Windows Server 2003 or 2008 R2 Standard 32 bit

[Kirby]

I need this for a client. Their new server is not compatible with older software, so I need to install Server 2003 or (if I have to) 2008 on a virtual desktop to run old software on. I need a good, reliable source to get it, 10 CALs and any advice for trouble I may run into running a server on a server, especially installation.

Note, NO OEM version. It's a violation of the license agreement to install an OEM version on anything but new hardware. I want it all above board and legal.

It must be 32 bit, I prefer 2003, Standard edition is fine, need 5 CALs for sure, maybe 10 if they're cheap. I want this as cheap as possible, but more importantly, legitimate and legal.

The server it will go on is Windows Server 2012 R2 Standard with Hyper-V installed. It has 32GB of RAM installed and its only other function is shared drives with backup. Instead of a domain, which the customer had, but never did function right (that wasn't me), I went with user-level access to shared directories with a matching username/password on the server to that on each PC. (Believe it or not, this is actually more secure than what they had set up before. They didn't need to actually log into the domain to get to the shared folders, which had write access for "everyone". I'm not sure what their last guy was thinking, but the domain did absolutely nothing for them as he just used shared folders with no security anyway. But beside the point.)

So, I need a reliable, inexpensive source for a Server license, disks and CALs. Everything I need to pop in the disks and install it on Hyper-V as a "second server" with 8GB of RAM.

One last thing, hacking is a concern here, especially with an OS this old. In the client's mind, the server it's installed on is new and safe, so this will be too, but I know that's not the case. This will actually be a server with an older OS on it, connected to the Internet. Is there any way to not forward incoming traffic to it that is not part of a connection set up by software on the server? For instance, if I start downloading something over FTP, software on the server initiated that and it contains much incoming traffic. But if I do a port scan from my office, that's not associated with any outgoing connections from the server. Not sure, but I think the technical term for what I'm asking for here might be "magic". But with an OS too old to put modern antivirus on (short-term, maybe, but long-term, less likely) I need to do something.

 

[Markverhyden]

What is this old app and why is it connecting to the Internet? I'd be even more concerned about the old app as that will have had even less security patching done than the server OS.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Non R2 Server 2008 is the version of Server to offer a 32 bit install.
So original Server 2008..aka "Vista Server".

Do a volume license purchase of Server 2012 R2 standard, it will include downgrade rights. The key in the volume licensing center will not work with such an old install, so when you go to activate it you'll have to call MS and get a key, using your 2012R2 license as proof.

 

[trevm999]

You would prefer 2003? How come? Server 2003 has reached EOL, but I believe Server 2008 still has until 2020.

And maybe I didn't read thoroughly enough, but isn't this 'magic' you refer to called a firewall? You could put a virtual network and firewall in Hyper-V. And there still are modern AV that still run on Server 2003.

 

[fencepost]

CALs for access to the system or TS CALs? And if TS, is TS licensing dependent on domains? I don't think I've ever seen it used without a domain.

 

[Kirby]

I would prefer 2003 because some of the software is pretty old. For their last server I had to downgrade 2008 to 2003 to make it work with all of it. If I go with 2003 I can eliminate the old server entirely, but 2008 will work with what they have to put on it. It may even work with the 64 bit version (DacEasy 2010), but if I go with 2013 all the old stuff works and the old server can go away. Well, theoretically, anyway. The customer wants to take the old systems off the Internet altogether. The server does have 2 network cards, but I was going to use 1 for a dedicated network for the backup system so that it is tamper proof over the other network. So I guess I can't eliminate the second server so easily.

I need the CALs to make sure everyone accessing the shared directory is licensed to do so. But maybe the 10 2012 CALs they already have will also cover a virtual server? It's Microsoft, so I doubt it. There will be far fewer people accessing just this stuff than there will be accessing other stuff, so 5 CALS will probably do it for the virtual server.

As for the domain, they have one, but it's so poorly implemented that it's more headache than useful. There have been instances where people failed the domain login and can STILL get to the files. Or they just use a local login, the only thing changing is the desktop on the machine. I just need to make sure that everyone accessing the files has the legal right to do so. They're a small company, so they won't be audited, but I'll know if I don't do it right and that's incentive enough for me to do it right.

I suppose I should point out, I'm not a server guy. This is the one server I deal with, so it makes no financial sense to me to invest a lot of time or any money becoming a server expert to do one job every 5 or 6 years. I'd forget it all between jobs anyway.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

If the 2012 server installed on bare metal is running Hyper-V (and only Hyper-V..as it should be).....you don't apply CALs there.
The CALs would be applied to the 2x guests you're allowed to install with that single 2012 license.

 

[Kirby]

If the 2012 server installed on bare metal is running Hyper-V (and only Hyper-V..as it should be).....you don't apply CALs there.
The CALs would be applied to the 2x guests you're allowed to install with that single 2012 license.

I want to make sure I'm understanding this. Are you saying that if I install Server 2003/2008 in a Hyper-V virtual terminal on a 2012 server then anyone actively accessing the virtual server would just be using 2 of the CALs for the 2012 server?

Oh, I just had understanding here. The CALs are not specific to the OS, they are just general rights for a number of simultaneous users, so that makes sense.

So, let's say I have 6 users at a given time. 4 of them are just accessing the physical server directly, 1 is accessing just the virtual server and 1 is accessing both, regardless that would require 8 CALs, 1 each for those accessing just the physical server and 2 each for those accessing the virtual server, regardless whether they were accessing the physical server or not. Is this correct?

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

When you virtualize with Microsoft, you have the Hyper-V bare metal install on the server.
Nobody accesses that! Well...technically you can create a folder share, or a printer share, or install an app. But you shouldn't. Hyper-V should be doing nothing....no-thing...but running Hyper-V. You stick a couple of eggs in it (VHD files)..and spin up those eggs as guest instances. Clients access <things> from those guest instances. The CALs apply to those guest instances.

So if you have a Server 2012 R2 Standard server license, that allows you to install up to 3x instances of it:
*Hyper-V instance on bare metal
*Guest instance #1
*Guest instance #2.

If you have 20x User CALs...those up to 20 "concurrent" users can access <stuff> from Guest 1 and/or guest 2.

OR
You could install that sincle Server 2012 R2 license bare metal...make a DC/file/print server from it....and have up to 20 people access it. You don't get to install it 3x times bare metal.

Licenses are backwards compatible. You can have 20x User CALs for Server 2012 R2 ....and they'll count for a server 2008 instance. So long as the user CAL is of the highest server level you have on your network.

 

[fencepost]

Not exactly. You're supposed to have the physical server running nothing but the Hyper-V role, and you have up to 2 VMs running on that which provide whatever services you need. If one of those VMs is an older version of Windows using downgrade rights, that's still covered. I believe you'd need to have the licensing services running on the 2012R2 VM and I think that 2003 would see that as a valid licensing server, but I've not actually ever tried the 2003-2012 side. Heck, at this point if they don't already have the server you're looking at 2016 licensing.

Note that all of this is assuming volume licensing, which gets you access to the VLSC for keys, etc.

Edit: yeah, what @YeOldeStonecat said

 

[trevm999]

It still works with his current setup. You can have Hyper-V with other roles taking up 1 install, and then one 1 guest install. Is the 2003 server a terminal server?


EDIT: well, I'm not sure how that works with the downgrade licensing. But that is fine if the host and guest are Server 2012 R2

 

[Kirby]

Forgive me, but you guys are talking like I'm a "server guy". I'm not. I know very little about servers. I assumed I would install a copy of Windows Server Standard 2003 or 2008 in Hyper-V as a virtual server or "server running in a window" in nearly the same way I installed XP Mode in Windows 7 with the exception that the Hyper-V would never actually be shut down. It would boot up automatically after the physical machine booted. Is this not the case?

What needs to happen is that I need to install some server versions of accounting software onto Windows Server 2012 R2 Standard, with which the software is not compatible. One example uses the Pervasive 10 database, which tells me that I need to upgrade to Vista SP1 before I can install it when I try to install it on Server 2012 R2. So I need to install it on an older OS, one which it recognizes and doesn't think is Vista with no Service Packs installed.

I would rather not do a downgrade install. I would rather purchase a surplus disk and key somewhere. It's easier to do and easier to explain to the customer when they can see the physical evidence they bought something. Either way I'm pretty sure I have to purchase another license anyway. I doubt the Windows Server license allows me to run 2012 on the physical machine and a downgrade install on a virtual machine. But maybe it does. Regardless, this was just sprung on me this week as part of the "free installation". This is a touchy customer who doesn't realize that the extra hours I'll spend installing this and setting it up were not figured into the "free installation" I originally quoted. I would rather make money on the OS than give her a bill with labor on it for this. Because I do have to charge for this in one way or another or the "free installation" will still be going on well after the warranty expires.

 

[putz]

You mentioned the new server doesn't support the software so do they already have an 'old' server running server 2003 with the software in question? Why not just grab some backup software that supports backup and restores to dissimilar hardware and do a cold backup of the old system, then configure a new HyperV VM on the new server and boot to the software recovery environment and restore the backup to the VM? Server 2003 is so old and it already EOL'ed I doubt even MS would care if you are running it still. It may not be by the book but if they already had purchased all the CALs and licensing for a physical system I guess I wouldn't be too worried about it.

 

[Kirby]

That could work, but it would be a huge task. They have hundreds of gigabytes of data. Nearly 1TB.

The original plan was to keep the old server running, accessed with old XP machines so that they could still use their old software. This lady feels she needs to support every old version of accounting software a client may be using, meaning they give her the file, she does whatever fixes need done, she gives it back and it still opens in their old software. For that, she has to have the same version they are using. The old server and XP machines were going to be disconnected from the Internet altogether.

Where we ran into an issue is the accounting software they are using, which is DacEasy 2010. She is convinced that they now charge per customer per month and keep all the information on the cloud instead of locally. Everything about this is unacceptable. The accounting department is already $30,000 in the hole this year, made up for by the tax department, and client information cannot be in the hands of a third party, no matter how reputable. And the software needs Internet access for something. I'm not sure what, but it's things like payroll they're doing.

So the problem is they need an old server not on the Internet and a new server for the new tax software that is on the Internet, but one old software which doesn't work on the new sever needs Internet access. So it's either leave the old systems on the Internet or find a way to put that one software on the new server. Optimally, that would be an upgrade, but she doesn't like the per/customer billing and off-site data. I still have to contact Sage as I'm sure that's not 100% accurate.

So while that option would work, it would greatly increase the amount of time involved. That server also has their poorly configured domain server on it, complicating matters. Generally I give 1 hour of free installation per computer, 2 for a server and do everything they want done in my office no matter the time it takes, so long as it's in my office. I made the mistake of telling this customer that I would do "anything she needs" for this installation. What I would normally have provided 9 hours of labor for I am already at 9 hours at her house and 4 1/2 hour just this past Saturday doing, and that isn't half the time I've spent on this. Of course, I'm going to start billing again soon. I bet I have close to an entire work week on this, including off-hours, for which I normally charge more. It has been at least 25-30 hours. It's one of those customers who always has questions and things they need looked at "real quick", even during a "free install". But now I'm just bitching.

I think the easiest thing to do would be to get a VM running on the new server on which she can install this single piece of software and leave well enough alone for the rest of it. Better yet, I contact Sage and find a newer software which isn't cloud based and is a buy-and-own solution.

 

[fencepost]

Wow. I hope your time on this is all billable.

 

[Kirby]

It is not, but I have just a couple more things to do for the original agreement, mostly set up the backup, and anything after that is billable. Technically, by the description of the "free installation" on the estimates, orders and invoices, it is 1 hour/computer, 2 hours/server and that includes travel time both ways. But I told her that I'd do "anything she needed". If she balks when she starts getting billed again I will simply point out that "anything she needed" included only the things we had talked about, not the new things that popped up. But she likely won't remember that anyway. She has argued with me this whole time about so many things. I didn't give her a paper with all the passwords she needed, which she then found at her house. That was a fun one. The latest one, which she still doesn't believe me on, is that "copy" then being followed by "paste" is not new to Windows 10. The "paste" has always been necessary, clear back to Windows 2 and 3, if I recall. Definitely back to 95. But she swears that in XP she chooses "copy" and files just magic into the directory she is envisioning.

The really funny thing is there is a short bio about her outside her office door which calls her a "computer programmer" because she wrote some code in BASIC in the '80s. Code which she still ABSOLUTELY needs to run, even though all of her employees do the same thing with stuff built into the accounting software.

 

[Altster]

Code which she still ABSOLUTELY needs to run, even though all of her employees do the same thing with stuff built into the accounting software.

Give her a Commodore 64 and tell her to go run her software there!

 

[Altster]

The really funny thing is there is a short bio about her outside her office door which calls her a "computer programmer" because she wrote some code in BASIC in the '80s. Code which she still ABSOLUTELY needs to run, even though all of her employees do the same thing with stuff built into the accounting software.

Set her up with a VM on her computer to run that software. Heck I just got DOS 6.22 installed in a VM (using Oracle Virtual Machine software.) It's getting easier and easier to understand how it works. Of course I'm using Linux Mint 17.3 as my O/S of choice now!

 

[Kirby]

Give her a Commodore 64 and tell her to go run her software there!

Lol, I actually have 2.

The VM thing sounds good on the surface, but I've had 3 calls from her this morning alone. Her printer wasn't working on her old computer and she wanted to know what I did to it to break it...when I installed it on her new computer. And she has already brought up the problem I thought I had solved for her yesterday afternoon when I told her that she didn't need to hit the reset button when the screen goes black, just hit any key on the keyboard to wake the computer up. This is the customer from Hell, but, God help me, I love the lady. Technology is almost never the answer for her.

So, back to the original post, what would be the best way to go about implementing a VM on the server with Server Standard 2003? Getting cheap disks and code sounds like it would be the easiest. The same as a downgrade install, but without having to call Microsoft. And I understand installing Windows and VM basics. Anything else would be learn as I go, some things taking longer than others. Any reputable places to get old software cheaply?

 

[Altster]

Any reputable places to get old software cheaply?

Have a look at Open-Source software. There are lots of it available to work with most O/S's.

And I'm still learning how to use VirtualBox on my main desktop (Linux Mint 17.3). It has a pretty steep learning curve but to tell you the truth, I've learned a lot about it by watching various youtube videos. Sure has helped to undo some of the "stuck in the mud" issues I was having with it.

May the force be with you.