1. It does do RAID & also allows you to do selective mirroring through software.
2. Can be added
3. Can be added
4. Can be added
5. Is a web server
6., 7., & 8. I don't know what those things are, but I do know that I can access my WHS from my blackberry to download files. It also works with the iPhone & Windows Mobile. I also stream movies over the internet when I'm traveling from my WHS.
It has Remote Desktop Connect, which blows Apple's Screen Share App (which they deleted most of the hacks to). So, given just that, I think most would be happy. Shame Apple can not make Screen Share do what RDC can do. Real shame. That is one nifty, nice, awesome, slick, sweet, it can do all of that, thank you very much kind of apps. Why Apple can not get it together (give they have all the pieces, just need to add some thread) is beyond me.
I'd make a sales pitch for it, but really just want Apple to duplicate it and then some for a mac version. Do I ask too much for Apple to out do Microsoft on this?
[for those who do not know and do not want to look it up, some things RDC does securely that Screen Share does not do at all:
Full Screen mode
share a folder on your mac/ pc with the remote machine
print from the remote machine to your local printer
actually hear the audio of the remote machine. Brilliant I tell you .
For an iphone owner, does a MacMini server replace the need to subscribe to MobileMe completely? What is the feature gap? If I could save $69-99/yr on MobileMe, it might influence my decision.
Does MacMiniServer also replace the need for a TimeCapsule? Seems like it, but wasn't sure.
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.
In many IT shops these days, it cost more to put out cheap servers than a one big server that can virtualize many many servers.
I don't see Apple get into the virtualization business at all. The virtualization solution is exploding in the IT world, who cares about these small servers.
Even for ISPs, they are selling virtual server hosting and making a killing.
Windows & Linux solutions make up the entire virtualization world.
Parallels Server edition. I've used it and replaced two Vmware ESI setups with it. It's MUCH better for most situations. However if your in IT and want to keep your job then it's probably the worst thing you could do.
Why are people thinking this replaces a router or is designed as a Home Server? Makes no sense!
It's flexible enough to do both, and more, and more and more. OS X server is the cat's meow (pun intended). It's more than Windows Server, a hell of a lot more. It's flexible, configurable.
I can setup a roaming account, I can setup guest accounts, I can setup netboot accounts, I can setup a mail server, wiki server, NAT, NAS, I can do it all... And I don't have to be in the same state that it is in or even have a PHD.
It can backup certain machines at certain times of the day. I can capture and configure all aspects of the network, I can monitor my kids at home or I can setup filters for the web at work all without taking an ITT Class.
And that's not even scratching the surface. It can handle over 1000 users locally or internationally. It can handle a multipoint VPN connection or a single unit. It can run Desktop apps as well as server apps and never gets tired or needs restarted on a weekly basis.
It can be my wireless access point, my router and even a bridge, all at the same time as being a server for Mail, Wiki, Web, Filemaker Databases for internal and external use... And a whole LOT more.
Those who know OS X server, those who use is and those who are certified in it were blown away with the announcement.
It's everything to everyone. And it sips power so I can use it at home too without spinning my meter (probably the second most important point of the MacMini Server). Some people won't get it, some will and they will appreciate it.
In many IT shops these days, it cost more to put out cheap servers than a one big server that can virtualize many many servers.
Mac OS X Server can be virtualized. This server is obviously geared toward a very select clientele.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aga
It has Remote Desktop Connect, which blows Apple's Screen Share App
Of course not, nor is it meant to. It?s 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.
It has Remote Desktop Connect, which blows Apple's Screen Share App (which they deleted most of the hacks to). So, given just that, I think most would be happy. Shame Apple can not make Screen Share do what RDC can do. Real shame. That is one nifty, nice, awesome, slick, sweet, it can do all of that, thank you very much kind of apps. Why Apple can not get it together (give they have all the pieces, just need to add some thread) is beyond me.
I'd make a sales pitch for it, but really just want Apple to duplicate it and then some for a mac version. Do I ask too much for Apple to out do Microsoft on this?
[for those who do not know and do not want to look it up, some things RDC does securely that Screen Share does not do at all:
Full Screen mode
share a folder on your mac/ pc with the remote machine
print from the remote machine to your local printer
actually hear the audio of the remote machine. Brilliant I tell you .
]
Citrix Xen Desktop.
I've made the case too. NetBoot the client, it works. You create 1 image (OS X with the apps) then the account (user folder for Home). Mac turns on and they netboot the image and then are connected to the home folder over the network. Done. You'll need OS X server for this (it's included and it's UNLIMITED)... Can't think of a better reason for the MacMini Server in a school environment than this... Works over Ethernet, WiFi, even the web.
On August 28, the day it became available, I purchased OSX SL Server, and I had my MacMini sitting ready with a clean hard drive, with a 1TB external HD for back-ups. The goal was (and is) to set up a small home office network, with two websites, a number of email clients, etc.
So I wasn't too happy to see Apple come out with a similar but better equipped set-up, but oh well, too late now.
Today, I am still struggling to get it going. I must honestly say that I don't have any kowledge or background (education) in computer science, but I had hoped to get it going with some help from Apple for example and searching the Internet.
Not so.
The information that's available is of limited use, and mostly written by and for people with extensive knowledge of server software.
Even worse, Apple support bluntly told me to stop trying to set it up and have a consultant come over to do the job. After I heard their prices, I decided to keep trying myself.
So what I need and what I am hoping to find someday is a step-by-step instruction manual that shows the appropriate screen shots, what to enter where and why, and what can happen if you enter the wrong information (usually those step-by-step manuals only show the ideal situation: "Enter x and continue to the following screen". However, after doing that, my computer says "invalid entry". For the manual, this doesn't seem to be a possibility, which renders it useless from there on). I pre-ordered the book mentioned in the main article, but I won't hold my breath that it will be the answer to my needs. Just know that I will not give up and eventually will run my own OSX server!
Yeah, I understand your problem. One of the downfalls of X Server. On windows, you end up with too many search results for your problem. On OS X, you are luck to end up with a few.
Do not be discouraged, I have set it up for several people. It can be done, though not always the way Apple says to do it. You have to pay one way or the other, time, money...
You can let others remote manage the machine too, allowing them to help you set things up.
Easiest way to get things up and running is to make your list, and just start punching through the list, one section at a time.
Make sure you have certificate installed, as the seems to create issues with many of the secure services. Apple tends to move where you go to create those things from version to version. Familiarize yourself with every setting/screen in Server Admin before changing anything. Then do the same with Workgroup Manager. Once you have done all of that, you should be 80% of the way and you haven't made a change yet.
Key is to know what you are doing when you turn things on and add users etc. You may not realize what the defaults are if you have not looked through the different settings.
Finally, there is no replacing understanding a bit about the underlying software (mostly open source). Look up what it is (mostly listed here http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/specs.html on Apple's website) on wikipedia and follow some links from there. You can not set up a secure web server if you do not know what that means. You also can not set up a VPN for Windows Users if you do not know differences between how Windows and Unix handle VPN, NAT, etc.
Any word on how compatible is the mail service with outlook?
Features i'm looking at are
* global address list
* shared calendering
* scheduling / calendering
I'm trying to move away from exchange/outlook setup to an OSX mail/outlook setup with around 150 users and would like to know what features i could still use and if any missing features are there work around for it.
I just need to determine whether an external RAID 5 box running over Firewire 800 will provide me with enough disk throughput compared to internal SATA, even on the older system.
I haven't been able to find meaningful real-world data, but the few articles I've read indicate that FW800 with 7200rpm disks is just about an even match with Gig Ethernet for most file-sharing. (It certainly wouldn't compare to local disks for heavy video editing.) I'd love to see more testing in this area though.
The RAID5 box I'm investigating is this: Mercury Elite-AL Pro Qx2 - $329 empty. The Drobo looks nice on paper, but seems to suffer some serious reliability problems (to the point of data loss). Others, including the Promise unit advertised at the Apple Store, seem to require extra software to configure them, which in my book is cause for concern. It's a shame and a real problem for the Mac world that setting up a cheap RAID system beyond software levels 0, 1, or 10 is still out of reach.
... 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.
How conveniently you overlook the FireWire 800 interface it has... I'd rather have FireWire than eSATA... a one way only bus compared to simultaneous read/write? You're welcome to it.
How conveniently you overlook the FireWire 800 interface it has... I'd rather have FireWire than eSATA... a one way only bus compared to simultaneous read/write? You're welcome to it.
FW800 certainly has some plusses, like power, but isn?t eSATA at 3Gbps still going trounce FW800 in real world sustained read/writes?
Average may be the wrong word to use but that is what shared and public folders are for. Trying to get 20 people to clean up after themselves in an important folder is just not going to happen especially when they are CLUELESS! And no I don't sell SAN or database I program applications so it is a natural solution for me.
BTW our org happens to be ISO 9001 certified so I have to protect everything anyway.
In my office we don't deny privileges in general. Pretty much every computer is shared in one way or another and most everyone has admin privileges. I have a multi-terabyte RAID that is shared off an Xserve and yes people can and do delete things. That is why I run Time Machine to another multi terabyte RAID for those "oops" problems on a daily basis, The whole RAID is backed up via Retrospect to LTO4. Individual project folders are also put to permanent archive on LTO4 when they are fully completed and billed. Our people need easy, quick access to the materials in play and can't be slowed down by complicated access control procedures.
Now conversely, many of the Windows systems (servers mostly) are locked down and no one but me or the IT director can access them.
And speaking of the MMS I would consider it for certain applications in our facility. And I certainly am looking at it for a home server.
They buy support contracts to get patches to OS X that will never become public.
Wow! Really? I didn't know that. Obviously, I knew that Sun and IBM and so forth do. But Apple provide custom patches, and even kernels? How far will they go in cutomization?
I don't have a problem with that either, although I'd probably be annoyed if they weren't fixing my work and life-impacting bug because they were prioritizing a bigger customer. However, neither example is anything to do with a roadmap. Tell me again, why shouldn't I get advance word of when the next MacBook is coming out? 'Cause, don't Apple make computers ... you know ... 'for the rest of us?'
It has Remote Desktop Connect, which blows Apple's Screen Share App (which they deleted most of the hacks to). So, given just that, I think most would be happy. Shame Apple can not make Screen Share do what RDC can do. Real shame. That is one nifty, nice, awesome, slick, sweet, it can do all of that, thank you very much kind of apps. Why Apple can not get it together (give they have all the pieces, just need to add some thread) is beyond me.
I'd make a sales pitch for it, but really just want Apple to duplicate it and then some for a mac version. Do I ask too much for Apple to out do Microsoft on this?
[for those who do not know and do not want to look it up, some things RDC does securely that Screen Share does not do at all:
Full Screen mode
share a folder on your mac/ pc with the remote machine
print from the remote machine to your local printer
actually hear the audio of the remote machine. Brilliant I tell you .
]
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.
The Mini Server is an interesting experiment for Apple. In many ways, it's not something that will cost them a lot of money. It's a new SKU with slightly different plastics and a different hard drive container. Everything else is the same. The big difference for users is that they are giving away Snow Leopard Server as part of the deal. For some customers who rely on the Mini for server duty, that just dropped the price of entry by $500...a lot when you consider the price of the hardware is $1000.
One of the reasons why I run Leopard Server in my home office now is because I found that trying to get Sun's Java Communications Server up (on Solaris 10), configured and running was a royal pain in the butt. And I'm a guy who ran the grandfather of that software, Netscape Server on an Apple Network Server 700 in my home office for years before its RAID array died five years ago. I was tinkering around for weeks (literally) trying to get the Sun software going on my old Ultra 60 with everything I wanted to do having a long amount of experience with Unix and Sun. On the other hand, once I got the gist of Leopard Server, I had most of the main services up in an afternoon. If anyone asks, can server management be that easy with this product, I can emphatically say "YES!".
When Apple announced the Mac Mini server, I said to myself, "I've found my new server." As a home office machine, my current Leopard Server handles file service to my Drobo and other Firewire drives (AFP, SMB and NFS), runs iTunes for service to my Airport Expresses, pyTivo for archiving Tivo shows from my two Tivo Series 3s, DNS, Transmission for Bittorents and other nicknacks. I have a working web server, could do VPN if I chose and I can manage the kids' web surfing when they get older. Finally, it operates a Time Machine service for all the Macs in the house (three right now). My problem right now is that my server is an ancient Powermac G4 Dual-450 Mhz (1.5 GB of RAM, 30 gig ATA boot hard drive) that has been hacked to run Leopard. I couldn't afford Leopard Server and get a new machine. So the old workhorse was pressed into service and got a cheap Firewire 800 card to service my peripherals (another USB 2.0/FW400 card handles all the older Firewire devices). An upgraded video card I already had allows Leopard's CoreAnimation to run smoothly.
But the old server just can't keep up with the everything I'd like it to be doing. It's very slow and sucks power like nobody's business. I had already thought a Mac Mini would be a good replacement for it...I already own a 2009 Mac Mini that I use for a desktop machine elsewhere in the house. The new firmware upgrade allows it to handle 8 gigs of RAM, which is cool for future use but cost prohibitive right now (Other World Computing sells a 8 gig kit for the Mini at $475 right now....talk to me when it dips below $150). When money gets better, I'll be doing a server upgrade but I'll have to choose whether to get a totally new server for $1000 or buy a copy of SL Server at $499 and repurposing the existing Mini for server duty.
One more detail...someone mentioned that the 2009 Mac Mini can run the 64 bit kernel. As far as I know, this is NOT the case. I've tried it and the machine always returns to 32 bit kernel. The 32-64 bit utility that you can download from versiontracker.com now correctly states that the Mini has a 64-bit EFI but won't run the new kernel right now. Maybe the new Mini Server is different, but I doubt it.
In my office we don't deny privileges in general. Pretty much every computer is shared in one way or another...
Hmmm, OK.
Quote:
...and most everyone has admin privileges.
What? There's no reason in OS X that you have to give everyone admin privileges! Hell, I'm the sole user on my home desktop machine, and I still use a non-admin account.
Let everyone (whom you can trust) share all their files, but don't give them admin access to the machine at all times. Or at the very least, create a separate admin account upon first install and put its password in an envelope so people can use it in an emergency. But keep all the other user accounts in a sandbox. It's really not hard to configure it this way, and on the few occasions when anyone truly needs admin access they can authenticate right then for that one task, and then return to user status for everything else. That's one of the really good points of a well-designed UNIX-based setup, and OS X makes it fairly easy to do so.
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.
1) You get FireWire 800 with the Mac Mini and you can hook up to 63 FireWire devices on that. Let's see. You can get 1.5 TB hard drives and 1.5 * 63 = 94.5 TB in addition to the 1 TB that you get internally for a total of 95.5 TB of disk space. Is that not enough for you?
2) For the HP computer you are missing some things that the Mini has. Like also have 5 USB 2 ports on it and a FULL version of Mac OS X Server. Windows Home Server is a joke. A bad joke.
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.
Comments
Actually WHS does do many of these things.
1. It does do RAID & also allows you to do selective mirroring through software.
2. Can be added
3. Can be added
4. Can be added
5. Is a web server
6., 7., & 8. I don't know what those things are, but I do know that I can access my WHS from my blackberry to download files. It also works with the iPhone & Windows Mobile. I also stream movies over the internet when I'm traveling from my WHS.
It has Remote Desktop Connect, which blows Apple's Screen Share App (which they deleted most of the hacks to). So, given just that, I think most would be happy. Shame Apple can not make Screen Share do what RDC can do. Real shame. That is one nifty, nice, awesome, slick, sweet, it can do all of that, thank you very much kind of apps. Why Apple can not get it together (give they have all the pieces, just need to add some thread) is beyond me.
I'd make a sales pitch for it, but really just want Apple to duplicate it and then some for a mac version. Do I ask too much for Apple to out do Microsoft on this?
[for those who do not know and do not want to look it up, some things RDC does securely that Screen Share does not do at all:
Full Screen mode
share a folder on your mac/ pc with the remote machine
print from the remote machine to your local printer
actually hear the audio of the remote machine. Brilliant I tell you
]
For an iphone owner, does a MacMini server replace the need to subscribe to MobileMe completely? What is the feature gap? If I could save $69-99/yr on MobileMe, it might influence my decision.
Does MacMiniServer also replace the need for a TimeCapsule? Seems like it, but wasn't sure.
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.
In many IT shops these days, it cost more to put out cheap servers than a one big server that can virtualize many many servers.
I don't see Apple get into the virtualization business at all. The virtualization solution is exploding in the IT world, who cares about these small servers.
Even for ISPs, they are selling virtual server hosting and making a killing.
Windows & Linux solutions make up the entire virtualization world.
Parallels Server edition. I've used it and replaced two Vmware ESI setups with it. It's MUCH better for most situations. However if your in IT and want to keep your job then it's probably the worst thing you could do.
Why are people thinking this replaces a router or is designed as a Home Server? Makes no sense!
It's flexible enough to do both, and more, and more and more. OS X server is the cat's meow (pun intended). It's more than Windows Server, a hell of a lot more. It's flexible, configurable.
I can setup a roaming account, I can setup guest accounts, I can setup netboot accounts, I can setup a mail server, wiki server, NAT, NAS, I can do it all... And I don't have to be in the same state that it is in or even have a PHD.
It can backup certain machines at certain times of the day. I can capture and configure all aspects of the network, I can monitor my kids at home or I can setup filters for the web at work all without taking an ITT Class.
And that's not even scratching the surface. It can handle over 1000 users locally or internationally. It can handle a multipoint VPN connection or a single unit. It can run Desktop apps as well as server apps and never gets tired or needs restarted on a weekly basis.
It can be my wireless access point, my router and even a bridge, all at the same time as being a server for Mail, Wiki, Web, Filemaker Databases for internal and external use... And a whole LOT more.
Those who know OS X server, those who use is and those who are certified in it were blown away with the announcement.
It's everything to everyone. And it sips power so I can use it at home too without spinning my meter (probably the second most important point of the MacMini Server). Some people won't get it, some will and they will appreciate it.
In many IT shops these days, it cost more to put out cheap servers than a one big server that can virtualize many many servers.
Mac OS X Server can be virtualized. This server is obviously geared toward a very select clientele.
It has Remote Desktop Connect, which blows Apple's Screen Share App
Of course not, nor is it meant to. It?s 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.
It has Remote Desktop Connect, which blows Apple's Screen Share App (which they deleted most of the hacks to). So, given just that, I think most would be happy. Shame Apple can not make Screen Share do what RDC can do. Real shame. That is one nifty, nice, awesome, slick, sweet, it can do all of that, thank you very much kind of apps. Why Apple can not get it together (give they have all the pieces, just need to add some thread) is beyond me.
I'd make a sales pitch for it, but really just want Apple to duplicate it and then some for a mac version. Do I ask too much for Apple to out do Microsoft on this?
[for those who do not know and do not want to look it up, some things RDC does securely that Screen Share does not do at all:
Full Screen mode
share a folder on your mac/ pc with the remote machine
print from the remote machine to your local printer
actually hear the audio of the remote machine. Brilliant I tell you
]
Citrix Xen Desktop.
I've made the case too. NetBoot the client, it works. You create 1 image (OS X with the apps) then the account (user folder for Home). Mac turns on and they netboot the image and then are connected to the home folder over the network. Done. You'll need OS X server for this (it's included and it's UNLIMITED)... Can't think of a better reason for the MacMini Server in a school environment than this... Works over Ethernet, WiFi, even the web.
On August 28, the day it became available, I purchased OSX SL Server, and I had my MacMini sitting ready with a clean hard drive, with a 1TB external HD for back-ups. The goal was (and is) to set up a small home office network, with two websites, a number of email clients, etc.
So I wasn't too happy to see Apple come out with a similar but better equipped set-up, but oh well, too late now.
Today, I am still struggling to get it going. I must honestly say that I don't have any kowledge or background (education) in computer science, but I had hoped to get it going with some help from Apple for example and searching the Internet.
Not so.
The information that's available is of limited use, and mostly written by and for people with extensive knowledge of server software.
Even worse, Apple support bluntly told me to stop trying to set it up and have a consultant come over to do the job. After I heard their prices, I decided to keep trying myself.
So what I need and what I am hoping to find someday is a step-by-step instruction manual that shows the appropriate screen shots, what to enter where and why, and what can happen if you enter the wrong information (usually those step-by-step manuals only show the ideal situation: "Enter x and continue to the following screen". However, after doing that, my computer says "invalid entry". For the manual, this doesn't seem to be a possibility, which renders it useless from there on). I pre-ordered the book mentioned in the main article, but I won't hold my breath that it will be the answer to my needs. Just know that I will not give up and eventually will run my own OSX server!
Yeah, I understand your problem. One of the downfalls of X Server. On windows, you end up with too many search results for your problem. On OS X, you are luck to end up with a few.
Do not be discouraged, I have set it up for several people. It can be done, though not always the way Apple says to do it. You have to pay one way or the other, time, money...
To help a bit, I highly recommend the discussion boards and mailing lists. read the archives and ask questions. http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/resources/
You can let others remote manage the machine too, allowing them to help you set things up.
Easiest way to get things up and running is to make your list, and just start punching through the list, one section at a time.
Make sure you have certificate installed, as the seems to create issues with many of the secure services. Apple tends to move where you go to create those things from version to version. Familiarize yourself with every setting/screen in Server Admin before changing anything. Then do the same with Workgroup Manager. Once you have done all of that, you should be 80% of the way and you haven't made a change yet.
Key is to know what you are doing when you turn things on and add users etc. You may not realize what the defaults are if you have not looked through the different settings.
Finally, there is no replacing understanding a bit about the underlying software (mostly open source). Look up what it is (mostly listed here http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/specs.html on Apple's website) on wikipedia and follow some links from there. You can not set up a secure web server if you do not know what that means. You also can not set up a VPN for Windows Users if you do not know differences between how Windows and Unix handle VPN, NAT, etc.
Good luck and buzz me if you have any questions.
Features i'm looking at are
* global address list
* shared calendering
* scheduling / calendering
I'm trying to move away from exchange/outlook setup to an OSX mail/outlook setup with around 150 users and would like to know what features i could still use and if any missing features are there work around for it.
I just need to determine whether an external RAID 5 box running over Firewire 800 will provide me with enough disk throughput compared to internal SATA, even on the older system.
I haven't been able to find meaningful real-world data, but the few articles I've read indicate that FW800 with 7200rpm disks is just about an even match with Gig Ethernet for most file-sharing. (It certainly wouldn't compare to local disks for heavy video editing.) I'd love to see more testing in this area though.
The RAID5 box I'm investigating is this: Mercury Elite-AL Pro Qx2 - $329 empty. The Drobo looks nice on paper, but seems to suffer some serious reliability problems (to the point of data loss). Others, including the Promise unit advertised at the Apple Store, seem to require extra software to configure them, which in my book is cause for concern. It's a shame and a real problem for the Mac world that setting up a cheap RAID system beyond software levels 0, 1, or 10 is still out of reach.
... 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.
How conveniently you overlook the FireWire 800 interface it has... I'd rather have FireWire than eSATA... a one way only bus compared to simultaneous read/write? You're welcome to it.
How conveniently you overlook the FireWire 800 interface it has... I'd rather have FireWire than eSATA... a one way only bus compared to simultaneous read/write? You're welcome to it.
FW800 certainly has some plusses, like power, but isn?t eSATA at 3Gbps still going trounce FW800 in real world sustained read/writes?
Average may be the wrong word to use but that is what shared and public folders are for. Trying to get 20 people to clean up after themselves in an important folder is just not going to happen especially when they are CLUELESS! And no I don't sell SAN or database I program applications so it is a natural solution for me.
BTW our org happens to be ISO 9001 certified so I have to protect everything anyway.
In my office we don't deny privileges in general. Pretty much every computer is shared in one way or another and most everyone has admin privileges. I have a multi-terabyte RAID that is shared off an Xserve and yes people can and do delete things. That is why I run Time Machine to another multi terabyte RAID for those "oops" problems on a daily basis, The whole RAID is backed up via Retrospect to LTO4. Individual project folders are also put to permanent archive on LTO4 when they are fully completed and billed. Our people need easy, quick access to the materials in play and can't be slowed down by complicated access control procedures.
Now conversely, many of the Windows systems (servers mostly) are locked down and no one but me or the IT director can access them.
And speaking of the MMS I would consider it for certain applications in our facility. And I certainly am looking at it for a home server.
Corporations buy in blocks, you and I do not.
So that part makes perfect sense, of course.
They buy support contracts to get patches to OS X that will never become public.
Wow! Really? I didn't know that. Obviously, I knew that Sun and IBM and so forth do. But Apple provide custom patches, and even kernels? How far will they go in cutomization?
I don't have a problem with that either, although I'd probably be annoyed if they weren't fixing my work and life-impacting bug because they were prioritizing a bigger customer. However, neither example is anything to do with a roadmap. Tell me again, why shouldn't I get advance word of when the next MacBook is coming out? 'Cause, don't Apple make computers ... you know ... 'for the rest of us?'
It has Remote Desktop Connect, which blows Apple's Screen Share App (which they deleted most of the hacks to). So, given just that, I think most would be happy. Shame Apple can not make Screen Share do what RDC can do. Real shame. That is one nifty, nice, awesome, slick, sweet, it can do all of that, thank you very much kind of apps. Why Apple can not get it together (give they have all the pieces, just need to add some thread) is beyond me.
I'd make a sales pitch for it, but really just want Apple to duplicate it and then some for a mac version. Do I ask too much for Apple to out do Microsoft on this?
[for those who do not know and do not want to look it up, some things RDC does securely that Screen Share does not do at all:
Full Screen mode
share a folder on your mac/ pc with the remote machine
print from the remote machine to your local printer
actually hear the audio of the remote machine. Brilliant I tell you
]
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.
Lenovo IdeaCenter server/with Linux server software = $499
Linux FTW.
One of the reasons why I run Leopard Server in my home office now is because I found that trying to get Sun's Java Communications Server up (on Solaris 10), configured and running was a royal pain in the butt. And I'm a guy who ran the grandfather of that software, Netscape Server on an Apple Network Server 700 in my home office for years before its RAID array died five years ago. I was tinkering around for weeks (literally) trying to get the Sun software going on my old Ultra 60 with everything I wanted to do having a long amount of experience with Unix and Sun. On the other hand, once I got the gist of Leopard Server, I had most of the main services up in an afternoon. If anyone asks, can server management be that easy with this product, I can emphatically say "YES!".
When Apple announced the Mac Mini server, I said to myself, "I've found my new server." As a home office machine, my current Leopard Server handles file service to my Drobo and other Firewire drives (AFP, SMB and NFS), runs iTunes for service to my Airport Expresses, pyTivo for archiving Tivo shows from my two Tivo Series 3s, DNS, Transmission for Bittorents and other nicknacks. I have a working web server, could do VPN if I chose and I can manage the kids' web surfing when they get older. Finally, it operates a Time Machine service for all the Macs in the house (three right now). My problem right now is that my server is an ancient Powermac G4 Dual-450 Mhz (1.5 GB of RAM, 30 gig ATA boot hard drive) that has been hacked to run Leopard. I couldn't afford Leopard Server and get a new machine. So the old workhorse was pressed into service and got a cheap Firewire 800 card to service my peripherals (another USB 2.0/FW400 card handles all the older Firewire devices). An upgraded video card I already had allows Leopard's CoreAnimation to run smoothly.
But the old server just can't keep up with the everything I'd like it to be doing. It's very slow and sucks power like nobody's business. I had already thought a Mac Mini would be a good replacement for it...I already own a 2009 Mac Mini that I use for a desktop machine elsewhere in the house. The new firmware upgrade allows it to handle 8 gigs of RAM, which is cool for future use but cost prohibitive right now (Other World Computing sells a 8 gig kit for the Mini at $475 right now....talk to me when it dips below $150). When money gets better, I'll be doing a server upgrade but I'll have to choose whether to get a totally new server for $1000 or buy a copy of SL Server at $499 and repurposing the existing Mini for server duty.
One more detail...someone mentioned that the 2009 Mac Mini can run the 64 bit kernel. As far as I know, this is NOT the case. I've tried it and the machine always returns to 32 bit kernel. The 32-64 bit utility that you can download from versiontracker.com now correctly states that the Mini has a 64-bit EFI but won't run the new kernel right now. Maybe the new Mini Server is different, but I doubt it.
In my office we don't deny privileges in general. Pretty much every computer is shared in one way or another...
Hmmm, OK.
...and most everyone has admin privileges.
What? There's no reason in OS X that you have to give everyone admin privileges! Hell, I'm the sole user on my home desktop machine, and I still use a non-admin account.
Let everyone (whom you can trust) share all their files, but don't give them admin access to the machine at all times. Or at the very least, create a separate admin account upon first install and put its password in an envelope so people can use it in an emergency. But keep all the other user accounts in a sandbox. It's really not hard to configure it this way, and on the few occasions when anyone truly needs admin access they can authenticate right then for that one task, and then return to user status for everything else. That's one of the really good points of a well-designed UNIX-based setup, and OS X makes it fairly easy to do so.
Mac Mini server = $999
Lenovo IdeaCenter server/with Linux server software = $499
As long as we're promoting fantasy solutions:
Sun Fire X4240 server/with Solaris server software = $0 (stolen)
I think you missed the entire point of the discussion thus far, in terms of overall cost to deploy.
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.
1) You get FireWire 800 with the Mac Mini and you can hook up to 63 FireWire devices on that. Let's see. You can get 1.5 TB hard drives and 1.5 * 63 = 94.5 TB in addition to the 1 TB that you get internally for a total of 95.5 TB of disk space. Is that not enough for you?
2) For the HP computer you are missing some things that the Mini has. Like also have 5 USB 2 ports on it and a FULL version of Mac OS X Server. Windows Home Server is a joke. A bad joke.
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.