[olePigeon]

I was writing a paper on TCO and was doing price comparisons for a dual CPU server, this is what Microsoft charges:

Windows 2003 Server Unlimited Client - US $7999
Windows 2003 Server Terminal Access - US $3999
Microsoft SQL Server Standard Edition - US $4999 (per processor)

Required Software Assurance (per year) - 25% of total cost.

Total License - US $21996
Software Assurance - US $5499 (per year)

Total - US $27495

You could easily tack on a couple grand more for your SA on Office, but I'm only doing server comparison. You could also get away with MySQL on there and take off $10000. But Microsoft claims they're cheaper, so we'll go with their solution.

Mac OS X Server 10.3 Unlimited Client - US $999 (per server)
Terminal Access - US $0
MySQL - US $0

Optional Server Support Plan - US $5995

Total License - US $999
Support Plan - US $5995

Total - US $6994


RedHat Linux Enterprise - US $0
Terminal Access - US $0
Optional RedHat Premium Support - US $2499

Total License - US $0
RedHat Premium Support - US $2499

Total - US $2499


Linux was by far the cheapest. But for support reasons, I'd go with OS X. You get the manageability of Windows with the power of Linux (well, UNIX anyway.) WHY IN HELL WOULD ANYONE GO WITH WINDOWS?! I can't figure it out.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Because downloading it and running a crack is cheap.

I wouldn't use it for free though.

[Angus_D]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Mac OS X Server 10.3 Unlimited Client - US $999 (per server)
Terminal Access - US $0

Uh, except OS X doesn't provide anything like Terminal Services on Windows.

Linux was by far the cheapest. But for support reasons, I'd go with OS X.

For Enterprise support, I'd be surprised if Apple beats Red Hat.

[Paco500]

Originally posted by Angus_D:
Uh, except OS X doesn't provide anything like Terminal Services on Windows.

Which pisses me off to this day. NeXTSTEP had it- seriously, WTF?

For Enterprise support, I'd be surprised if Apple beats Red Hat.

Mixed bag, I've been fabulously disappointed by both. I ain't no genius, but when I have a problem I can't solve, neither of them have been much help- same is true of MS as well. At least w/ Apple, you don't get into the blame the other guy loop- is it the hardware or the software? It's always the other guy.

[Oneota]

Originally posted by Angus_D:
For Enterprise support, I'd be surprised if Apple beats Red Hat.

You'd be surprised. Apple Professional (aka Enterprise) support is surprisingly good. I've been in direct contact with the engineers who wrote the code in some instances, thanks to their escalation policies.

[Sarc]

Originally posted by Angus_D:
Uh, except OS X doesn't provide anything like Terminal Services on Windows.

anyone care to ellaborate on what this is ?

[ManOfSteal]

Originally posted by Oneota:
You'd be surprised. Apple Professional (aka Enterprise) support is surprisingly good. I've been in direct contact with the engineers who wrote the code in some instances, thanks to their escalation policies.

Ditto, that team of 3 or 4 is very, VERY good actually.

[istallion]

Originally posted by Sarc:
anyone care to ellaborate on what this is ?

It allows remote users to connect to a server like a terminal in the old days. It's like VNC, remote desktop, any of the hundred other remote control programs except it's better. It draws the screen maybe 5 times faster over my cable modem than VNC does over 100mbit ethernet.

[legacyb4]

It provides a virtual session (up to two in Administration mode which is "free") which allows the sysadmin work with the machine remotely as if they were on-site. If you command-click the connection, you CAN connect to the local console session of the server.

Works wonderfully.

Originally posted by istallion:
It allows remote users to connect to a server like a terminal in the old days. It's like VNC, remote desktop, any of the hundred other remote control programs except it's better. It draws the screen maybe 5 times faster over my cable modem than VNC does over 100mbit ethernet.

[legacyb4]

Honestly, until someone comes out with a superior, better marketed, and functionally equivalent of Exchange, bug-ridden as it may be, companies are going to be hard-pressed to give up the email/calendaring/public folders workgroup solution forced upon us by Microsoft.

Originally posted by olePigeon:
WHY IN HELL WOULD ANYONE GO WITH WINDOWS?! I can't figure it out.

[The Mick]

Originally posted by legacyb4:
Honestly, until someone comes out with a superior, better marketed, and functionally equivalent of Exchange, bug-ridden as it may be, companies are going to be hard-pressed to give up the email/calendaring/public folders workgroup solution forced upon us by Microsoft.

Bingo.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by istallion:
It allows remote users to connect to a server like a terminal in the old days. It's like VNC, remote desktop, any of the hundred other remote control programs except it's better. It draws the screen maybe 5 times faster over my cable modem than VNC does over 100mbit ethernet.

You mean like setting up shell accounts in OS X and have people SSH?

[Angus_D]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
You mean like setting up shell accounts in OS X and have people SSH?

No, because that's commandline and not GUI. With Terminal Services you get an actual desktop session, not just a command line.

[effgee]

Originally posted by Angus_D:
No, because that's commandline and not GUI. With Terminal Services you get an actual desktop session, not just a command line.

I'm curious - how is that better than/different from ARD/Timbuktu?

[Angus_D]

Originally posted by effgee:
I'm curious - how is that better than/different from ARD/Timbuktu?

With ARD/Timbuktu you just take over the console remotely. With Terminal Services, you actually get a session. So you can have multiple TS clients logged in at once to the same server, you can suspend the session and come back later and it's exactly the same, etc.

[Angus_D]

Originally posted by Oneota:
You'd be surprised. Apple Professional (aka Enterprise) support is surprisingly good. I've been in direct contact with the engineers who wrote the code in some instances, thanks to their escalation policies.

Try and get roadmap information or a commitment to support out of Apple. When will they end support for Panther after Tiger is released? How long can we expect security updates for Jaguar to continue?

Try and get them to acknowledge a security vulnerability before they've released a patch (1-2 weeks at the absolute minimum).

[mitchell_pgh]

I think Microsoft has many people fooled in to thinking that they need the $7K plus systems when a $4K Mac would do the same thing (probably with less headach).

My previous employer had a Dell server with Server 2003 and it was a nightmare. Granted... they didn't know what they were doing (hosting a handful of web pages and streaming video/audio) but they could have handled it better on cheaper Mac hardware (or even x86 Linux box)

But the system admins feel better using a wizzard to set everything up.

[legacyb4]

It really depends on what purpose the server is for. Again, Exchange will ONLY run on Windows Server so if your company is tied to that as a primary messaging/workgroup solution, you really have no choice for that part. Likewise, if the programmers working on the website are programming using Windows technologies (it does happen, you know), then again, they are somewhat restricted to choice of OS.

It's a pity said sysadmins are not more platform-agnostic; I had to help a friend set up Entourage to talk IMAP to an Exchange server because her sysadmin said that he wouldn't be able to help. That type of mentality really drives me nuts because a mail client is a mail client, regardless of OS.

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I think Microsoft has many people fooled in to thinking that they need the $7K plus systems when a $4K Mac would do the same thing (probably with less headach).

My previous employer had a Dell server with Server 2003 and it was a nightmare. Granted... they didn't know what they were doing (hosting a handful of web pages and streaming video/audio) but they could have handled it better on cheaper Mac hardware (or even x86 Linux box)

But the system admins feel better using a wizzard to set everything up.

[Eriamjh]

Don't forget the hardware...

[Scotttheking]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
I was writing a paper on TCO and was doing price comparisons for a dual CPU server, this is what Microsoft charges:

Windows 2003 Server Unlimited Client - US $7999
Windows 2003 Server Terminal Access - US $3999
Microsoft SQL Server Standard Edition - US $4999 (per processor)

Required Software Assurance (per year) - 25% of total cost.

Total License - US $21996
Software Assurance - US $5499 (per year)

You don't have to get software assurance, and it'll get you the next version at no cost if you do get it.
You have terminal server in there, but don't have any equivalent (there isn't one) for the Mac.
You use SQL Server here, but for the Mac you use mysql (hint, not even in the same league).
Fix your numbers.

You could easily tack on a couple grand more for your SA on Office, but I'm only doing server comparison. You could also get away with MySQL on there and take off $10000. But Microsoft claims they're cheaper, so we'll go with their solution.

Compare to Oracle, not mysql.

Mac OS X Server 10.3 Unlimited Client - US $999 (per server)
Terminal Access - US $0
MySQL - US $0

There is no equivalent to Terminal Server for the Mac. Period.
If you want SQL Server above, you'd better put Oracle on here.
And don't forget the 2 or 3 version of OSX Server you have to upgrade to when Apple drops support the day after they release the new version.

Optional Server Support Plan - US $5995

Eh? What exactly does this offer you...? I wouldn't be surprised if it's part of the Windows cost.

Total License - US $999
Support Plan - US $5995

Total - US $6994

And it doesn't compare to what you get for Windows.

RedHat Linux Enterprise - US $0
Terminal Access - US $0
Optional RedHat Premium Support - US $2499

BULL. No company will buy it without support. Red Hat ES is $720.

Total License - US $0
RedHat Premium Support - US $2499

Total - US $2499

fix your numbers

Linux was by far the cheapest. But for support reasons, I'd go with OS X. You get the manageability of Windows with the power of Linux (well, UNIX anyway.) WHY IN HELL WOULD ANYONE GO WITH WINDOWS?! I can't figure it out.

Windows has a much longer support window, better tools, etc. Come back after you've actually used some of the OSes you are talking about.

I'm not up for doing a point by point, but windows server offers so much more than OSX Server.
Linux offers other advantages.

It's not so clear, but to someone on the outside they just won't get it.

[Oneota]

Originally posted by Scotttheking:

And don't forget the 2 or 3 version of OSX Server you have to upgrade to when Apple drops support the day after they release the new version.

Sorry, but I have to call bull on this. Apple Enterprise support continues to support older versions of Server software for quite some time after new versions are released. While I don't have any Jaguar servers at the moment, I have no doubt that if I did, I could still call them up and get any issues taken care of without their solution being "Upgrade to Panther/Tiger" (unless the problem was a bug or missing feature that could only be solved by newer software).

The lesser support options might not have as big a support window, but if you're willing to pay for a decent support contract, then you'll have no issues getting the support you've paid for.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Scotttheking:
You don't have to get software assurance, and it'll get you the next version at no cost if you do get it.

How is that at no cost if you're paying for SA? On Windows Server 2003 you save about $2000 assuming the next version comes out within 3 years. Pretty good savings. But if it doesn't, you just lost $5000.

You have terminal server in there, but don't have any equivalent (there isn't one) for the Mac.

Yes there is, it's called Shell Accounts and SSH. Ironically, it's Windows that has the GUI, but a shell account is still a fully functional terminal service. Windows used to be command line only too. I've yet to look up on 10.4 Server features, but perhaps Apple's stuck a GUI on now.

You use SQL Server here, but for the Mac you use mysql (hint, not even in the same league).

Any particular reason why MySQL can't be as robust as Microsoft SQL? Or perhaps even FileMaker.

There is no equivalent to Terminal Server for the Mac. Period.

Shell Account and SSH.

And don't forget the 2 or 3 version of OSX Server you have to upgrade to when Apple drops support the day after they release the new version.

No, you get free upgrades up to 3 versions. You also can get an occasional free hardware upgrade. When our original XServe had a logic board problem, they upgraded our Dual G4 XServe to a Dual G5 XServe at no cost. Not only did our XServe originally come with 10.2, we got 10.3 for free when that came out (not including the 10.3 that came with the replacement sever), and we're getting 10.4 as well for free.

Eh? What exactly does this offer you...? I wouldn't be surprised if it's part of the Windows cost.

Free software upgrades. Free, instant phone support (no waiting). Free onsite, same-day repair. Free ProCare support (it's like have a Mac Genius on the phone.) Apple will even come out and set up the server for you if you want them to. Since we have able-bodied technicians here, we didn't request that.

And it doesn't compare to what you get for Windows.

I think it compares pretty damn well.

BULL. No company will buy it without support. Red Hat ES is $720.

Um, that's why I included the Premium Support.

fix your numbers

I think they're fine.

Windows has a much longer support window, better tools, etc.

The support window is identical. You pay for how long you want to use it. In large environments, Mac OS X is infinitely cheaper because it's a fixed cost and not an annual percentage. The tools are different, but neither better than the other. Well, except for Workgroup Manager. Man I love that.

Come back after you've actually used some of the OSes you are talking about.

Likewise.

I'm not up for doing a point by point, but windows server offers so much more than OSX Server.

I disagree.

Linux offers other advantages.

I'd agree.

[Angus_D]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Yes there is, it's called Shell Accounts and SSH. Ironically, it's Windows that has the GUI, but a shell account is still a fully functional terminal service. Windows used to be command line only too. I've yet to look up on 10.4 Server features, but perhaps Apple's stuck a GUI on now.

Shell != GUI. There is no equivalent to Terminal Services for Mac OS X, period.

Any particular reason why MySQL can't be as robust as Microsoft SQL? Or perhaps even FileMaker.

I'm sorry, but you're just showing yourself to be completely and utterly clueless. Oracle is probably going to be $5k+. Per processor.

Free software upgrades. Free, instant phone support (no waiting). Free onsite, same-day repair. Free ProCare support (it's like have a Mac Genius on the phone.) Apple will even come out and set up the server for you if you want them to. Since we have able-bodied technicians here, we didn't request that.

It appears to me that on-site for hardware repairs is only included if you purchase AppleCare Premium Service and Support for Xserve ($950). And you're certainly limited in the number of incidents you get for $5k, you'll need to pay more if you use more than 10 in a year.

The support window is identical. You pay for how long you want to use it. In large environments, Mac OS X is infinitely cheaper because it's a fixed cost and not an annual percentage. The tools are different, but neither better than the other. Well, except for Workgroup Manager. Man I love that.

Workgroup Manager is a steaming pile of poo. It's only just about becoming acceptable, and we're at least 4 years down the line. Open Directory is somewhat sketchy (if you don't believe me, read the code) and causes no end of problems for many people.

Windows 2000 is still supported by Microsoft. Mac OS 9 has been classed as legacy and decrepit etc etc by Apple for 2 years now. Try getting support for 10.0 or 10.1, or a commitment for how long Jaguar will be supported for.

[Link]

<flamebait> But like OS 9, windows 2000 is a steaming pile of ****.</flamebait>

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Angus_D:
Shell != GUI.

Yes, I said that. Read my post.

There is no equivalent to Terminal Services for Mac OS X, period.

Because it doesn't have a GUI? If that's your only basis for comparison, I guess you're right. Doesn't mean it's not as capable as Windows' Terminal Services.

I'm sorry, but you're just showing yourself to be completely and utterly clueless. Oracle is probably going to be $5k+. Per processor.

If you're doing a relatively straight-forward database for, say, a 500-1000 employee company or perhaps a school, why do you have to use Oracle? Why can't you use MySQL? Or Open Sybase? Or use FileMaker? Any number of options available for the Mac OS X that are a LOT cheaper than Microsoft and can accomplish the same goal.

I'm not saying that Microsoft SQL Server isn't more robust and/or full featured as MySQL, FileMaker, or Sybase (yes, you may very well have to compare it to Oracle for a feature by feature comparison), but my point is that you can accomplish the same goals with cheaper tools (and people do!) Take Apple's PowerSchool for example.

It appears to me that on-site for hardware repairs is only included if you purchase AppleCare Premium Service and Support for Xserve ($950). And you're certainly limited in the number of incidents you get for $5k, you'll need to pay more if you use more than 10 in a year.

That's a bad thing? If your server is having more than 10 hardware problems per year, there is something seriously wrong. It took only ONE hardware problem with our server for them to just completely replace the unit. Now it's been running for the past year and a half with zero problems.

I can't imagine, even with a PC server, having more than 10 hardware failures. That's just ridiculous.

It's only just about becoming acceptable, and we're at least 4 years down the line. Open Directory is somewhat sketchy (if you don't believe me, read the code) and causes no end of problems for many people.

My only gripe with Manager is no bulk account management (like importing a database of users, modifying shared permissions, settings, etc.) But that's being included in 10.4, so no worries.

Active Directory is no less a nightmare than Open Directory. The CS' department's server goes down at least once a year, if not more because of Active Directory. Their Exchange server goes down at least as many times as well.

Windows 2000 is still supported by Microsoft. Mac OS 9 has been classed as legacy and decrepit etc etc by Apple for 2 years now. Try getting support for 10.0 or 10.1, or a commitment for how long Jaguar will be supported for.

I'm trying to think of an organization with 50+ OS X capable Macs that are dependent on OS 9, 10.0, 10.1, or even 10.2 that they can't switch to 10.3. Even if it's a financial reason why they don't upgrade, at only $40 a seat for Tiger, that's a steal compared to Windows. Even if you upgraded OS X every single year for three years, it'd still be cheaper than upgrading from 98 to XP just once.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Angus_D:
Workgroup Manager is a steaming pile of poo. It's only just about becoming acceptable, and we're at least 4 years down the line. Open Directory is somewhat sketchy (if you don't believe me, read the code) and causes no end of problems for many people.

Windows 2000 is still supported by Microsoft. Mac OS 9 has been classed as legacy and decrepit etc etc by Apple for 2 years now. Try getting support for 10.0 or 10.1, or a commitment for how long Jaguar will be supported for.

I agree with much of what you said, but this struck me as simply odd.

OS X is 5 years old (not counting pre PPC)... where the NT foundation is well over a 9+ old (if not older). On the poo scale, I think Apple is on par with much of their technology. Naturally Apple will always be trailing M$ somehow (simply because of the pure number of engineers working on the OS)

[b]OS 9 IS legacy[b]
OS 9 was the epitome of a legacy OS out of the gates. While I have great nostalgia for OS 9 it is literally on par with Windows 3.11 technically speaking. Just because Apple was forced to continue "resuscitating" the OS with a new paint job didn't address the underlying fact that OS 9/8/7 was OLD WORLD OS technology. No protected memory, VERY poor virtual memory, no preemptive multitasking, almost nonexistent multiprocessor support, VERY poor networking options, etc. etc. etc.

While I respect designers running around with OS 9, Quark 4.1 and Photoshop 6 on their systems, I'm the first one to say "you are living on borrowed time".

And why would ANYONE be running 10.0 considering 10.1 was a FREE upgrade? (I realize I'm splitting hairs) I understand what you are saying regarding Windows and their long maintenance cycles, but Apple isn't charging an arm and a leg for upgrades either.

[Oneota]

Originally posted by Angus_D:
It appears to me that on-site for hardware repairs is only included if you purchase AppleCare Premium Service and Support for Xserve ($950). And you're certainly limited in the number of incidents you get for $5k, you'll need to pay more if you use more than 10 in a year.

They only actually subtract an incident if your problem requires Tier 3 support, though. If the tech you're talking to can solve the problem without escalation, then you get unlimited support calls for the price of your contract. Pretty nifty, if you ask me.

[Scotttheking]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Yes, I said that. Read my post.



Because it doesn't have a GUI? If that's your only basis for comparison, I guess you're right. Doesn't mean it's not as capable as Windows' Terminal Services.



If you're doing a relatively straight-forward database for, say, a 500-1000 employee company or perhaps a school, why do you have to use Oracle? Why can't you use MySQL? Or Open Sybase? Or use FileMaker? Any number of options available for the Mac OS X that are a LOT cheaper than Microsoft and can accomplish the same goal.

I'm not saying that Microsoft SQL Server isn't more robust and/or full featured as MySQL, FileMaker, or Sybase (yes, you may very well have to compare it to Oracle for a feature by feature comparison), but my point is that you can accomplish the same goals with cheaper tools (and people do!) Take Apple's PowerSchool for example.



That's a bad thing? If your server is having more than 10 hardware problems per year, there is something seriously wrong. It took only ONE hardware problem with our server for them to just completely replace the unit. Now it's been running for the past year and a half with zero problems.

I can't imagine, even with a PC server, having more than 10 hardware failures. That's just ridiculous.



My only gripe with Manager is no bulk account management (like importing a database of users, modifying shared permissions, settings, etc.) But that's being included in 10.4, so no worries.

Active Directory is no less a nightmare than Open Directory. The CS' department's server goes down at least once a year, if not more because of Active Directory. Their Exchange server goes down at least as many times as well.



I'm trying to think of an organization with 50+ OS X capable Macs that are dependent on OS 9, 10.0, 10.1, or even 10.2 that they can't switch to 10.3. Even if it's a financial reason why they don't upgrade, at only $40 a seat for Tiger, that's a steal compared to Windows. Even if you upgraded OS X every single year for three years, it'd still be cheaper than upgrading from 98 to XP just once.

If you don't understand the functional difference to the end user between terminal services and ssh, the feature differences between mysql and MS SQL (and for that matter oracle), the functional admistration differences between OSX Server and Windows server, and the issues with using less than latest software versions, along with known support timelines, then this discussion is absolutely pointless, because you won't understand anything I'm saying.

Thus, there is no point in discussing this further.

--Scott

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Scotttheking:
If you don't understand the functional difference to the end user between terminal services and ssh, the feature differences between mysql and MS SQL (and for that matter oracle), the functional admistration differences between OSX Server and Windows server, and the issues with using less than latest software versions, along with known support timelines, then this discussion is absolutely pointless, because you won't understand anything I'm saying.

Such as thin clients and terminals? Each user has their own terminal running off the server instead of an actual computer at their desk. Sometimes combined with Active Directory for specialized "home" folders, authentication, and customized applications and privileges?

An actual desktop versus a command line where people can use their office apps and what not. Yes, I see what you're talking about. I was looking at it from the administrative standpoint and I do feel like an idiot for not realizing that.

However, you can couple Open Directory with Netboot and get a very similar experience. fFrom my own experience, this was very difficult to set up. I'm not a pro IT guy so I probably made it more difficult than it needed to be.

You may be right that Windows makes this process relatively easy. So I will concede that argument. However, with a little search on the cost effectiveness of thin clients vs. thick clients, that's another argument in itself. Whether or not you actually save a lot of money on a thin client setup is up for debate.

[Zimphire]

[Oneota]

Originally posted by olePigeon:

However, you can couple Open Directory with Netboot and get a very similar experience.

Not really, because the processing would still be done on the workstation in front of you, whereas with Terminal Services you're running everything right on the server.

The closest analog on the Mac would be installing XWindows and initiating a remote X11 session over SSH - you'd have your own GUI on your computer, but all the actual processing would be done on the machine hosting the X11 session. You also wouldn't need to have the apps you're running installed on your machine, as they would be run right from the server.

[Angus_D]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Because it doesn't have a GUI? If that's your only basis for comparison, I guess you're right. Doesn't mean it's not as capable as Windows' Terminal Services.

Sure it does. It means you can't run arbitrary GUI applications on it.

If you're doing a relatively straight-forward database for, say, a 500-1000 employee company or perhaps a school, why do you have to use Oracle? Why can't you use MySQL? Or Open Sybase? Or use FileMaker? Any number of options available for the Mac OS X that are a LOT cheaper than Microsoft and can accomplish the same goal.

You don't have to use Oracle. If you want support, you have to go with Oracle. Of course, Oracle support costs a bomb, but if you're an enterprise and you care about that sort of thing. FileMaker sucks. I'd personally go with PostgreSQL, it sucks a lot less than MySQL.

Also, MySQL is available on Windows.

That's a bad thing? If your server is having more than 10 hardware problems per year, there is something seriously wrong. It took only ONE hardware problem with our server for them to just completely replace the unit. Now it's been running for the past year and a half with zero problems.

The 10 incidents refers to the OS X Server support, not the Xserve Protection Plan.

[Link]

The one thing conviniently forgotten, is in bulk you could probably beat a bunch of dumb terminals with cheap netboot machines (mac minis) -- but that is probably pushing it.. $200 per LCD, $50 per keyboard/mouse, $500 per machine..

Yeah $750 + the server..

Might still be cheaper than licensing windows TS though.. hahahahahahahahh

Obviously from an MCSE's standpoint, spending $1200 on dells, loading a thin client boot on them, and then loading windows remotely on each one is a FAR better idea (essentially what most schools and government offices do)..

I like your ideas about promoting TS, the fact is that it's almost never actually used properly.