I've run OS X Server on a mini with no problems for 40 people. It has all you would need above.
$800 - Mini 2GHz Core 2 duo, 320 GB drive.
$500 - Server Software
$130 - 1TB External
$150 - Display (Or hook it to you flat panel)
$1,580 - Total
So just a little above your target but you get quite a system.
Actually, you don't really need a display or a keyboard. Just use Screen Sharing (or Back to My Mac) from another Mac.
So, the "server" is headless and comes in at under $1500 for your configuration.
I use the new Mini with 2 2TB LaCie drives as the repository for all my home media (1 LaCie drive is for TimeMachine Backup). With this setup, you still would be under $2000.
Licensing SharePoint to Teh Intarwebz is expensive. Add MOSS to the equation and you are talking six figures, easily.
I'm not sure that Apple Wiki needs to be all that feature complete compared to SharePoint, as most organizations don't use SharePoint's full power (or they spend big bucks on administration, deployment, licensing, etc. if they do).
Now what Apple needs is more enterprise level maturity in their iPhone / iPod Touch support in areas like encrypted devices, locked configurations, enterprise profile management, etc. Let's hope that they improve that with iPhone 3.0.
Apple does have an iPhone Configuration Utility for businesses that allows for a longer alphanumeric password instead of the default 4 digit PIN. I think that this server solution they are proposing will increase the Xserve sales considerably which will push them even farther into making the iPhone a corporate device whicha llows for removing of default apps like YouTube and whatnot from the device.
One that isn't rack mount, doesn't cost an arm and a leg, and one that the average person can just use without having to get IT advice or build a special room for it. It would be a great fit for home users with burgeoning media libraries as well.
The Tech Specs for installing Mac OS X Server area s follows...
Mac server or desktop computer with an Intel, PowerPC G5, or PowerPC G4 (867MHz or faster) processor; 1GB of physical RAM; 20GB of available disk space.
That allows plenty of older Macs to be used as servers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella
How I wish I cut put Snow Leopard server on the HP Mediasmart server.
My only problem with the HP server is that the fan is loud. I do wish Apple would come out with their own version, but I think the Time Capsule is about as close as we are going to get.
AT&T's lackluster 3G coverage has been well documented both here and throughout by repected journalists. While you many have great coverage many don't. Corporate accounts have to deal with reception issues all over the country not just "a densely populated area of coastal NJ" .
I don't know of any genuine, impartial studies done on either of the two companies. How would you even go about setting up criteria for such a study? Well serviced markets always have dead zones, and saying you can't get a signal in the country is just as much smart deployment of resources as it is a hassle for certain customers. I do think ATT has improved quite a bit over the past year or so. Really all we're left with is anecdotal 'proof' which is anything but. So, just talk to friends/coworkers in your sphere of movement regarding reliability of service. That's why I went with ATT. They just happened to have a stronger signal at both home and work...doesn't mean a neighbor a half mile away working somewhere else wouldn't want to choose Verizon though.
Once Snow Leopard Server comes out I will probably go with a Mac mini + Drobo solution.
I forgot to mention that the HP Mediasmart server that has FOUR SATA DRIVE BAYS is less than $800. This is what drives me crazy! to get something similar from Apple I have to cobble together a Mac mini, a Drobo and a copy of snow Leopard server.
How I wish I cut put Snow Leopard server on the HP Mediasmart server.
While I'm in rant mode...
What's the deal with AppleTV and TimeCapsule?
AppleTVs "media server" come with two options...
1) a 40GB PATA laptop hard drive ($229)
or
2) a whopping 160GB PATA laptop hard drive! ($329)
The send "Lauren" on a mission to get a server that can serve 100 clients for less than $4000.
She pops in and out of a Windows Server store (whatever that monstrosity might look like) and whines that she couldn't get out for less than 7 times her budget and sheepishly admitting that she's not "cool enough to be a Windows Server person" (at that point, a thought bubble pops up over her head with a picture of Steve Ballmer.)
Then she heads to the Apple Store, gets her Snow Leopard Server and change.
And the whole kit is admin'd by the executive secretary between phone calls.
Quote:
But, instead of an insipid little happy dance, she takes it all off with an erotic pole dance. Why? Because I'm directing the commercial -- that's why!
This is all great stuff, but how the heck to do you convinced a Windows entrenched IT on this? Some of these IT guys are SharePoint obsessed, even thought every user they try to use it can't stand it.
So you can get a 1TB time capsule for $499 that has no redundancy or expandability.
or for $499 you can get the HP MediaSmart EX485 and then add additional drives to get as much expandability and redundancy as you need.
You are comparing very dislike products. The AppleTV and Time Capsule are not RAID servers like the HP Mediasmart. One is basically an iPod for your TV with some local storage and the other is just a centralized networked Time Machine drive (w/ router) for the Macs in your house. The redundancy is in each HDD as the original would still be on your Mac.
I think the newer HP Mediasmarts (or is it the Drobo) can be partitioned with HFS+ for a properly RAIDed Time Machine backup.
You can buy OS X Server by itself, in limited and unlimited versions, and run it on your choice of Apple hardware. People can, and do, run it on Mac minis, iMacs and so on.
Apple also offers the Mac Pro with server software, which would seem to fit exactly the small business need mentioned. ...
You seem to have missed my point.
I'm saying that Apple needs to offer a pre-built server solution for the home user and small business operator. I know I can set up OS-X server on a mini (or anything else), I pointed that out in my post. The point is that the average user is not up to even that minimal level of tinkering.
The option to buy a pre-built, pre-setup Mac Pro server is something that I wasn't aware of and is pretty much exactly what I was talking about. I would bet that many people are not aware of this option however, outside of those of us that are already aware that OS-X server can run on almost any Mac.
If you go to Apple's website and search for "servers," you only get hits for X-Serve hardware. if you go to the Mac Pro page, then to the OS sub-page, and scroll all the way to the end, you find an option to get OS-X server with it as you mention.
I think we all did. I would love to have an "Xcube" that was 3 or 4 RAIDed HDDs or amalgamated HDDs with ZFS running Mac OS X or Mac OS X Server, depending on your needs. With so much data being saved at home and the growing home networks and number of home computers it would make sense. It would also allow Apple to build one device for both the consumer and small-to-medium sized businesses with the main differentiation being the class of HDDs and the installed OS.
This is all great stuff, but how the heck to do you convinced a Windows entrenched IT on this? Some of these IT guys are SharePoint obsessed, even thought every user they try to use it can't stand it.
Trust me, the ONLY way through that gauntlet is to first document what the Microsoft solution really costs, then pilot some competing technologies that are substantially cheaper (or get white papers where you can't bring in pilot projects).
The CAL costs for SharePoint and the underlying SQL Server alone is astronomical compared to other colaboration solutions, and that assumes MOSS (Microsoft Office SharePoint Server) isn't in the mix. Be aware that many of the costs are hidden. For example, what is the cost of hosting 1TiB of data files on a file server compared to the cost of hosting 1TiB of data files inside a SQL Server database on a SharePoint site? Not just the cost of an additional server and licenses, but monitoring software, backup solutions, DBA time, DBA tools, etc. (To some exent this is simple when your SharePoint site is small but it won't remain that way.) Documents in the SharePoint site are version-able; but ask if that is really even necessary and, if so, is it worth the true cost of that solution: SharePoint+CALs, SQL Server, support personnel, etc.
It amazes me the number of developers that want to store documents in a database with no regard for the cost multiple of database storage vs. using standard file shares. Its no accident that SharePoint requires any number of supporting Microsoft technologies to run, that's their cash cow (and is almost as good as as their Windows PC licensing revenue stream).
There is one gaping hole in this, and it is support for Windows desktop users. Unless Apple provides cross-platform versions of Mail & iCal, OR Snow Leopard Server support for Outlook (i.e. Exchange emulation), even in iPhone heavy shops they will still need to pay for an Exchange Server, unless they are also a 100% Mac, which is rare.
The article really should highlight what's new about SL Server. Without using a VPN, Leopard Server already provides the bulk of what's mentioned: secure IMAP, POP, SMTP, and HTTP. Will SLS just be adding SSL encryption to iCal?
Leopard Server doesn't push IMAP e-mail to iPhone/touch, even though it can to "regular" computers. Will SLS finally push to the iPhone?
[An XServe doesn't fit many work environment but it's the only Mac with Lights Out Management. Third party products can be used to remotely power on/off any other Mac, so the XServe's advantage of LOM can largely be nullified.]
There is one gaping hole in this, and it is support for Windows desktop users. Unless Apple provides cross-platform versions of Mail & iCal, OR Snow Leopard Server support for Outlook (i.e. Exchange emulation), even in iPhone heavy shops they will still need to pay for an Exchange Server, unless they are also a 100% Mac, which is rare.
I wouldn't expect a company to drop their Exchange Servers so Outlook support would still be fine which is also supporting iPhones via ActiveSync. With the cost of Mac OS X Server so low, even running a since Xserve, which isn't necessary to run the server OS, I can see the cost being quite insignificant when you have a company adopting dozens or hundreds of iPhones for corporate use.
If I'm wrong on any of this please elaborate as I have been out of the corp environment for some time now.
Microsoft's ads are talking about the main computer and the main Vista OS.
Windows Server is expensive; I do agree. It also has enormous amount more capability than Mac OS X Server (10.5). I know, I maintain both a SBS 2003 machine and a OSX Server machine on a Mac Pro in a cross-domain environment (Hybrid Open Directory and Active Directory).
Apple has to charge allot less for OS X Server do to less capability currently and for the simple fact that their Server OS is barely used by anyone. Very few web servers run off of OSX Server. This can be verified by visiting www.netcraft.com. I mean shit, even APPLE doesn't even use OSX Server for many of their web sites. Currently the Apple online store runs off of Solaris thank you very much. Apple for the longest time used Windows 2000 Server and Solaris on a majority of their web sites. The reason for this was simple; Mac OS X Server didn't provide the performance or the features that even Apple needed. You buy what gets the job done. AppleInsider uses Linux and so does IDG for Macworld. Why? Simple. Cheaper and Apache on OSX sucks. The performance has been demonstrated time and time again to be poor compared to Linux Apache.
Now let me present a point to you. Say you need to support those 100 users. Ok it's $34 grand RETAIL for the Windows solution. How much more is the cost per month for AT&T iPhone contracts vs. Sprint contracts for unlimited use? That's right, $50 a month x 100 users is $5K a month. 5K X 12 months is $60,000 a year. What costs more, $60K in bills per year or 34K one time? Let's not even get started on the fact that you can't buy insurance for the iPhone and the battery is not replaceable.
If you use Software Assurance or work with people at CDW or other enterprise software dealers you can get much lower prices on Windows Server products. I didn't pay anywhere near retail for my CALs for SBS or for the software itself.
If you are only supporting 80 or less users you can build a powerful Xeon or Opteron system on newegg.com, or buy a dell or whatever, and buy Small Business Server 2008. This is $1000 retail plus $50 per CAL; which supports Exchange, file sharing, Sharepoint Services (not the portal server however), WSUS etc. There is also the Mid-Business Sever product, which has less restrictions on user count, but a higher CAL fee.
Apple does support VPN capability currently on the iPhone, but it's basic capability. No xAuth, no RSA key support. For some organizations, such as hospitals (HIPPA), RSA keys are critical for securing the network. WM and Blackberry have full VPN capability.
We all know the built in VPN on OSX Server sucks. It's basic L2TP. It's nowhere near as capable as VPN Tracker Server or the basic VPN technology found on a mid-level netGear router, like the FVX538.
I do agree the MS server licensing is too expensive. It gets the job done for many businesses however and is simpler to setup than Linux. You can't do push e-mail with Linux on an iPhone or a WM device. You can with a Blackberry using the GroupWise system and Blackberry enterprise server. You won't be able to support WM or Blackberry users either on Mac OS X server 10.6 with full push capability (at least as of now). That in itself would be the biggest roadblock for Apple, lack of Blackberry and WM support on OSX Server 10.6.
I too would like to see some kind of Apple Small Office/Home Office server product of some kind.
However, it is possible to come pretty close with a Mac mini, which is quite capable of running Mac OS X server in all of its editions. I've presently got a Mac OS X 10.5.6 server running on a 2007-era Core 2 based Mac mini with a 500GB Western Digital laptop hard drive and 4GB of installed and *usable* RAM.
It works pretty well, providing domain and user account services to nine Windows XP PCs. The hardware is rock solid, although Leopard's support for domain users seems to be a little flaky at times. It has a gigabit link to the network and an OWC external disk plugged in for backups via Time Machine.
Still, it's quite nice to just put a server in place and not have to worry about or mess around with CALs and other such licensing nonsense.
Microsoft's ads are talking about the main computer and the main Vista OS.
Windows Server is expensive; I do agree. It also has enormous amount more capability than Mac OS X Server (10.5). I know, I maintain both a SBS 2003 machine and a OSX Server machine on a Mac Pro in a cross-domain environment (Hybrid Open Directory and Active Directory). blah, blah, blah.
Hey, I was just trying to create an excuse to get a hot woman to take off her clothes for us! I think most of us dudes here would prefer if you keep your <airquotes>logic</airquotes> and <airquotes>facts</airquotes> to yourself and dream about a hot redhead stripping in front of us to bad jazz.
Lauren, call me. We start filming on Monday and I would be happy to go over your lines with you this weekend.
Mediasmart sized hardware 4-bays minimum Stackable Airport Extreme/Time Capsule Power Efficient Intel or ARM processor Green WD and Seagate HDD iSCSI support OS X Server lite
Apple's buying power could make a device like this reality.
Comments
I've run OS X Server on a mini with no problems for 40 people. It has all you would need above.
$800 - Mini 2GHz Core 2 duo, 320 GB drive.
$500 - Server Software
$130 - 1TB External
$150 - Display (Or hook it to you flat panel)
$1,580 - Total
So just a little above your target but you get quite a system.
Actually, you don't really need a display or a keyboard. Just use Screen Sharing (or Back to My Mac) from another Mac.
So, the "server" is headless and comes in at under $1500 for your configuration.
I use the new Mini with 2 2TB LaCie drives as the repository for all my home media (1 LaCie drive is for TimeMachine Backup). With this setup, you still would be under $2000.
HTH
Dick
I'm not sure that Apple Wiki needs to be all that feature complete compared to SharePoint, as most organizations don't use SharePoint's full power (or they spend big bucks on administration, deployment, licensing, etc. if they do).
Now what Apple needs is more enterprise level maturity in their iPhone / iPod Touch support in areas like encrypted devices, locked configurations, enterprise profile management, etc. Let's hope that they improve that with iPhone 3.0.
Apple does have an iPhone Configuration Utility for businesses that allows for a longer alphanumeric password instead of the default 4 digit PIN. I think that this server solution they are proposing will increase the Xserve sales considerably which will push them even farther into making the iPhone a corporate device whicha llows for removing of default apps like YouTube and whatnot from the device.
Apple really needs a small business server.
One that isn't rack mount, doesn't cost an arm and a leg, and one that the average person can just use without having to get IT advice or build a special room for it. It would be a great fit for home users with burgeoning media libraries as well.
The Tech Specs for installing Mac OS X Server area s follows...That allows plenty of older Macs to be used as servers.
How I wish I cut put Snow Leopard server on the HP Mediasmart server.
My only problem with the HP server is that the fan is loud. I do wish Apple would come out with their own version, but I think the Time Capsule is about as close as we are going to get.
AT&T's lackluster 3G coverage has been well documented both here and throughout by repected journalists. While you many have great coverage many don't. Corporate accounts have to deal with reception issues all over the country not just "a densely populated area of coastal NJ" .
I don't know of any genuine, impartial studies done on either of the two companies. How would you even go about setting up criteria for such a study? Well serviced markets always have dead zones, and saying you can't get a signal in the country is just as much smart deployment of resources as it is a hassle for certain customers. I do think ATT has improved quite a bit over the past year or so. Really all we're left with is anecdotal 'proof' which is anything but. So, just talk to friends/coworkers in your sphere of movement regarding reliability of service. That's why I went with ATT. They just happened to have a stronger signal at both home and work...doesn't mean a neighbor a half mile away working somewhere else wouldn't want to choose Verizon though.
Once Snow Leopard Server comes out I will probably go with a Mac mini + Drobo solution.
I forgot to mention that the HP Mediasmart server that has FOUR SATA DRIVE BAYS is less than $800. This is what drives me crazy! to get something similar from Apple I have to cobble together a Mac mini, a Drobo and a copy of snow Leopard server.
How I wish I cut put Snow Leopard server on the HP Mediasmart server.
While I'm in rant mode...
What's the deal with AppleTV and TimeCapsule?
AppleTVs "media server" come with two options...
1) a 40GB PATA laptop hard drive ($229)
or
2) a whopping 160GB PATA laptop hard drive! ($329)
The HP MediaSmart EX485 comes with a 750GB SATA desktop hard drive ($499)
and it has three empty bays so you can keep expanding it indefinitely!
Then Apple also wants you to get a Time Capsule to back up everything.
An Airport Base station runs $179.
If you want a 500GB "server grade" hard drive in there you have to cough up +$120 or $299!
If you want a 1TB "server grade" hard drive in there you have to cough up +$320 or $499!
So you can get a 1TB time capsule for $499 that has no redundancy or expandability.
or for $499 you can get the HP MediaSmart EX485 and then add additional drives to get as much expandability and redundancy as you need.
The send "Lauren" on a mission to get a server that can serve 100 clients for less than $4000.
She pops in and out of a Windows Server store (whatever that monstrosity might look like) and whines that she couldn't get out for less than 7 times her budget and sheepishly admitting that she's not "cool enough to be a Windows Server person" (at that point, a thought bubble pops up over her head with a picture of Steve Ballmer.)
Then she heads to the Apple Store, gets her Snow Leopard Server and change.
And the whole kit is admin'd by the executive secretary between phone calls.
But, instead of an insipid little happy dance, she takes it all off with an erotic pole dance. Why? Because I'm directing the commercial -- that's why!
Hell yeah!
I've run OS X Server on a mini with no problems for 40 people. It has all you would need above.
$800 - Mini 2GHz Core 2 duo, 320 GB drive.
$500 - Server Software
$130 - 1TB External
$150 - Display (Or hook it to you flat panel)
$1,580 - Total
So just a little above your target but you get quite a system.
You don't need the screen. You can use Screen Sharing and the Server Admin tools to manage it remotely.
While I'm in rant mode...
What's the deal with AppleTV and TimeCapsule?
[...]
So you can get a 1TB time capsule for $499 that has no redundancy or expandability.
or for $499 you can get the HP MediaSmart EX485 and then add additional drives to get as much expandability and redundancy as you need.
You are comparing very dislike products. The AppleTV and Time Capsule are not RAID servers like the HP Mediasmart. One is basically an iPod for your TV with some local storage and the other is just a centralized networked Time Machine drive (w/ router) for the Macs in your house. The redundancy is in each HDD as the original would still be on your Mac.
I think the newer HP Mediasmarts (or is it the Drobo) can be partitioned with HFS+ for a properly RAIDed Time Machine backup.
That's not correct and never has been.
You can buy OS X Server by itself, in limited and unlimited versions, and run it on your choice of Apple hardware. People can, and do, run it on Mac minis, iMacs and so on.
Apple also offers the Mac Pro with server software, which would seem to fit exactly the small business need mentioned. ...
You seem to have missed my point.
I'm saying that Apple needs to offer a pre-built server solution for the home user and small business operator. I know I can set up OS-X server on a mini (or anything else), I pointed that out in my post. The point is that the average user is not up to even that minimal level of tinkering.
The option to buy a pre-built, pre-setup Mac Pro server is something that I wasn't aware of and is pretty much exactly what I was talking about. I would bet that many people are not aware of this option however, outside of those of us that are already aware that OS-X server can run on almost any Mac.
If you go to Apple's website and search for "servers," you only get hits for X-Serve hardware. if you go to the Mac Pro page, then to the OS sub-page, and scroll all the way to the end, you find an option to get OS-X server with it as you mention.
You seem to have missed my point.
I think we all did. I would love to have an "Xcube" that was 3 or 4 RAIDed HDDs or amalgamated HDDs with ZFS running Mac OS X or Mac OS X Server, depending on your needs. With so much data being saved at home and the growing home networks and number of home computers it would make sense. It would also allow Apple to build one device for both the consumer and small-to-medium sized businesses with the main differentiation being the class of HDDs and the installed OS.
This is all great stuff, but how the heck to do you convinced a Windows entrenched IT on this? Some of these IT guys are SharePoint obsessed, even thought every user they try to use it can't stand it.
Trust me, the ONLY way through that gauntlet is to first document what the Microsoft solution really costs, then pilot some competing technologies that are substantially cheaper (or get white papers where you can't bring in pilot projects).
The CAL costs for SharePoint and the underlying SQL Server alone is astronomical compared to other colaboration solutions, and that assumes MOSS (Microsoft Office SharePoint Server) isn't in the mix. Be aware that many of the costs are hidden. For example, what is the cost of hosting 1TiB of data files on a file server compared to the cost of hosting 1TiB of data files inside a SQL Server database on a SharePoint site? Not just the cost of an additional server and licenses, but monitoring software, backup solutions, DBA time, DBA tools, etc. (To some exent this is simple when your SharePoint site is small but it won't remain that way.) Documents in the SharePoint site are version-able; but ask if that is really even necessary and, if so, is it worth the true cost of that solution: SharePoint+CALs, SQL Server, support personnel, etc.
It amazes me the number of developers that want to store documents in a database with no regard for the cost multiple of database storage vs. using standard file shares. Its no accident that SharePoint requires any number of supporting Microsoft technologies to run, that's their cash cow (and is almost as good as as their Windows PC licensing revenue stream).
John (DBA)
...by repected journalists.
..."respected"... "journalists"... There is such a thing?!
Leopard Server doesn't push IMAP e-mail to iPhone/touch, even though it can to "regular" computers. Will SLS finally push to the iPhone?
[An XServe doesn't fit many work environment but it's the only Mac with Lights Out Management. Third party products can be used to remotely power on/off any other Mac, so the XServe's advantage of LOM can largely be nullified.]
There is one gaping hole in this, and it is support for Windows desktop users. Unless Apple provides cross-platform versions of Mail & iCal, OR Snow Leopard Server support for Outlook (i.e. Exchange emulation), even in iPhone heavy shops they will still need to pay for an Exchange Server, unless they are also a 100% Mac, which is rare.
I wouldn't expect a company to drop their Exchange Servers so Outlook support would still be fine which is also supporting iPhones via ActiveSync. With the cost of Mac OS X Server so low, even running a since Xserve, which isn't necessary to run the server OS, I can see the cost being quite insignificant when you have a company adopting dozens or hundreds of iPhones for corporate use.
If I'm wrong on any of this please elaborate as I have been out of the corp environment for some time now.
Windows Server is expensive; I do agree. It also has enormous amount more capability than Mac OS X Server (10.5). I know, I maintain both a SBS 2003 machine and a OSX Server machine on a Mac Pro in a cross-domain environment (Hybrid Open Directory and Active Directory).
Apple has to charge allot less for OS X Server do to less capability currently and for the simple fact that their Server OS is barely used by anyone. Very few web servers run off of OSX Server. This can be verified by visiting www.netcraft.com. I mean shit, even APPLE doesn't even use OSX Server for many of their web sites. Currently the Apple online store runs off of Solaris thank you very much. Apple for the longest time used Windows 2000 Server and Solaris on a majority of their web sites. The reason for this was simple; Mac OS X Server didn't provide the performance or the features that even Apple needed. You buy what gets the job done. AppleInsider uses Linux and so does IDG for Macworld. Why? Simple. Cheaper and Apache on OSX sucks. The performance has been demonstrated time and time again to be poor compared to Linux Apache.
Now let me present a point to you. Say you need to support those 100 users. Ok it's $34 grand RETAIL for the Windows solution. How much more is the cost per month for AT&T iPhone contracts vs. Sprint contracts for unlimited use? That's right, $50 a month x 100 users is $5K a month. 5K X 12 months is $60,000 a year. What costs more, $60K in bills per year or 34K one time? Let's not even get started on the fact that you can't buy insurance for the iPhone and the battery is not replaceable.
If you use Software Assurance or work with people at CDW or other enterprise software dealers you can get much lower prices on Windows Server products. I didn't pay anywhere near retail for my CALs for SBS or for the software itself.
If you are only supporting 80 or less users you can build a powerful Xeon or Opteron system on newegg.com, or buy a dell or whatever, and buy Small Business Server 2008. This is $1000 retail plus $50 per CAL; which supports Exchange, file sharing, Sharepoint Services (not the portal server however), WSUS etc. There is also the Mid-Business Sever product, which has less restrictions on user count, but a higher CAL fee.
Apple does support VPN capability currently on the iPhone, but it's basic capability. No xAuth, no RSA key support. For some organizations, such as hospitals (HIPPA), RSA keys are critical for securing the network. WM and Blackberry have full VPN capability.
We all know the built in VPN on OSX Server sucks. It's basic L2TP. It's nowhere near as capable as VPN Tracker Server or the basic VPN technology found on a mid-level netGear router, like the FVX538.
I do agree the MS server licensing is too expensive. It gets the job done for many businesses however and is simpler to setup than Linux. You can't do push e-mail with Linux on an iPhone or a WM device. You can with a Blackberry using the GroupWise system and Blackberry enterprise server. You won't be able to support WM or Blackberry users either on Mac OS X server 10.6 with full push capability (at least as of now). That in itself would be the biggest roadblock for Apple, lack of Blackberry and WM support on OSX Server 10.6.
However, it is possible to come pretty close with a Mac mini, which is quite capable of running Mac OS X server in all of its editions. I've presently got a Mac OS X 10.5.6 server running on a 2007-era Core 2 based Mac mini with a 500GB Western Digital laptop hard drive and 4GB of installed and *usable* RAM.
It works pretty well, providing domain and user account services to nine Windows XP PCs. The hardware is rock solid, although Leopard's support for domain users seems to be a little flaky at times. It has a gigabit link to the network and an OWC external disk plugged in for backups via Time Machine.
Still, it's quite nice to just put a server in place and not have to worry about or mess around with CALs and other such licensing nonsense.
Microsoft's ads are talking about the main computer and the main Vista OS.
Windows Server is expensive; I do agree. It also has enormous amount more capability than Mac OS X Server (10.5). I know, I maintain both a SBS 2003 machine and a OSX Server machine on a Mac Pro in a cross-domain environment (Hybrid Open Directory and Active Directory). blah, blah, blah.
Hey, I was just trying to create an excuse to get a hot woman to take off her clothes for us! I think most of us dudes here would prefer if you keep your <airquotes>logic</airquotes> and <airquotes>facts</airquotes> to yourself and dream about a hot redhead stripping in front of us to bad jazz.
Lauren, call me. We start filming on Monday and I would be happy to go over your lines with you this weekend.
4-bays minimum
Stackable Airport Extreme/Time Capsule
Power Efficient Intel or ARM processor
Green WD and Seagate HDD
iSCSI support
OS X Server lite
Apple's buying power could make a device like this reality.