Michael

Yes - I've done 2008 R2 > 2012 R2 > 2016 without issues. As some have commented, it was a VM, so I could go back if needed.

I keep hearing this statement all the time and it's completely bogus. Schools that use HR Portal will know it's externally accessible and secured using an SSL certificate. BCC have made the joint decision to close the BGfL, which means all of its services should be securely accessible from any internet provider. Just ironic that the Crisp URL is still crisp.bgfl.org By that logic the ownership/URL should be changed to something like crisp.birmingham.gov.uk and made secure. It shouldn't even be a question.

As well as Crisp not working (this requires a separate fee), I've just had a phone conversation with Espresso who were unaware of the BGfL closing come April 2020. http://espresso.bgfl.org will no longer work, but you can request a public URL.

Drop me a PM...

Two things come to mind - Have you used a WiFi Analyzer? I use one on my Smartphone and it's useful to see what's in the immediate area. Is there a nearby Community WiFi? I've seen such solutions which literally flood the 2.4GHz band and could possibly explain why you're seeing poor speeds. The 5GHz band in my experience is generally pretty clear still, so I'd expect the Unifi APs to automatically shift compatible devices onto this band.

Have you made enquiries about just how much it would cost to double or treble your existing bandwidth? I know on some older LA networks, you can only upgrade in increments of 10. In saying that, 1Gb for a Secondary isn't that uncommon these days.

100Mb for a large Primary isn't that fast anymore - depending on who your provider is, you can probably double to 200Mb without it breaking the bank, or even faster.

You're right though, part of it is preference, but also listening to feedback from end users. - Anything is susceptible to corruption, I wouldn't necessarily single out PSTs. The point is Google don't have their own format which exports everything in one go. - Try it - with Google you have to confirm the forwarding destination, plus it also appears to treat aliases differently. - I agree they tried and I use GMail at home, just not in the Enterprise.

Likewise I manage both - the user interface of Outlook is stronger/more manageable and the back end with Powershell is also much better. Azure AD connect is more reliable and also offers users true SSO as an option. As a few examples - - Trying to export a GMail account is an absolute mess - PSTs do everything - Forwarding emails from one mailbox to the other is far more complicated than it should be - And why do Google call sub-Inboxes 'Labels'!? I also think it's an historical thing, as Microsoft Exchange has been around a long time and is widely adopted by business, as well as Education.

I think the real drive for O365 over G Suite, is that MS Exchange is still much better than Gmail. It also integrates better with AD, which you'd expect given both are made by Microsoft. Google do have the upper hand with the likes of Google File Stream/Shared Drives over OneDrive/SharePoint, so you can use both (O365 > G Suite) as a few have already stated.

Hi all, Has anyone ever changed an existing/live setup from ADFS + Azure AD Connect to just Azure AD Connect, with SSO enabled? What was involved in the process and any gotchas to be made aware of? Thanks in advance!

If you have a Hyper-V setup, there's a Time Synchronization option which will override the PDC.

To put it simply, this isn't a technology or more specifically an MIS issue. It's a user management issue.

Delegate AD rights is what you're after, then install RSAT onto a workstation. It'll look like the full Active Directory, but they can only change passwords for selected OUs.

So how will this work without Offline Files and Cached Credentials, so you can sign into a Domain connected device at home, just as you would at work/school?

There's several problems with this - - Someone will forget to do this, or won't account for everything - It won't resolve the problem, as users will just copy everything for ease - There's a risk data will be copied to unencrypted USB devices The better solution would be to upload everything to the likes of Google Drive, in an 'Archive' Team Drive and give access to data for so long and/or allow users to copy data into another 'Work in Progress' Team Drive. In time restrict access to Archive, but it's still always there for select personnel. - No loss of data/access to data is restricted - All data accounted for - Data's all encrypted Going forward, organise data by Year or Term, so you don't have this problem again in future.

That's solved it, thank you. I think I was having a moment!! - - - Updated - - - Makes complete sense now, just completely overlooked the Add Hardware function. You live and learn!

I'm using a 2016 Hyper-V host and the guest is also 2016. Highlighting the VM, selecting Settings, then Network Adapter, I can only select one of the virtual adapters at a time, (from the drop down) when I require both.

Sort of, but your screenshot is from Smoothwall, rather than Hyper-V. I'm still unclear how it's possible.

Think of it like this - NIC1 configured as 192.168.1.1, 255.255.255.0, (No Gateway) NIC2 configured as 192.168.0.2, 255.255.255.0, 192.168.0.25 (Gateway) You can do this on physical and Hyper-V hosts, but doesn't appear possible on Hyper-V guests.

You can Team, but that's not what I'm after. Plus in settings you can only specify one virtual switch per Hyper-V instance.

Hi all, Within Hyper-V I can assign a NIC and configure it as a Virtual Switch. How (if it's possible), can I have two independent Virtual Switches/NICs in a single Hyper-V'ed instance? This is of course possible on the Hyper-V host, and a physical computer with dual NICs, but what about Hyper-V'ed guests?

This is why in a lot of migrations we've kept O365 for mail and introduced Google Drive/File Stream. It's a much better implementation than OneDrive and by default maps as G:\

You don't necessarily need a server on each site anymore, as a L3 switch will do DHCP/DNS to another site, but then what happens if that link goes down? Users in theory wouldn't be able to authenticate. There are also other challenges, such as legacy applications (like SIMS), and even services such as WSUS. It's nice to have a local cache at each site. I think it very much depends how fast the links to each site are - lease lines are definitely preferable!

File services can be migrated to the likes of Google Drive or SharePoint, so this greatly reduces the need for spacious servers, SANs or NASes, but removing servers completely still (in my view) isn't realistic, but you can implement a simple virtualised server for the remaining roles, which is then very attractive from a cost perspective.