or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Inside Apple's new Mac mini Server
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Inside Apple's new Mac mini Server - Page 5

post #161 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post

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


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.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #162 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

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.

That's hilarious.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #163 of 177
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.
post #164 of 177
Mac Mini Server looks good. I was wondering if anyone has thought about dual booting SLS on one drive and SLC on the other drive. I would be good to learn the server software and use the Media features of the SLC attached to a TV via HDMI and networked to a ReadyNAS.
If all else fails could one simply fresh install SLC using the 3 user family installation disk and then virtualize SLS on Virtualbox?
Am I thinking correctly here or not?

BigBearf
post #165 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

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.

ARD is overall a different market than RDC. Apple needs an RDC in their set of tools. (my opinion)
post #166 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post

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.

No, I do not think so. I am assuming you have not used RDC software (free download at the bottom of the page from http://microsoft.com/mac/downloads.m...pia_RDC#viewer ). Download it and look through the preferences.

Try to do the following from a mac on one network to a mac on another network (ie, home to work etc).
Connect to other mac. Do some work. While working on the remote machine, let me know if you hear any audio. Not important, other than alerts. Pick something to print and print it back to your local printer.

On RDC, it's just an option. Works wherever you are. Client works on mac and pc.

You show me the one step way, because I have been looking for the easy way. (yes, you can do it, but you have to know what you are doing. RDC, if you can use a PC, you can use it, print back to local printers, share files with remote machine, and more.)

steal something from microsoft occasionally. it will not hurt you.
post #167 of 177
[QUOTE=Zoolook;1507747]...There isn't a viable Mac solution without spending thousands of dollars, or have 6 or so external drives each needing their own power supply.

WRONG. In a VERY big way.

For $329.00 you get this:

OWC Mercury Elite-AL Pro Qx2 eSATA,FireWire 800+USB 2.0 1U 4-Bay SATA Desktop RAID Storage Enclosure with selectable RAID 0,1,5,10 Hardware RAID, NRAID Span Options. Add your own drives! Supports 2TB drive mechanisms. Oxford 936 chipset, 1 Year Warranty (OWCMEQX2KIT0GB)

http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other...g/MEQX2KIT0GB/

Add whatever size/speed SATA drives you wish, from NewEgg/ZipZoomFly, NowDirect, etc.

Easily under $1000.00. Connects via very fast FireWire 800.
post #168 of 177
[QUOTE=UnexpectedBill;1508477]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.

Is there a way to backup windows machines like Windows Home Server does on Snow Leopard server? I have a Time Capsule but don't know if that can be used to back up windows machines. I am a total newbie and I have a large learning curve but would sure appreciate some help. Thanks in advance.
post #169 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by xwiredtva View Post

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.


So does MacMini Server allow you to back up windows clients?
post #170 of 177
"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.
post #171 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

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.

Thinking you don't have a clue what you're talking about, unless you mean fails while the Server is asleep. If you plan on letting your server sleep then you do have the option to get the latest Airport Extreme (which allows airport to wake the computer to initiate connection to shares).

If that isn't what you are talking about then you need to re-assess because there are no issues with Time Machine resuming after a Mac is put to sleep. I know because I use Time Machine to a server provided TMBacup daily & put my laptop to sleep all the time, never had an issue even once.
post #172 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahrens View Post

"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.


Thanks so much! this answers my question. I appreciate the link and your help!
post #173 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsosb View Post

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

You are most welcome.
post #174 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booga View Post

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.

No, not even a close comparison. Windows Home Server doesn't come close to either Windows Small Business nor Snow Leopard Server. Home Server offers file sharing, A streaming Media server, Backup, & a way to share pictures & video to the web. All of those things are already available with any Macintosh computer in combination with either MobileMe or one of many free offerings out on the web such as google apps.
post #175 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnexpectedBill View Post

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.

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.
post #176 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booga View Post

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.

Your comments above do not make any sense in regards to both the box & the OS.

Why would you even try to compare these two machines and their OS? Do you know what a server is exactly? The Media Smart Home Server has no core server features. HPs Media Smart Home Server is basically a network hard drive. Great for centralizing your iTunes library and other media - but it is not a business class server. No Exchange, web, SharePoint, Routing, Remote Access Service. None of the features of Snow Leopard server: DNS, DHCP, directory services, and file and print sharing services with support for Macs, Windows, and other Unix/Linux clients); calendar, chat and email services; web and web-based wiki, blog, and calendar collaboration features; routing, firewall, RADIUS, and VPN services; and client machine backups, software update, and group policy management features. Up to 10 users on the HP versus unlimited on the Mini (cannot imagine 10 users accessing the HP with that slow RAM & processor - I would imagine lagging movies and itunes music).

Do you really believe the HP has 1G DDR2 versus 4G DDR3 on the Mini provides the HP with a capable server? There is nothing more important than DDR3 on any machine. Servers actually use processing power and the a 1.6 Ghz Atom compared to 2.53 Dual Core makes a huge difference. No Firewire 800 on the HP? 4 USB ports only? How is that really scalable? The Mini does have two internal SATA drivers equal to 1 TB versus the 640 GB HP. The only plus side to HP is a 7200 RPM drive - because that is basically what the HP is in the end - a media network drive.

Given the above points on both OS and what's in the box it makes sense that this article would not compare the two.
Science and technology multiply around us. To an increasing extent they dictate the languages in which we speak and think. Either we use those languages, or we remain mute.
J G Ballard
Reply
Science and technology multiply around us. To an increasing extent they dictate the languages in which we speak and think. Either we use those languages, or we remain mute.
J G Ballard
Reply
post #177 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by hezekiahb View Post

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.

True that. I have Leopard Server on a couple of Xserves at work that I inherited when they laid off the IT guy and dumped his workload on me. I'm not a trained IT tech, but I have used Macs since 1984 so some knowledge has accumulated in my old brain. I would not wish Leopard Server on a novice - it is a whole different world. I've had to learn it on my own and I have only just touched the surface. I can see easily though how powerful it can be. I am considering a Mini Server for home use to handle a variety of tasks including HD video file transfers to and from my Tivos.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Inside Apple's new Mac mini Server