benefit
> -
> Get Your SBS Health Check at
> www.sbsbpa.com
>
>
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>> Is a migration from sbs 2003 to sbs 2008 possible?  and should I even
>> attempt this?
>>
>> If so, does any one have a basic migration guide and any things to
>> aviod?
>>
>> Thanks for any help.
>>
>
> 


0
JohnG
5/17/2010 3:16:00 AM
> http://blog.mpecsinc.ca/2009/06/sbs-2003-to-sbs-2008-migration-guide.html

The length and complexity of this process beggars belief.... and let us not 
forget that this is for a single-version upgrade to a SMALL business 
platform. Perhaps even for only five users whose IT requirements are actually 
quite basic.

An argument oft-touted by Microsoft against Linux is that total cost of 
ownership is higher where complex, manual installation procedures are 
involved. Yet, the time involved in setting-up or upgrading a Linux server 
would be only a microscopic fraction of this SBS-upgrade process. 

I really have to ask where this SBS product is going. It strikes me that 
either standard Windows Server or Linux are both better options in the long 
run.  

I'm not necessarily a fanatical Linux advocate BTW, but I do think some 
comparisons in overall useability -or the lack of it- are due here.

0
Utf
5/17/2010 5:16:01 PM
JohnG wrote:
> Thanks Larry. Despite Susan's comments ;) I new it 'could' be done as I had 
> researched it before posting.
>
> What I really wanted is people's experiences that have actually been through 
> it and the method they used.
>
> Normally we would just rebuild, buts its about 38 users, so there is merit 
> in migrating.
>
> So its a trade off between the time saved and rebuilding. I've be using SBS 
> for a long time, however I wouldn't call myself an AD expert.
>
> I will be taking a snapshot (storagecraft) of the system before moving 
> ahead, I would never attempt it otherwise.
>
> I'm not really concerned if  the SBS 2003 is destroyed in the process as per 
> above.
>
> Thanks for the other options and all comments, I will consider these as 
> well.
>
> "Larry Struckmeyer[SBS-MVP]" <lstruckmeyer@mis-wizards.com> wrote in message 
> news:4e683515fab68ccc21f127c86d5@news.microsoft.com...
>   
>> Hi John:
>>
>> As Susan has pointed out, it is certainly possible.  In (partial) answer 
>> to the "should I even attempt this"  part of your post, there are a great 
>> many variables.
>>
>> For some, it is either beyond their skill level or beyond their agrovation 
>> tolerance and they should not attempt it.  They should contract with a 
>> skilled SBS professional in their area.  In spite of making all the tools 
>> available and hyping SBS as a DYI project, it is not a DYI project in many 
>> cases if one expects it to work propertly, just as building and 
>> maintaining an automobile is not a DYI project for most.
>>
>> Some/most think that for "about 10" or less workstations it is less work 
>> to start fresh.
>>
>> Some/many think that the MS developed method, while producing the end 
>> result of a functioning SBS 2008 is too much work and a pain to prep for, 
>> not to mention that it destroys the SBS 2003 in the process with no path 
>> to start over.
>> If you go down that road, be sure it starts with changing the oil, 
>> checking the tires, and so on.  You MUST meet all the pre migration checks 
>> or it will surely fail.  The biggest one is to put gas in the tank, or, in 
>> the case of a migration, to have not one but several known good backups 
>> and one or two good images and document the condition of the SBS 2003 at 
>> that moment so if you have to fall back you fall back to a known 
>> condtion/position on the 03.
>>
>> There are two other paths to a sucessful migration from 03 to 08, both 
>> work, both have their fans, and both are supported by their respective 
>> authors. Check out www.sbsmigration.com, by long time MVP Jeff Middleton, 
>> and also Zero Down Time Migration by well known author Karl Palachuk.
>>
>> www.sbsmigration.com
>>
>> www.zerodowntimemigration.com or http://networkmigrationworkbook.com/
>>
>>
>> -
>> Larry
>> Please post the resolution to your
>> issue so others may benefit
>> -
>> Get Your SBS Health Check at
>> www.sbsbpa.com
>>
>>
>>     
>>> Hi Guys,
>>>
>>> Is a migration from sbs 2003 to sbs 2008 possible?  and should I even
>>> attempt this?
>>>
>>> If so, does any one have a basic migration guide and any things to
>>> aviod?
>>>
>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>
>>>       
>>     
>
>
>   
You may have been better served saying how many users from the get go.  
:-)  38 needs a migration not a clean install.
0
Susan
5/17/2010 7:37:10 PM
Anteaus wrote:
>> http://blog.mpecsinc.ca/2009/06/sbs-2003-to-sbs-2008-migration-guide.html
>>     
>
> The length and complexity of this process beggars belief.... and let us not 
> forget that this is for a single-version upgrade to a SMALL business 
> platform. Perhaps even for only five users whose IT requirements are actually 
> quite basic.
>
> An argument oft-touted by Microsoft against Linux is that total cost of 
> ownership is higher where complex, manual installation procedures are 
> involved. Yet, the time involved in setting-up or upgrading a Linux server 
> would be only a microscopic fraction of this SBS-upgrade process. 
>
> I really have to ask where this SBS product is going. It strikes me that 
> either standard Windows Server or Linux are both better options in the long 
> run.  
>
> I'm not necessarily a fanatical Linux advocate BTW, but I do think some 
> comparisons in overall useability -or the lack of it- are due here.
>
>   
It ain't a walk in the park ripping out a network and going to Linux 
either. 

This is active directory glue.  Migration is not easy period.  Add to 
the change is that we're migrating from 32 bit from 64 bit.

Any way you move you are dealing with change in an office.  Whether you 
are migrating SBS 2003 to 2008 or migrating away from it there's a lot 
of active directory glue that needs to be dealt with.  Status quo is 
easier than any level of migration.

Yes some firms can move away from SBS.  But for those that need the 
features of it, it's totally a doable project.  Honestly dealing with AD 
migration should be part of the tool bag  of the IT consultant.    All 
you are doing here is adding a Windows server (you'd need that if you 
moved away from SBS) and adding an Exchange migration (do hosted email 
and you'd be migrating that too) 

I did most of my migration time the week end before and then one day of.

I need shared calendars, line of business apps, mapped drives, 
sharepoint... etc etc... Kerio comes close.  Hosted stuff works for 
some.  For me it didn't.

But I'm a small business and I'm more than 5 users.  My needs are not 
basic. 
0
Susan
5/17/2010 7:38:58 PM
A couple of key problems with your argument here, so I'll take them one at a 
time.

TCO, or total cost of ownership, is the cost of running and maintaining a 
server and OS throughout its life.  The migration from SBS 2003 to 2008 can 
be done over a weekend, or 16ish hours of labor (less if the tech doing the 
migration has some prior experience...and calling in a consultant is usually 
worth the savings in this regard.)  If running an SBS server over a Linux or 
standard Windows Server solution saves you an hour a week of work then 
you've paid for the migration in only 16 weeks....and most servers are in 
production for quite a bit longer, which means SBS need only save a person 
minutes a day to pay for the migration and *still* have a TCO less than 
alternatives.

Where can those savings come in?

When compare to Linux, several key components surface immediately.

Client Management. SBS is designed to be installed as a domain controller. 
The use of Active Directory and associated group policies centralized client 
management, and with built in wizards to make folder redirection and other 
services easily deployed, you can even centralize backups of user data.  To 
accomplish the same task in Linux, you'd have to know how to install, 
configure, and maintain SAMBA and then touch each client machine 
individually as Linux has no comparably reliable centralized management of 
desktop clients.

Client patch management.  The time savings WSUS can add to manually touching 
machines (even 5 machines) should not be underestimated.  You want to save 
an hour on the second tuesday of each month?  Look no further than WSUS.

Server patch management.  I can't tell you the number of times I've 
performed what should've been a simple patch on a Linux server....say 
libcurl....because of a vulnerability, thus a necessary patch, and had it 
impact other programs that relied upon it, such as libxml, and on up the 
chain, and ultimately had the apps that run on that box (say postfix for 
mail) go belly-up.  Linux is a decent OS, don't get me wrong, but it takes a 
skilled systems administrator to properly maintain a Linux box and keep it 
both secure *and* unbroken.  Linux patch management leaves much to be 
desired.  MS does an unparalleled job of testing patches. They rarely break 
the OS or third party apps, and in the rare cases they do, MS is very good 
about getting the word out and documenting fixes via technet, the SBS blog, 
and other resources.  Good luck even *finding* centralized resources on 
managing your linux servers and knowing if an installed package has a 
security vulnerability.  Skilled sysadmins know where to find out this info, 
but it is time-consuming and adds to the TCO of a Linux server.

Migrations.  The story of migrating from SBS 2003 to SBS 2008 is a long one. 
Unargued.  However, doing a migration from Debian etch to Debian lenny (a 
fair comparison as both version number and timeframe between releases) with 
appropriate packages that add SBS-like functionality (email, collaberation, 
file and printer sharing) is absolutely no walk in the park.  It involves 
migrating the .conf files, migrating the data, and going through each .conf 
file and updating it to work with the new versions of packages (sendmail, 
postfix, apache, spamassassin, samba, etc) since many conf files will not 
work without being touched in some way.  The migration path is not simple. 
The move from CentOS 4 to CentOS 5, or CentOS 5 to CentOS 5.5 (a 64-bit 
migration) is similarly difficult if careful planning is not done.

In short?  Migrations require planning, regardless of OS.

On the "standard windows" side, the story is similar.

Client management.  Windows, of course, can be configured as a DC and can 
leverage group policies to manage the clients. SBS wizards, however, can 
streamline this process for an IT manager that is strapped for resources. 
For day-to-day operations, SBS is faster and easier than an enterprise 
windows installation, but that comes at the cost of flexibility.  Small 
businesses *rarely* need that flexibility, however.  Companies needing 
Windows Standard usually have more organized departments on an org chart 
than a small business has employees.  The complexity of the organization is 
directly reflected in the complexity of their network.  SBS is a win in many 
ways for the assumptions it makes to aid the small business get more done 
with less.

Patch management (client and server).  Windows standard offers WSUS just as 
SBS does.  For me, this is mostly a wash, but it is worth pointing out that 
the central SBS console can assist in helping a small company without 
dedicated IT more quickly identify and patch networked clients.  In this 
edge case (I still recommend some level of IT experience for any patching), 
there is some net benefit.

Migrations.  When looking at the migration story, it is unfair to *just* 
look at the core OS.  SBS integrates sharepoint and Exchange, among other 
things.  If you were looking at migrating a Windows Server 2003/Exchange 
2003/WSS (Sharepoint Services 2.0 server (or servers) to Windows Server 
2008, Exchange 2007, and Sharepoint Services 3.0, you'd have to carefully 
plan what order, when, how, and if you could use the same box.  There would 
NOT be a simple drop-in upgrade.  With SBS, at least there is a standard set 
of tools on both 2003 and 2008 so the process has already been documented. 
SBS is actually *less* work than a standard windows enterprise migration 
because much of the prep work has been done for you by the MS documentation 
team.

In short, if you are judging SBS's usability by its migration story, you are 
doing so unfairly and failing to consider that other platforms suffer 
shortcomings equally.   I judge a product's usability by how well it 
operates day-to-day and how much life it is expected to get.  Migrations are 
a small sliver of a footnote in a four year story for average use patterns, 
that with skilled IT or consultation, is neither budget busting nor overly 
complex, all things considered.

-Cliff


"Anteaus" <Anteaus@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message 
news:13C739AA-18FC-4EFC-8686-DCE79CFB3D79@microsoft.com...
>> http://blog.mpecsinc.ca/2009/06/sbs-2003-to-sbs-2008-migration-guide.html
>
> The length and complexity of this process beggars belief.... and let us 
> not
> forget that this is for a single-version upgrade to a SMALL business
> platform. Perhaps even for only five users whose IT requirements are 
> actually
> quite basic.
>
> An argument oft-touted by Microsoft against Linux is that total cost of
> ownership is higher where complex, manual installation procedures are
> involved. Yet, the time involved in setting-up or upgrading a Linux server
> would be only a microscopic fraction of this SBS-upgrade process.
>
> I really have to ask where this SBS product is going. It strikes me that
> either standard Windows Server or Linux are both better options in the 
> long
> run.
>
> I'm not necessarily a fanatical Linux advocate BTW, but I do think some
> comparisons in overall useability -or the lack of it- are due here.
> 
0
Cliff
5/18/2010 3:26:00 AM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

We have Outlook 2003 and wish to stop the abilty of staff to edit.
We have Outlook 2003 and wish to stop the abilty of staff to edit... Please put your question in the body of your post. The subject isn't big enough. -- Sue Mosher, Outlook MVP Author of Microsoft Outlook Programming - Jumpstart for Administrators, Power Users, and Developers http://www.outlookcode.com/jumpstart.aspx "Des" <Des@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:445B6C35-2C3B-4BB3-BDC2-438B4281DCC5@microsoft.com... > We have Outlook 2003 and wish to stop the abilty of staff to edit... Des <Des@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote...

migrate
How migrate server exchange 5.5 to another exchange server 5.5 with another site and organisation ...

Outlook 2003 keeps corrupting my PST
I have used Outlook for years now, but not until 2003 have I been ready to throw it out the window. My experience has been: 1) OL constantly gets locked up forcing me to kill the process - it often pegs the processor at 100% 2) OL constantly corrupts the PST - I often have to use SCAN PST 4-5 times a day. Corruptions do not always follow lock-up, but often do. 3) I constantly get messages saying OL is low on resources and then it will not allow an operation such as saving the email (so I can restart and complete), or send 4) OL has trouble exporting to other files, moving messages to f...

Exchange 2003 Send as Permissions
Hi, I am running a 2003 Exchange server. I set the 'send as' permission via the 'Permissions' (edit ACL) tab for User1 to send on behalf of User2. This then works for around 24 hours, at which point the permissions are removed. I assume that some type of maintenance routine is removing the relevant permissions, not sure why or how however! I know you can set the 'send on behalf of' setting but this displays the mail in a way that the recipient can tell who has really sent the mail - my customer does not want this! Any suggestions (sensible ones anyway) would be great...

Exchange, Win, AD 2000 to 2003 upgrade
I'm planning out the upgrade of a 2000 AD and Exchange 2000 all on separate W2k boxes (FE & BE config) to a fully AD/Win/Exch 2003 environment. I'm planning on the following steps: 1) Upgrade Exch 2000 FE to Exch 2003 FE 2) Upgrade Exch 2000 BE to Exch 2003 BE 3) Upgrade FE to Win 2003 4) Upgrade BE to Win 2003 5) Upgrade 2000 AD to 2003 I'm trying to figure out any advantages to doing the AD upgrade before or after the Exchange upgrades. I've seen it recommended to do it first, but it seems like six of one, half a dozen of the other to me. Can't find any tech doc th...

rules not migrated when migration to Exchange 2000
...

Free Busy in 2003
Just installed Outlook 2003 on a new server and cannot get others free/busy information. Permissions are not the issue. Under appointment, it says no information available when setting up appointments. ...

how do I fill in a cell with text in Excel macro (2003)
Hi, I am running a macro where I copy and paste values from workbook to another. Is it possible to fill in a cell with text without having to copying it from another workbook. Kind regards, Rikin > Is it possible to fill in a cell with text without having to copying it from > another workbook. Yes Range("A1").value="Sometext" Mike "Rikin" wrote: > Hi, > > I am running a macro where I copy and paste values from workbook to another. > Is it possible to fill in a cell with text without having to copying it fro...

Look out- server dumping Outlook 2003 emails
My server is dumping Outlook 2003 e-mails before they are finally sent to people on the same e-mail network. Everyone else outside this server can recieve Outlook 2003 e-mails fine, but none on the server can? What's this server doing to me? Have anything to do with Outlook going to unicode? What mailserver are you using? Do you only have an Exchange account configured? Also contact your mail administrator to doublecheck your mailbox settings. -- Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook] www.howto-outlook.com Tips of the month: -What do the Outlook Icons Mean? -Create an Office 2003 CD slip...

Exchange 2003 Startup Problems
Hello Got into the office this morning to find our exchange server not working. Getting these errors in the log file, the mailbox store won't startup. event id 455 - ESE Information Store (4888) First Storage Group: Error -1811 occurred while opening logfile D:\Program Files\Exchsrvr\EXCHANGE.log\E0001E02.log. Also getting event id 9518 that the information store won't start up. Anyone have any ideas how to rectify this? The log file it's talking about doesn't exist on the machine, the last log file i have is E0001E00.log from 1.43am this morning. Thanks for you...

sender filtering on exchange 2003 server
i setup an exchange 2003 server to retreive it's e-mail from a provider's POP3 server for the time being due to the fact that the MX records haven't been changed yet. Now i enabled senderfiltering on my exchange server and it doesn't seem to work Question: Does this have anything to do with the pop3 mailbox of my provider or is there something else going on alltogether?? -- "Computers are useless, they can only give answers...." .. (Pablo Picasso) Obviously no one knows or nobody wants to help "Rik" wrote: > i setup an exchange 2003 server to re...

Migration to full 2003 exch and domain with badly named Directory
Hi I have an NT4 domain with Exch 5.5 on a BDC. The BDC is named in the format AA_BB, where the "_" character is not allowed under 2003. I understand how to rename the serveron the domain only, before upgrading the domain, but from the exchange point of view what do I do. do I have to exmerge everything and then exmerge back into a full exch 2003 fresh install do I create a new exch 2003 server on a different machine but same site as 5.5 and use the move mailbox util Ideally there would a utility I could run on the 5.5 server to rename the relevant properites prior to a...

Outlook 2003
I added the newsreader to the Go menu. It worked. I rebooted at some point and now the news item is not on the go Menu and it is not avaible to be added. Will I have to restore my system to an earlier date or is there an easier way to add it back. I have no problems working in the registry. To get the News command back, go back to the Programs tab in Control Panel | Internet Options and change the default newsreader to Outlook Express. If OE prompts you to make it your default newsreader the next time you launch it, click the "Don't ask me again" box and then click the No ...

Groupwise to Exchange Migration
I migrated my Groupwise account as a preliminary test, deleted all of the individual emails in the mailbox, and then started the migration for all users. During the migration (the 2nd time), all of my older emails did not migrate the 2nd time, although they did migrate the first time. Is there anything that I can do, or that needs to be done, to allow all of my past emails to be migrated again? -- Richard Perry Systems Administrator/Programmer Shadow Mountain Ministries San Diego Christian College Southern California Seminary Christian Unified Schools of San Diego ...

Problem to import folders from old .PST files to Outlook 2003
Have upgraded from Outlook 2002 to Outlook 2003. I had several Personal Maps (One Map containing the E-Mail for each previous years, like Outlook2003, Outlook2002, etc.). When I try to import the old .pst Personal Maps to my new Outlook 2004 Personal Map (with the new format), the folders inside each of the Map are not visible, and I am not able to import any data at all. Is it possible to create several Personal Maps in Outlook 2004, and how to I create a new one? What do you mean by Personal Maps? Assuming you are talking about Personal Folders (PST files) they are perfectly compati...

Exchange 2003 computer account
I am running Exchange 2003 on Windows 2003 network (AD). One of my admins was trying to test the exchange restore, but he screwed up. He setup a test network, isolated from production network. He tried to do restore from tape, etc, etc. I still don't know exactly what he did, but our production exchange is not part of network anymore.. I notice the Exchange server name was missing from Exchange Domain Servers groups in AD. So I added back in. The computer name is still in AD. However we cannot login into Exchange server into domain. When I try to do that, I get a message that says: Window...

Can't find a link to download the Office 2003 Student and Teacher
Why can't I find the link to download Office 2003 Student and Teacher Ed? I have the product key but my original cd has gone missing... Help! Because the link doesn't exist. Contact the vendor from where you purchased it. "TRenee" <TRenee@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:B0832A59-9C02-462E-8614-D61AAC37DF33@microsoft.com... : Why can't I find the link to download Office 2003 Student and Teacher Ed? I : have the product key but my original cd has gone missing... Help! How to replace Microsoft software or hardware, order service p...

outlook 2003 connecting to Exchange Server 2003
I have a multihomed environment and am trying to connect my user to my exchange 2003 server. The Primary NIC is used for Internet access and the Secondary is used the connect to my Exchange server. When I setup Outlook 2003 in the Exchange Server field it always wants to resolve the server name to the FQDN. Then it searches for the public IP Address on the Primary NIC. If I ping the server name it knows which NIC to use and doesn't have a problem. How can i set it up to only look for the server name? try entering the IP address of the server instead of the name for resoluti...

Migration tool crashes when migrating from Lotus
I'm having problems with the migration tool when migrating some users. What happens is that once it starts up, the tool crashes with no error codes and the domino server crashes as well. I'm running exchange 2003 and domino 6 on win2k and I'm migrating it all on the same box. I know it says not to but I've already killed a test server because of this and don't have another one handy. As I said, I can migrate the majority of users fine, but for some reason it does not like these users. If anyone has any suggestions or has come across something like this it would...

Outlook 2003 News Reader problems
I'm having problems getting the news reader to work with Outlook 2003 Professional.... It works once and then fails and seems to point to this directory C:\Program Files\Common Files\SYSTEM\MSMAPI\1033 That is when it shows up in the Go menu... most of the time the link is not there... Any ideas... I hate having to use OX to view newsgroups... sort of defeats the purpose... Steve You hate "having to use OX to view newsgroups?" What did you think you were using before? OE has always been the news reader for Outlook. Configure it as such in Control Panel > Internet option...

Exchange 2003 Statistics
How do you find out the number of emails your Exchange server processes per day? Senior administration loves these statistics but I don't know where to extract this information. Looking for the number of emails sent internally vs. externally. Message Tracking logs, PerfMon, 3rd party products (you can start your research at www.quest.com). Shawn wrote: > How do you find out the number of emails your Exchange server processes per > day? Senior administration loves these statistics but I don't know where to > extract this information. Looking for the number of emails s...

Outlook 2003 #288
I am using an outlook connected to exchange server for my emails. when i'm not on cached mode, i can successfully send a "do not deliver before" prescribed time email. the exchange will put my message into the some kind of "deferred queue" and exchange will deliver the email at the time specified even though i dont have my outlook running at when the time comes because of that "deferred queue". but when I'm in cached mode. that email just sits there in my outbox and it doesn't actually being sent out to the server "deferred queue". The reaso...

Uninstalling and downgrading from 2007 to 2003
Ok, here we go. My beta just expired and I would like to downgrade back to my old office 2003. What do I need to backup? and How do I do it? I need EVERYTHING from outlook. Mails, Folders, Tasks, Notes and Calendar items. Import/Export seems to be disabled. Please help me. Thanks, emp emp <mklinge@gmail.com> wrote: > Ok, here we go. > My beta just expired and I would like to downgrade back to my old > office 2003. > What do I need to backup? and How do I do it? > > I need EVERYTHING from outlook. Mails, Folders, Tasks, Notes and > Calendar items. Since Outlo...

Exch 5.5 to 2003 ADMT \ ADC migration order question
Hi guys. I've been reading posts and performing tests in the run up to a Exchange 5.5 to 2003 intra-org migration. In everyone's opinion, which is the best order -> ADC (not enabled) -> ADMT to create new AD account (run in batches) -> ADClean to marry disabled place holder and new account (run in batches) -> movemailbox ( in batches as part of rolling migration) The above seems to have issues with no self rights so if you remove SIDhistory after the migration is done, wont the systems permission go bang as it's masking the lack of self rights? OR....... -&g...

Server 2003
I am getting an error message while running the database on Server 2003. The error is at the terminals of something to the effect of Cannot Recognize the Database. Some here think it has to do with permissions for the server. Right now we are running the database on computer attached to the network through the server, but that isn't really what we want. Any help? We use Win2003 without any problems. In fact I upgraded one last night to SQL Express. I suppose that the log in and password for the database could be wrong. We use SQL authentication, not windows authentication. C...