Inside Apple's new Mac mini Server - Page 5

Originally Posted by WelshDog

Our people need easy, quick access to the materials in play and can't be slowed down by complicated access control procedures.

Originally Posted by mstone

Must be nice to be able to depend on your people. I don't have that luxury. I have to work with people who are very slow learners when it comes to computers. Ask them which Hollywood star is dating who and you can get the fully history of their love life and which shoes they were wearing.

Originally Posted by solipsism

Mac OS X Server can be virtualized. This server is obviously geared toward a very select clientele.



Of course not, nor is it meant to. Its designed to be overly simple for the average user to use with no prior experience or training, at all. Apple Remote Desktop is their feature rich app. It would be nice to have something included with Macs that is somewhere between the two, but until then there are plenty of VNCs to choose from.

Originally Posted by spliff monkey

Most of what you are talking about are redundant features already part of the OS including sharing folders and printing. as far as audio and full screen... pfffft whatever. Those are nice touches but not a must to control a remote desktop. Screen sharing is built into the OS; a much nicer touch I believe than RDC; and it works wonderfully smooth. You're splitting hairs.

Originally Posted by xwiredtva

On the second, YES. As for MobileMe.. Unsure I don't use that service. We use an OS X server to handle all of that.

Originally Posted by bloggerblog

This all sounds great however, how much of it really works? For example, Leopard's Time Machine Server fails to reconnect the server drive after a client's computer goes into sleep mode. Much of OSX Server sounds really good on paper but performs lousy in real life.

Originally Posted by rahrens

"So does MacMini Server allow you to back up windows clients?"

If you have your clients properly set up, the local clients don't need backing up, since all your data is stored centrally, on NAS or the server. SLS serves clients of both platforms, see here:

http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/f...e-sharing.html

This includes OD or AD, whichever floats your boat.

Originally Posted by dsosb

Thanks so much! this answers my question. I appreciate the link and your help!

Originally Posted by Booga

What this is really competing against is an HP MediaSmart Server LX195 or EX-490 that comes bundled with Windows Home Server for a total cost of $500. Like the mini it's 64-bit and comes with a server OS and is fully compatible with MacOS X. Unlike the mini it also supports eSATA for fast external drive attachment and has more internal expansion bays as well as selling in multiple configurations to suit your needs.

It's basically a stop-gap measure on Apple's part that seems a little over-priced and under-engineered for its task compared to HP's offering. Yes, it's got a faster processor than the HP but in all other respects it seems to underperform it.

Originally Posted by UnexpectedBill

I've got my reservations about the lack of an optical drive, but they're minor. In general, this looks like a really great deal for a business, probably one of medium size.

I'm torn on the pricing. On the one hand, $999 for the unlimited server license and some very capable hardware is a screaming good deal. But it's a bit stiff for me to have one at home at that price. (A ten user version would help, but I'd still find it limiting since I have...ah..."a few" systems here.)

Mac OS X 10.5 Server started out for me as a rocky road, which was a surprise given the reliability of 10.4 and 10.3 versions. But eventually the software updates did iron out a tremendous number of the problems and got 10.5 Server to the point where it was usable for the work I had in mind. (Strangely enough, the Mac Mini had a little bit of a fit today.) I've been using a Mac mini (Intel 945, 4GB RAM installed and usable, 320GB boot drive) as a workgroup server with Mac OS X Server. It provides Windows domain services to approximately twelve Windows XP clients and DNS services to a mixed network of about 30 systems. It works very well for these tasks.

Those who point out that Windows Server can do some things that Mac OS X server cannot (or does not do so well at) have a point right up until you consider the licensing model. Having set up a few Windows servers, I can say that the Microsoft licensing model comes across as needlessly confusing and complex. I still administer a Windows Server 2003 Terminal Server that I honestly hope is properly licensed. It *should* be.

Mac OS X server's attitude about this is much better--just pay one price and you can have as many users as the computer will stand. I would love to see Microsoft do the same.

Windows Home Server is an interesting product as well. I tried the 180-day demonstration (but only for 30 days, as they never sent me a demonstration product key) and it felt like a quickly slapped together software product. The installer was part Vista, part Windows Server and lots of hotfixes rolled up into one. And while you do get a desktop and the ability to log in to the server, Microsoft strongly suggests that you not do so for any reason, as the possibility of breaking something is very real. Yes, that's what I want from a server.

I would like to see Apple do a cheaper version for home and small business use...maybe with a little less onboard disk storage, unlimited users and a price around $700 or so. Then I would find it very interesting.

Originally Posted by Booga

What this is really competing against is an HP MediaSmart Server LX195 or EX-490 that comes bundled with Windows Home Server for a total cost of $500. Like the mini it's 64-bit and comes with a server OS and is fully compatible with MacOS X. Unlike the mini it also supports eSATA for fast external drive attachment and has more internal expansion bays as well as selling in multiple configurations to suit your needs.

It's basically a stop-gap measure on Apple's part that seems a little over-priced and under-engineered for its task compared to HP's offering. Yes, it's got a faster processor than the HP but in all other respects it seems to underperform it.

Originally Posted by hezekiahb

Time capsule is a better option if you're just looking for a home file server type option, OS X Server is really for the more complex business network.