Snow Leopard Server to provide low cost, secure mobile access to iPhone

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 66
    cubertcubert Posts: 728member
    Just try to knife this baby, Ballmer!
  • Reply 42 of 66
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Cubert View Post


    Just try to knife this baby, Ballmer!



    Please- don't bring babies into it.
  • Reply 43 of 66
    dreyfus2dreyfus2 Posts: 1,072member
    We started to migrate to become an all OS X shop in 2004 and finished in 2006 (dropping Exchange server was the last step). As we had 120+ seats in four locations the calculation was even worse for MS then. Looking back, it was the best thing we ever did. Savings are mind-blowing.



    Wiki Server is not a full replacement for SharePoint, but it addresses the Intranet portal nicely, is MUCH easier to use (far less training required), is absolutely robust, far easier to customize than SharePoint and if you add the multi-media capabilities to the mix (podcast producer, QT broadcast) it is even on a higher level (depending on the actual needs). And, more importantly, SharePoint is not a very good DMS either (user interface nightmare, far to many clicks to do anything, pretty weak approval routing) and MS did torture admins quite a bit along the way (whoever tried to migrate from SharePoint 1 to version 2 at that time should still have nightmares, at least I do). Alfresco is free and a much better DMS than SharePoint.



    One thing Apple has to improve urgently, is the CalDav server and iPhone integration of calendars... not being able to accept/decline invitations on the iPhone, impossibility to survey status changes and no means to display subscribed calendars without disabling push functionality was OK for some time, but it has to be solved.
  • Reply 44 of 66
    virgil-tb2virgil-tb2 Posts: 1,416member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    Please- don't bring babies into it.



    I bet Balmer is a baby shaker!
  • Reply 45 of 66
    Consumer Reports (http://www.consumerreports.org) publishes ratings based on responses of their subscribers. The last one is from Sept 2008 with over 50,000 respondents in something like 22 different markets. Verizon is top in all markets, and AT&T is second in only 5 markets, and 3rd or 4th in the rest. The worst is in general Sprint. The ratings cover "No Service" i.e. no bars, "circuits full", "dropped calls", and "static"



    Also:


    Bar wars: Verizon vs. AT&T

    AT&T ad claiming more bars in more places

    Commercial challenge

    AT&T withdrew two TV ads suggesting it had superior service after criticism from the Better Business Bureau.



    In a series of TV ads last year, AT&T claimed its subscribers would enjoy "more bars in more places" than with other carriers. Verizon cried foul, and the Council of Better Business Bureaus has now supported some of the company's objections.



    AT&T said the claim was based on its superior geographic coverage, and fine print in the ads indeed included the phrase "based on global coverage." In its decision, the BBB's National Advertising Division noted that even Verizon didn't challenge the superior breadth of the AT&T network. But the challenger complained that the ads equated network coverage with overall network performance, which it said depends on many factors.



    The NAD, the ad industry's self-regulatory body, agreed with that objection. It recommended that AT&T modify or discontinue two of the commercials, which showed users getting calls indoors, where all cellular networks commonly suffer service gaps. The group said two other commercials, depicting users in remote outdoor locations, were not problematic.



    To arrive at its decision, the NAD considered evidence including last year's Consumer Reports Ratings, in which Verizon received higher scores than AT&T for connectivity in most of the 20 cities in which we surveyed.



    AT&T disagreed with the NAD finding on the two ads with indoor settings. The decision is nonbinding, but the company says it is no longer broadcasting those two ads.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasein View Post


    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.



  • Reply 46 of 66
    cameronjcameronj Posts: 2,357member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    that's all well and good but omits another big factor- Verizon's CDMA reception and corporate service loyalty. This must then pertain mainly to current AT&T clients.



    Way to derail a thread in post 1?
  • Reply 47 of 66
    mgregormgregor Posts: 15member
    @Johnny Mozzarella...almost any older mac will do...just check the specs and convert an older mac (intel preferably obviously for Snow Leopard) to run leopard server. I have an older 20" intel iMac running leopard server that I use for testing and development.
  • Reply 48 of 66
    mgregormgregor Posts: 15member
    @Virgil-TB2: Just like you said...you can run a OS X Server on basically any mac (except a laptop) that's up to spec. I would use a new 20" iMac with the FW800 port to RAID storage. All in all that package would be less than $1500
  • Reply 49 of 66
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post


    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.



    Mac mini with external FW 800 drives is all you need using Leopard client as it has all the server file sharing you want people forget sharing files with usernames is easy.
  • Reply 50 of 66
    just for comparison (part tongue-in-cheek)





    Seriously though lets be realistic, these are list prices and if you are paying list then maybe you will believe this article.



    Here are the actual prices that we paid Microsoft for our infrastructure and we're only Select Volume License users with 90 CALs:



    Windows Server: $349

    Server CAL: $15.34

    Exchange Standard: $335

    Exchange CAL: $33.96

    Windows Sharepoint Services: FREE!!! with Windows Server CAL



    Like another poster mentioned, most companies don't use most of Sharepoint's features, and that's exactly why the FREE WSS is an awesome product. It includes almost all of the features of Sharepoint Server at a fraction of the cost ($0.00)! It is mainly missing Enterprise Search.



    And at these prices we get the latest version of all of this software for FREE, nothing, nadda, zip, zilch. What happens when the next version of OSX Server comes out? You buy it again!



    Prices aside, Apples answer to Exchange and Sharepoint are pitiful, and they know it. Snow Leopard has native support for Exchange, because they know it is the defacto standard for messaging. No company that has ever used it is going to go to IMAP with Apple Mail!



    If and when Apple ever produces a product that answers Exchange point for point I can guarantee you that it will not going to be included in the server OS for free.
  • Reply 51 of 66
    One thing this article also fails to take into account is the cost of people. The fact is more IT guys are skilled in Microsoft technologies.



    I run a development department and we program in MS technologies for the following reasons:

    .NET is a lot faster to develop in than most other things at the moment

    The development environment and support MS supply is far better than anyone else

    Most developers want to program in .NET and have more MS skills than anything else. Fact is half the developers out there are rubbish so hiring can cost a lot. Then take into account for every php developer there's 50 .NET developers and you can see going mainstream can save you cash when it comes to the people as there not so specialized



    Fact is we may pay a bit more to MS for are server software, but when each developer costs around £1700 a week, having them program in something that has far more support, more ready made products from other companies you can just buy in and is generally just a quicker language to program in. Its no surprise that there competitors have to practically give their product away, as compared to people the server isn't really that expensive.
  • Reply 52 of 66
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post


    One thing this article also fails to take into account is the cost of people. The fact is more IT guys are skilled in Microsoft technologies.



    OS X Server would probably require considerably less 'people' to support and being able to get 'people' trained much faster than learning any Windows server. But having you replace all your WIndows servers for OS X servers is not Apple's focus here, it seems that will be pushing a server or two to accompany the iPhones that are making their way into companies. The price is low and setup is relatively simple. After that, maybe they'll grow their product to do more, but right now it seems more inline with what RiM does by offering a device that connects to Exchange server, not one that replaces it.
  • Reply 53 of 66
    lakorailakorai Posts: 34member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    OS X Server would probably require considerably less 'people' to support and being able to get 'people' trained much faster than learning any Windows server. But having you replace all your WIndows servers for OS X servers is not Apple's focus here, it seems that will be pushing a server or two to accompany the iPhones that are making their way into companies. The price is low and setup is relatively simple. After that, maybe they'll grow their product to do more, but right now it seems more inline with what RiM does by offering a device that connects to Exchange server, not one that replaces it.





    oh I doubt that. There are VERY few administrators who are familiar with OSX Server. A Mac admin will command a much higher salary than a Windows Server admin. Windows Server admins are a dime a dozen. IN Michigan we have a few places that have apple certified Mac admins. Apple, Mac Michigan and MAc Professionals. They charge a minimum of $200 an hour, apple almost $300 an hour for their services. A true Unix admin could be trained, but this would take time. Apple has numerous documentation on OSX Server. It's not exactlyextremely easy. It took a while for me to learn the complete ins and outs of OSX Server when we switched from 10.2 server to 10.4 server (which is what we run now). I'm not saying Exchange or Windows server was extremely easy either; but finding answers to common problems is definitely easier.



    Do a search on Dice. Search nationwide for Mac OS X or Mac OS X Server. You'll find maybe 50 or 100 posts nationwide. Search Windows Server in Detroit, you'll find hundreds.



    You still need to understand TCP/IP, Vlans, Networking, DNS entries, unix commands etc. Server Admin utility and Workgroup Manager only offers some capability. It's like you can use the Exchange System manager, or you can use Powershell. Powershell will give you allot more capability. The Terminal is necessary to fix major DNS issues, problems



    I attended a CompUSA "Apple presentation" back in the day done by Apple CSRs in 2006 when the XServer G5 systems were being presented. One guy asked if the system could be easily deployed as a regular system. I set him straight, I asked him if he understood DNS, how to deploy VPNs etc. He was dumbfounded, he had no idea what I was talking about. I told him he will need to hire an IT admin or consultant to set him up. I didn't discourage him and I told him he should use hosted Exchange for his collaboration.
  • Reply 54 of 66
    This almost sounds like a some sort of a joke: $29,000 for Windows Services, $3,800 for OSX Services. I wonder how an unbiased IT manager would look at this. It sounds too good to be true, so there must be something missing or skewed for Apple to look that good. If this was all there was to it, corporations would be dumping Microsoft Windows out of their windows.



    I'm guessing somebody must be getting kickbacks to authorize using the Microsoft method when there are much cheaper alternatives. That's why I don't think Microsoft will ever lose dominance in the corporate world. Microsoft must have some hold over corporations for them to be able to charge so much money for this software. Microsoft says Apple hardware is overpriced, but yet Microsoft seems to be selling overpriced software.
  • Reply 55 of 66
    mactelmactel Posts: 1,275member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MikeDTyke View Post


    The only thing is the wiki which doesn`t have document handling capabilities of sharepoint nor the extensibility.



    But then i`ve yet to see many organisations use sharepoint as anything other than a wiki.



    There`s pros and cons for each but i see CALs as a very big CON when it comes to Microsoft`s offering.





    On the document side, it would be interesting if Apple incorported an intranet version of iWork.com.



    The nice things about Sharepoint for document management are versioning and the trash bin to recover docs.
  • Reply 56 of 66
    foo2foo2 Posts: 1,077member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by joshperry View Post


    Here are the actual prices that we paid Microsoft for our infrastructure and we're only Select Volume License users with 90 CALs:



    Windows Server: $349

    Server CAL: $15.34

    Exchange Standard: $335

    Exchange CAL: $33.96

    Windows Sharepoint Services: FREE!!! with Windows Server CAL



    $349 + $335 + 90 * ($15.34 + $33.96) = $5121 just for software



    That looks like a really good deal... for Micro$oft.
  • Reply 57 of 66
    brlawyerbrlawyer Posts: 828member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Foo2 View Post


    $349 + $335 + 90 * ($15.34 + $33.96) = $5121 just for software



    That looks like a really good deal... for Micro$oft.



    Exactly...I don't get the MS-biased point of the poster above. Even with such "amazing" discounts given by Microshaft, the advantage of using Windows server solutions is ZERO...and believe me, MS is in no position to provide all its services for free to everyone...otherwise they go bankrupt in less than 5 years.
  • Reply 58 of 66
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    that's all well and good but omits another big factor- Verizon's CDMA reception and corporate service loyalty. This must then pertain mainly to current AT&T clients.



    Or perhaps it could also refer to the other 5.8 billion people who aren't effected by the split in US mobile coverage.



    The CDMA network in Australia was shut down last year, its just too backward.
  • Reply 59 of 66
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Foo2 View Post


    $349 + $335 + 90 * ($15.34 + $33.96) = $5121 just for software



    That looks like a really good deal... for Micro$oft.



    $5K is worth it if it gives you a complete solution. E-mail, calendar, contacts, push e-mail to WM devices w/ remote wipe, Sharepoint services etc.



    OS X Server has the wiki server, which is open source and works well. Not nearly as powerful as sharepoint. The e-mail system is based off of SquirrelMail. Very limited compared to Exchange. CalDAV support is good, though support for calendar and contact sharing is limited in Thunderbird and many features are missing as compared to Exchange.



    No Blackberry support, no WM support, no Symbian support (important for all you EU people) and no iPhone support for 10.5. Windows Server w/ Exchange can support all these platforms with direct push, remote wipe and more.



    OS X Server has a long way to go to compete with MS. If you had Mac OS X server and windows clients then you would lose Group Policy support. This is the foundation of locking down windows machines. You would have to configure each machine locally using group policy, talk about a pain in the ass.



    What does OS X server have? Some basic Group Policy wannabee with the System Preference controls in the Workgroup Manager. They are good controls, but they are not locked down or fine tuned. 10.5 server is better, but Apple didn't really provide more lock down on their controls in Leopard Server. Hopefully this will be fixed with Snow Leopard Server.



    Large shops that use Macs and PC's control their Macs using group policy using Centrify's Direct Control. It's simple; you can totally lock down the Mac without using the command line or doing custom setups on each machine (editing .plists etc). You can control more aspects of the OS using Group Policy on a Windows Server box than you can using the built in Workgroup Manager controls in OS X Server; that says something. Apple's Enterprise push has always been weak.



    The other issue is 3rd party support for essential software. Recently I was psyched that EMC had updated Retrospect for Mac OS X. Then I saw their support posts. Major issues and problems and NO console support for 10.4. 10.5 came out less than 2 years ago and EMC is already requiring 10.5 just to be able to control the software. I'm not shelling out $1K for 10.5 server and then testing all the machines to make sure 10.5 won't screw up Open Directory or cause weird DNS issues with 10.4 clients. 10.5 server and 10.4 clients = problems according to Apple Support Forum posts. And why in the hell did it take EMC like 5 years to finally fix their Retro software only to cripple it by requiring 10.5?



    Retrospect is vital software for our Windows Server. Retro 7.6 for Windows still trumps the Mac version in features, including making a bootable disaster recovery DVD.



    TimeMachine is interesting, though without support for Encrypted backups and support for backing up over SMB it won't be a viable solution. No enterprise will allow backups without encryption.
  • Reply 60 of 66
    hezekiahbhezekiahb Posts: 448member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    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



    The craziest part about all this is even this article stopped way short of what else you get with OS X Server.



    - RADIUS authenticated wifi

    - Great VPN solution

    - Opensource MySql database server

    - Full fledged imaging server (netboot friggin rocks! Good luck figuring out windows sysprep if you are a small business owner)

    - Podcast producer

    - Quicktime streaming

    - Xgrid (also friggin rocks!)



    $29,238 comes in way short when you start looking at costs for a Cisco WCS solution for wifi + the $450 a pop for aironet access points ($100 for airport express, & you don't even need physical cables to extend your network) We haven't even scratched the surface in this comparison.



    The comparison of sharepoints isn't just talking about the wiki feature on OS X, give me a break. For a small business who wants something simple to set up yet as powerful as an AD/Exchange/sharepoint solution it should be a no brainer. Even if your clients run windows it is still going to save you a lot of money to go with an Apple solution.



    Also, lets not forget that Microsoft doesn't even have a comparable service to the last 3 I listed up there!



    If you're a big business with lots & lots of servers then it does make sense to have windows/AD solutions, but as a small business...don't waste your money.



    By the way, the Linux comparison is a joke. If you are a small business the support is every bit as important as the hardware/software itself. No small business owner wants to learn how to be a Linux programmer, that actually hurts their productivity & can even increase their costs if they have to pay outside sources for all service to their server.
Sign In or Register to comment.