There’s lots of chatter about error 0x8004010F in Outlook’s Sync Issues folder, and some very complex descriptions of why it occurs and how to resolve the problem.
Our own environment, as well as many of our customers looks like this:
· Small Business Server 2008
· Single Domain SSL Certificate ($19.95 RapidSSL from Enom)
· Client Laptops running Vista Business SP1 and Outlook 2007 SP1
· A record configured in the Internet DNS Zone file for remote.domain.com pointing to the IP address of the SBS
· SRV record configured in the Internet DNS Zone file for _autodiscover._tcp pointing to remote.domain.com
Even though Outlook 2007 was updated to use SRV records for mailbox synchronization via Outlook Anywhere (thus, allowing you to use a $19.95 SSL certificate instead of the more expensive, multi-domain ones) it was still having a problem using the SRV record for the Offline Address Book (OAB) because that was still looking for autodiscover.domain.com in order to sync.
If we followed the recommended solution and put a HOST A record for autodiscover.domain.com in the Internet DNS Zone File then we would have gotten a certificate mis-match error from the OAB sync since our SSL certificate was for remote.domain.com. It seemed as though we were in a catch-22.
The situation was further complicated because for many of our clients, their home Internet connection was blazingly fast. We decided to adjust the Outlook Anywhere settings to use HTTP on fast connections in addition to the default setting of using HTTP on slow connections instead of modifying the threshold (which wouldn’t have provided a consistent user experience).
This created a slew of 0x8004010F OAB sync errors every day.
The solution was fairly simple. I just added a line in the laptop’s HOST file as follows:
(using the SBS’s external IP)
The OAB sync errors stopped! Problem solved!
The business is a typical small business, currently running out of a small premises and in desperate need of a server to centralise file management, email, their website and so on. The scope of the project as it looks at present is as follows:
1 x Server running SBS 2008 Standard Edition
3 x Desktop PCs (although it could easily be 5 by the time the project comes round) to run either Vista Business or Premium
3-5 x Office 2007 Small Business Edition Licenses (basically every PC having Office 2007)
5x User CALs for SBS 2008 at this stage
Would you recommend I go down the Retail or Volume Licensing route? I am particularly interested in the Software Assurance capability of Volume Licensing, and my client would be interested in the ability to spread the payments over several instalments, but being someone who has never ventured into the world of Volume Licensing on a project by myself, I don’t know exactly what I’m walking into.
Essentially what I want to do is best prepare the business for the future. I have no reason not to purchase the software through conventional retail suppliers at this stage, but then when the company rapidly expands across several offices in many different locations in the coming years, I want to easily be able to add on licenses for software via the most cost-effective route.
Any words of advice for a Volume Licensing newbie?
All of our clients are on License + SA for SBS, Vista + MDOP, and Office.
You get TechNet Plus Direct, 1 phone support incident, e-Learning and more.
Office gives them their office licenses, the above, plus they get Use At Home Rights. If they have 10 Office 2007 + SA on Open Value, they get a “free” copy for their employees to use at home. There is a nominal shipping charge once the employee registers for their copy. Essentially, 2 for 1!
Thanks. Even that bit of information is of great use to me!
The bit I am finding difficult to understand is whether I can sign up for this agreement when the client is, at present, having only 3 Desktop PCs. This is most definitely going to grow – there is no doubt about that – and I can see them moving to larger premises over the next year or two with many more people working for them, but would someone be willing to sign me up for a Volume Licensing agreement in this situation?
Are you aware of the potential cost savings?
Thanks once again,
SBS OS + SA (incl. 5 CALs) = 1 Unit
Office 2007 Lic + SA = 3 Units (4 total)
If you do a dedicated remote desktop via an Intel Mini-ITX box in the server closet you can do Vista SA + MDOP 12 month + Office 2007 which adds 3 Units. They get a dedicated desktop if they have a laptop outside of the network for RDP access, the admin gets a desktop to work from when needing to manage SBS via RSAT. Win-Win … and we do this kind of setup for most of our clients.
You could put Vista Lic + SA, and MDOP on the three desktops which gives license portability if they are licensed OEM, plus all of the Microsoft Desktop Optimization Pack goodies which are phenomenal. That would give you 6 Units. BTW, it is not expensive for the pair per desktop OS.
Vista Up Lic + SA = TechNet Plus Direct, Vista Ultimate, Vista Enterprise, Desktop Virtualization Rights, Support Incident, more …
Otherwise, there are a number of Open Value SKUs your disti licensing specialist can help you queue up to meet the 5 minimum.
First of all, let me clarify something, even though I don’t think it really matters in your case. SBS 2008 comes with 5 CALs which are considered to be 5 separate “units” and therefore qualifies for Open Licensing programs on it’s own.
Then, the choice isn’t just between Open Licensing and Retail… there’s also OEM. For your scenario, I would probably go with OEM licensing as the benefits of licensing probably don’t outweigh the substantial cost difference, and there’s no real benefit of buying retail (FPP) over OEM other than the fact that it can be transfered to new hardware. Since you are buying all new hardware anyhow, then the value of OEM really comes into play. We always use OEM (with Dell Equipment) when we do a completely new install. If you are building the machines yourself, you can buy OEM licenses from your distributor (ie Ingram Micro).
FYI, if you were upgrading from an SBS 2003 installation, then it might be better to go with licensing
(http://blogs.msdn.com/mssmallbiz/archive/2008/01/16/7136077.aspx), but that’s a discussion for another time.
So, all you need to do is get the server with SBS 2008 and workstations with OS + Office. No need for any additional CALs until you have more than 5 USERS. I would also recommend that you go with Vista Business. Ultimate is really just a bunch of bloatware that is not needed in an office environment.
If your client is interested in spreading payments, then they probably should be looking at leasing through Microsoft (http://www.microsoft.com/smallbusiness/buy/software/overview.aspx#FinancingOptions) which would allow them to include all the hardware, software and even your services to install and configure the new network.
OEM’s such as Dell or HP also offer these types of programs.
Licensing is always a confusing topic. Please let me know if you need any clarification on the above.
I am having my client buy all new PCs through Dell, so I guess I could have Vista Business pre-installed as an OEM license on the PCs. It’s only £40 more (UK money) to upgrade the Vista on the PCs to Vista Business, so I think that is what I will go for rather than license it fresh. I didn’t think Vista Ultimate would really be suitable for a business environment.
It is the Office 2007 and SBS 2008 licensing which breaks the bank, but then if I went for OEM it looks as if through my supplier I’d be able to shave about 50% off the Office licenses, and almost 40% off the SBS licenses, comparing it back to the Retail product.
With regards to the Volume Licensing route, just out of interest, what sort of prices are we talking? Are the prices for Volume Licensing along the lines of OEM licenses or FPP licenses, or somewhere in between? That will probably be the deciding factor as to which route we take.
Thanks for the info so far!
For Example… SBS 2008 Standard:
FPP (SKU T72-02383) will run about £975
Open License (SKU T72-02558) will run about £975
OEM (SKU T72-02453) will run about £475
We generally get Office licenses from Dell, because they offer good pricing on Small Business Edition. Work with your sales rep there to bet the best prices… especially if you order towards the end of the month when they are trying to meet their sales goals.
The CALs included with SBS do not count as units. They are <i>included</i> with the product. I suggest the Microsoft Licensing Advisor for confirmation:
My first post here has a link to one of our blog posts with the appropriate Open Value part numbers for SBS.
In the long run, licensing via Open Value is the best value IMNSHO. Once the three year agreement is up, renew with SA only, the cost goes down, but the SA benefits remain. Makes way more sense than OEM for clients that refresh their hardware every two or three years.
They are two different animals.
Open Value gives you the option of spreading your payments, one up front, and one each on the anniversary of the agreement date. Costs are generally 20% higher than FPP over the duration of the agreement. But, you are getting your license plus SA, and on office your Home Use Rights!
Open License requires payment up front.
Please use the above linked License Advisor to run through your licensing need. Choose OPEN VALUE for your program. Do not do a Subscription agreement as you will not own the licenses at the end of the agreement.
Here is the link again:
Cost is not everything when it comes to value for what you are getting.
I’d really like you to justify how you say that for an organization of only FIVE people, that it is a better value to spend over THREE TIMES as much.
“Makes way more sense than OEM for clients that refresh their hardware every two or three years.”
That’s an exaggeration as well. I always recommend that my clients get on a FOUR-YEAR refresh schedule. With only 5 users, the server will certainly last at least that long, so they would probably stretch it to 5 years.
SA has very little value to 5-person companies. I’ve never had a client of that size that would have benefited from SA. Larger clients do get some benefit because the cost of the server is spread among many more users.
I think David Schrag has summed up licensing best in his blog post:
(He is attacking the Small Business Desktop Advantage program, but it applies equally to this situation).
Look… I’ve been a Microsoft Licensing Specialist for a number of years now… I deal with it all the time. It scales very nicely for larger organizations… but for this one… NO WAY!
The screenshots speak for themselves.
Before condemning someone as TOTALLY WRONG … please get your facts straight. Note the line in RED that states quite clearly that SBS on its own does not qualify for Open Value.
And, shall we agree to disagree?
Jeff … I may need to eat a black feathered bird here. I will confirm with our MS Licensing contact, as in my conversations with him to date, since getting into Open Value I was always under the impression that SBS did not qualify on its own.
But, as I reread those red lines, the Open Value Agreement is not specifically mentioned … my apologies and I stand corrected.
The wires are crossed, so I will get them uncrossed and make sure I have the right information for the next time.
No problem. I won’t ever be that adamant in a retort if I’m not absolutely sure.
I rarely quote Eric Ligman, but in this article ( http://blogs.msdn.com/mssmallbiz/archive/2005/05/11/416690.aspx ) he says:
“SBS Server by itself fulfills the (5) license minimum for Open License Business”
It’s been that way for a long time, and SBS 2008 isn’t any different in that regard.
So, now that I have a few moments, let me demonstrate the actual difference in cost. (I’ll do it in USD because that’s the pricing I have).
SBS 2008 Std OEM (T72-02453) $784.26
SBS 2008 Std L + SA (T72-00882) $1,674.00 (that price covers the required 3-years of SA)
Now, to be fair, if the company thinks they will benefit from having SA, you could add 3 yrs of it to the OEM license (T72-00897) within 90 days of purchase for $624.67. That makes a total of $1,408.93, but it’s still less money.
Plus, you can get those SKU’s from Dell when you order the server so it’s one-stop shopping.
Licensing is always confusing, so hopefully our little debate will help a few others as their looking for some kind of clarity. 🙂
Just a quick one before I close this: since OEM is cheaper, and you can still add SA to an OEM license within 90 days of purchase, what are the benefits of Volume Licensing? To me, it seems that it is more expensive to go down that route, with the only benefit you are getting being the ability to move the software between hardware, whereas with OEM you can’t do that?
It’s a bit more than the ability to move the software. There is actually a complete, separate agreement governing volume licensed software (PUR — or Product Use Rights), as compared to OEM which has the EULA (End User License Agreement).
From the Microsoft Licensing FAQ page:
“The End User License Agreement (EULA) is associated with retail and OEM software. The Product Use Rights (PUR) document is associated with Volume Licensing. The OEM use rights are between the customer and the OEM. The retail and Volume Licensing use rights are between the customer and Microsoft. Volume Licensing customers are provided additional benefits, such as re-imaging and downgrade rights, that may not be available in other software channels.”
But as I mentioned earlier… many of these “benefits” don’t really mean anything to a company that has only 5 users. Especially if you are a Microsoft Small Business Specialist, because then you get additional support from Microsoft to assist your clients even if they are using OEM software. (ie, Business Critical Support, which is Free from Microsoft: https://partner.microsoft.com/UK/40012229?PS=95000014)
Thanks for the link … I was able to dig back and find our Canadian version.
Full license + SA makes sense when the company goes past that 90 day mark for attaching SA to OEM.
Philip… not trying to harp… but that doesn’t make sense either. The 90-day mark only applies if you bought OEM. In which case you wouldn’t want another full license for the server.
Without as much as a single press release, Intel launched a new web site last week which, according to the site was developed…
“to provide you with valuable resources on computers and the amazing things you can do with them.”
They go on to tell visitors that you’ll only find Intel-based computers here, and if you don’t like that, go somewhere else!
“Throughout the site, you’ll find informative articles, news, and more. When you arrive in the “Shop” section, you’ll only find Intel® processor-based computers. If you’re interested in computers without Intel inside, we recommend you use a search engine like Google or Yahoo! to provide you with alternative online shopping options”
One has to wonder if this is a response to Dell starting to use AMD processors in some of their offerings. But so far, it looks as though it’s a bit of an understatement. I do realize that its a beta site, but my first attempt to use the “PC Matchmaker” which guided me to a notebook for less than $1,000.00, displayed a Lenovo R61 . But when I clicked the “Buy Now” link I was greated with this:
Of course they have a disclaimer that the information is “provided by a third-party compiler” (C-Net), but since the first one didn’t work I clicked the arrow to go to the second choice, also a Lenovo, which gave the same error page. So I clicked to the third one, an HP Compaq Business Notebook 6710b, which surprisingly gave me the same Lenovo error page. Oops.
Now I’m all for having a nice, simple place that just focuses on the PC and nothing else. I have some confidence that they will fix the bugs, and since Intel is behind the site, they have little incentive to clutter it up with other peripherals, gadgets or other items unless the affiliate fees are too enticing for them, in which case, PC.com will just be another version of C-Net with a Red Plastic Skin. Lets hope they are smarter than that.
Check it out at http://www.pc.com
Today on Experts-Exchange.com someone posted the question: How to configure your own Secure Certificate for Small Business Server 2003?
He was offered a very straighforward and correct answer by NeilParbrook who told him to first make sure he had a HOST (A) record configured in the domain’s public DNS zone, and then just run the CEICW which will configure the certificate.
The person who asked the question responded that he believed it was much more complex than just running the CEICW, and then linked a few articles which supported his belief. I took a look at the first one, and was immediately aware of why this guy was so confused. Here’s what he saw at www.msexchange.org:
Anyone who’s ever set up an SBS knows that you don’t even need to install the CA for a self-signed certificate. It’s created by the Configure Email and Internet Connection Wizard (CEICW) and is also installed in IIS on the sites that need it. The official overview of what the CEICW does and how you use it can be found at http://sbsurl.com/msicw and a visual how-to is at http://sbsurl.com/ceicw.
If you wanted to install a 3rd Party certificate instead, you would install the CA, but the process is still different on SBS. Instructions for that can be found at http://sbsurl.com/ssl
For anyone who hasn’t ever deployed an SBS be sure to check out http://sbsurl.com/testdrive to experience it first-hand.
Question: Will I run into problems migrating an old server running Small Business Server 2003 SP1 to a brand new server running Small Business Server 2003 R2 SP2?
My client doesn’t want to upgrade the old server (software or hardware) because “it has problems” (but they won’t tell me what).
I plan on following this guide: http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsServerSolutions/SBS/en/library/a340742f-042e-48da-b865-5244bee1000f1033.mspx?mfr=true
My big concern is that the new server runs R2. Will I run into problem with that? Do I need to update the AD Schema for R2?
Thanks for anything you can add to help.
That guide was just published this week and it seems like a good method.
There’s no problem going from SBS 2003 SP1 to SBS 2003 R2 because the R2 components are installed AFTERWARDS. The new server won’t be running SBS at all when you start the process described in that guide. If it is OEM, you need to reformat the disk and reinstall per the steps described.
Try looking into another method that works really well and is tried, tested and true: http://www.sbsmigration.com.
A Swing Migration works really well, is quite simple to do as long as you follow the steps, and involves very little down time … especially when migrating to new server hardware.
Reading over the document you mention … as we too are evaluating the procedure … we are not putting too much effort into it because Swing Migrations are a lot simpler to accomplish than the steps required by the MS Migration Paper.
Make sure you have a good backup before running either procedure.
Please elaborate more for me. The client bought a new server and is installing from a CD that is SBS 2003 R2 (as far as I know) up to the point of joining it to the domain. That’s where I’m supposed to take over.
From the guide I linked in my question, step 2 says:
Step 2. Install Windows Small Business Server 2003 and join the domain
In this step, you install Windows SBS 2003 and join the domain by completing the following tasks:
* Start Windows SBS 2003 Setup on the destination server.
* Join the destination server to the domain.
* blah blah blah
I don’t follow you when you say “The new server won’t be running SBS at all when you start the process described in that guide.”
To me it seems like if I’m installing the OS from a SBS 2003 R2 CD, I’m going to end up with SBS 2003 R2 on the new server before the migration has even really begun.
Thanks – sorry if I’m missing something obvious. 🙂
MPECSInc – thanks for your reply also. A Swing migration isn’t out of the question, it just seems like I can do this process fairly easily without it.
We’ll be able to make a better decision after we get our facts straight.
After working through the logistics of the MS document, a Swing is WAY easier. There is a huge reduction in the number of steps, and the amount of down time relative to the MS document’s method.
“The client bought a new server and is installing from a CD that is SBS 2003 R2 (as far as I know) up to the point of joining it to the domain. That’s where I’m supposed to take over.”
I guess you’ve never installed SBS before?
I would first recommend that you do NOT split up the tasks like this. The migration process is one that needs very careful planning and a full understanding of what you’re migrating. If you don’t do Step 1 yourself you will definitely make mistakes with the remainder of the process. You should understand that you MUST complete the migration process in seven days or you will have a MAJOR problem because at that point the “can’t have two SBS Servers on the same network” restriction kicks in.
“To me it seems like if I’m installing the OS from a SBS 2003 R2 CD, I’m going to end up with SBS 2003 R2 on the new server before the migration has even really begun.”
SBS 2003 R2 comes on a set of 5 CD’s. The first one contains primarily Windows Server 2003 which is NON-R2 and will remain as NON-R2 even after you’ve installed SBS’s R2 bits. I know this is a bit confusing and it’s really too bad Microsoft used the “R2” designation on SBS 2003 because it makes folks think that the Windows Server 2003 included in the SBS bundle will be running R2 as well… but it doesn’t.
SBS’s R2 version is primarily the addition of new features (WSUS) and a change in the licensing structure to allow for additional SQL and Exchange servers in the domain without needing separate CALs. The R2 Components are on a separate CD which is installed AFTER you get EVERYTHING in that guide completed.
My second recommendation to you is that if you’ve never installed SBS before you need to do it yourself first before doing this for a client. It’s not at all the same as standard Windows Server 2003 (see my profile for an explanation of this http://e-e.com/M_3383094.html) and it generally takes a few times to fully understand how to get it right. See http://sbsurl.com/3x for more info on that.
I disagree with Philip about which method is better. Even though I haven’t yet tried out this method (since it was just published a few days ago), my first impression is that it’s quite similar. I don’t see the steps or downtime being vastly different, nor do I think that Swing is “WAY” easier. The major difference is that with a Swing Migration, you don’t have the 7-day limit and you have a fully functioning server to go back to in case something goes wrong. If something goes wrong with this method, even if you imaged your original server, you wouldn’t have a current backup to revert to. So that is something to be aware of. But as long as you continue to back everything up as the article describes you should be okay.
I would state that there are other methods for migrating new hardware which I’ve outlined here http://e-e.com/Q_21987041.html. One of which is using Acronis True Image, which is my preferred method of hardware migration. It works great and can be done in a few hours.