Don't forget a $600. Snap Server as an alternative to handle the increased user count.



>>Sorry i didn't read the entire thread, it's becoming a monster. You're right but if the run linux they have many options: MySql, SAP DB, Etc...
>
>If their critical line-of-business apps have been written to use MSDE (as JD is recommending), realistically, they don't.
>
>"Giving away" MSDE is clever marketing by Microsoft. It's a sort of "viral" marketing, broadly similar to what Apple did by giving away computers to schools for years. Not only does it tend to "lock in" users to a SQL Server upgrade path, it also tends to lock them in to Microsoft server products as well. Here's a typical small business scenario:
>
>Small Company "X" has contracted with VFP Developer "SH" to create a custom application to automate their business. They buy 6 new Dell Windows XP Pro workstations to replace 3 old, non-networked ones they started the company with. There is no server on the network; one of the workstations is designated as the "master" and configured appropriately, as the network Master Browser, with a UPS, etc.
>
>The app is developed and deployed, it works reliably and well, everyone is happy. So happy, in fact, that they want to add 6 more workstations - 2 more in the back office plus 4 barcode/data entry/display stations on the shop floor.
>
>SH points out that since they will now have more than 10 simultaneous connections to the data, the data must be moved from the current XP Pro box to a server which will allow more connections. In other words, they have to purchase and set up a server computer. The company president ("CP") wants to know if they can use Linux as their server, she's heard it's reliable and inexpensive.
>
>*****
>If the app was developed using VFP tables, SH replies: Yes, you can. You could also purchase Windows 2003 Server. Either product will work fine. With Linux the software is low-cost but it might cost a little more to install and configure than W2003. Bottom line, installing and configuring either one is likely to cost pretty much the same.
>
>CP asks, "What about if our new product takes off and we have to expand to 30 workstations?" SH replies: with Linux, you wouldn't need to do a thing. It's ready to handle all the load you're likely to throw at it for the foreseeable future. With Windows 2003, you'd have to buy 18 more client access licenses (CALs) from Microsoft.
>
>*****
>If the app was developed using MSDE, SH replies: No, you can't use a Linux server. Your app's data store must run on a Microsoft operating system, and since you need more than 10 connections, your only choice is Windows 2003 Server.
>
>CP asks, "Can't the data store run on Linux?" SH replies: Well, there are some data stores that run on Linux, but to modify your application to use one of them instead of the existing one is going to take two months, and cost more than what it would cost to deploy a Windows 2003 server. You'd be better off using Windows 2003.
>
>CP asks, "What about if our new product takes off and we have to expand to 30 workstations?" SH replies: Going to 30 users would exceed the capacity of the existing data store. You'd have to purchase an upgrade to its bigger brother, Microsoft SQL Server. You'd also need to buy 18 more Windows 2003 CALs.
>
>CP comments, "Wow, we're looking at some pretty big costs down the road if we need to expand further. Would it be better to bite the bullet now, and convert the data store to one that runs on Linux?" SH replies: It's true that with a data store based on Linux, there's no further cost in adding new users. You could certainly avoid the purchase of SQL Server and the CALs. I'd have to give you an estimate on the conversion costs to be able to say for sure.
>
>CP asks, "Just thinking out loud - but wouldn't it have been better to use one of the Linux-compatible data stores in the first place, instead of the one you chose?" SH: Ahem, well...
>
>*****************
>Sure, the above scenario may be a little contrived. However, I'd wager it's not too far from the way a lot of small business owners think. In fact, the situation in some ways is worse than what I've outlined above:
>
>- A lot of small business owners are not tech-savvy enough to ask the probing questions that reveal the true costs of committing to the Microsoft platform, or more importantly to make the app design decisions at the outset to minimize future costs.
>
>- In larger non-Microsoft-server companies, if a department needs more than 10 connections to your app, they may have to hire extra staff to install and maintain the required Microsoft server.
>
>So, the situation clearly isn't as simple as JD would have us believe. It's up to all of us to consider all the implications, and ask ourselves the hard questions before our clients embarrass us with them.
>
>/ SET VERBOSE OFF < g >