[besson3c]

Okay,

I had a little extra time today and finally decided to do some research here so that I would know what literature to actually believe. Here is what I found out...

I compared the XServe to Dell since both are targeting small business, use similar classes of hardware, and seemed the most comparable. So, I tackled this in the mindset of a small business person.

As it turns out, Dell will sell you your hardware for a cheaper price, and will offer a 30% discount for registered small business. This is a significant savings in price (about half price!). Dell will offer cheaper onsite hardware support looking at Dell's Silver package, which is comparable to Premium Applecare.

Apple's software support is ridiculously expensive starting at $6000, I didn't factor this into the mix.

However, when you factor in client licenses, this is where it gets interesting. Windows client licenses get progressively more expensive beyond the included 5. Apple offers an unlimited client license for $1000. For companies of a certain size, an Apple setup may end up being cheaper. Factor in anti-virus software and this also works in Apple's favor.

However, compared to Linux, Apple's offerings come up quite short. That same software support is offered by Redhat for $250/year. $250 will put you on the Redhat network. I don't know how this level of service compares, but when you also consider the fact that there is no per-license fee under Redhat Linux, and of course free versions of Linux which are available, I can see how Linux would begin to become very attractive to small business. Of course, one would have to account for staffing and such, but this is outside of the scope of this comparison.

It appears that Apple is really going after the Windows market here, and are using the angle of software licenses as a leverage point. However, if I were a small business, I'd save a lot going with a Dell running Linux in terms of sticker price.

[analogika]

Question remains how set-up and maintenence staff costs measure up between Linux and OS X Server.

[olePigeon]

Don't forget that Microsoft also charges annual Client Access License fees, on top of software and user licenses. 4-hour (and in Apple's case, even 1-hour) onsite support services are all expensive regardless the hardware vendor.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Question remains how set-up and maintenence staff costs measure up between Linux and OS X Server.

That would be interesting. Overall cost of operation is cheaper than Windows when using Linux and/or OS X. But between those two, I haven't a clue.

UNIX Certification is apart of the OS X Server software certification. I also haven't a clue what the going salary is for an OS X administrator. Linux, from what I understand, commands a higher salary than your average MCSE (cheaper by the dozen?)

[Art Vandelay]

It wasn't clear in your post but the $1000 unlimited client license for OS X Server is included with all Xserves. It's not an extra cost.

[Kevin]

You are talking servers right? Nothing else?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay 

It wasn't clear in your post but the $1000 unlimited client license for OS X Server is included with all Xserves. It's not an extra cost.

Correct. OS X Server is free if you buy an XServe. It only costs money if you buy the software separately.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

You are talking servers right? Nothing else?

Hardware-wise, Apple's XServes are on par or cheaper than Dell and/or HP.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Question remains how set-up and maintenence staff costs measure up between Linux and OS X Server.

Yeah, I thought about that, but I just don't think there is a very scientific way of measuring that. I'll grant that Linux admins probably cost more than Windows admins, and possibly Mac admins, but I would also imagine that there would be more Linux admins out there than Mac admins. This is just speculation though...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Don't forget that Microsoft also charges annual Client Access License fees, on top of software and user licenses. 4-hour (and in Apple's case, even 1-hour) onsite support services are all expensive regardless the hardware vendor.

The CAL fees are exactly what I was accounting for when I was talking about Apple's $1000 unlimited license version of OS X Server.

As far as hardware support, the Dell silver support was a little cheaper than Apple Premium, like I said. It was the software support which I commented on as being expensive. I left this out of my calculations though.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay 

It wasn't clear in your post but the $1000 unlimited client license for OS X Server is included with all Xserves. It's not an extra cost.

Ahhh... okay. Who in their right mind would buy OS X Server with an unlimited license to put on a Mac Pro though?

I guess Apple just came up with a BS price so that it looked good to market.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Hardware-wise, Apple's XServes are on par or cheaper than Dell and/or HP.

No, they aren't. At least not compared against Dell. Dell's server equipped identically was literally half the price after that 30% discount.

I don't know if it is fair to compare the XServe to the HP though, since HP is going for the larger mainframe market. HPs most expensive offerings aren't really in the same class as the XServe in terms of expensive storage, and likely the quality of transistors used in motherboards and stuff. There is a reason why any server grade hardware is more expensive than consumer grade hardware. Take disks, for example...

Of course, many companies are getting away from mainframes and into clustering of cheaper hardware though, which is another reason for comparing Dell against Apple since their offerings seem well designed for this sort of purpose.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Ahhh... okay. Who in their right mind would buy OS X Server with an unlimited license to put on a Mac Pro though?

I guess Apple just came up with a BS price so that it looked good to market.

A lot of people will buy it to use on existing hardware that they already have. An Xserve can be overkill for small workgroups.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay 

A lot of people will buy it to use on existing hardware that they already have. An Xserve can be overkill for small workgroups.

But the price difference between a the 10 and unlimited license version is $800... That can be put towards a new machine!

Okay, I get your point... I suppose there are some people who would do this, but probably not many.

[Kevin]

I don't know many people who use Apple hardware/software for server work anyhow. Apple isn't that big in the server market.

I guess when comparing linux with something, it has to be server related since thats about all it does well.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

But the price difference between a the 10 and unlimited license version is $800... That can be put towards a new machine!

Okay, I get your point... I suppose there are some people who would do this, but probably not many.

The difference is $500. $499 for 10-client.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

No, they aren't. At least not compared against Dell. Dell's server equipped identically was literally half the price after that 30% discount.

I'd like to see that. I'm also assuming 1U rackmount enclosure with dual Dual Core Xeon.

[MindFad]

I just FTP'd into my webspace and transfered some images. And I liked it.

[Kevin]

You didn't use a GUI FTP client did you? Cause if you did you better not have payed for it. Cause people will circle you and belittle you for it.

When I say people, I actually just mean one or two.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay 

The difference is $500. $499 for 10-client.

Yes, my mistake.. I was thinking about OS X Client for some reason (which is $200, IIRC).

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I'd like to see that. I'm also assuming 1U rackmount enclosure with dual Dual Core Xeon.

Go ahead and configure yourself a server:

Dell PowerEdge Rack Optimized Servers

I used the Poweredge 1950 as a base.


I must have made a mistake before since the Dell is only a little over $1000 cheaper

Xserve Quad Xeon

Quantity:
1
Item Price:
$3,198.00

AppleCare Premium Service and Support for Xserve

Quantity:
1
Item Price:
$950.00

Cart Subtotal:
$4,148.00

Free Shipping:
$0.00

Est. Tax*:
Not found

Est. Total:
$4,148.00



PowerEdge 1950
Dual Core Intel® Xeon® 5130, 4MB Cache, 2.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB, No Operating System

$4,213.00
Save 30% on PowerEdge 1950 servers through Dell Small Business

- $1,266.01

Sub-total $2,946.99

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yes, my mistake.. I was thinking about OS X Client for some reason (which is $200, IIRC).

Nope, it's $129.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay 

Nope, it's $129.

Hehhe... 0 for 2 there. Serves me right for being too lazy to check on that

[Art Vandelay]

Your Dell example doesn't include an OS. Subtract $1000 from the Xserve for OSXS Unlimited, then your $1000 price difference vanishes.

[residentEvil]

i declare the entire thread worthless. try to do your homework a little better next time.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay 

Your Dell example doesn't include an OS. Subtract $1000 from the Xserve for OSXS Unlimited, then your $1000 price difference vanishes.

Like I said in my original post, that only applies to Windows. Red Hat Linux is an additional $250, which doesn't make up for this price difference.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by residentEvil 

i declare the entire thread worthless. try to do your homework a little better next time.

I did not do my homework on OS X Server standalone prices, but I assure you everything else in here is accurate. You are welcome to dispute whatever you want though.

[shinji]

Just curious...why would someone use OS X Server specifically, who is it targeted to?

[OreoCookie]

I agree that setup is really the most important point other than service. That's why Windows Server exists: people think it's easier to set up than Linux. In principle Linux can do pretty much everything, but you have to have someone who knows how to fiddle with the system. The big advantage of OS X server is that there are (relatively) simple user interfaces that just work for most people.

For companies with a dedicated IT department, this obviously doesn't matter. For the rest, it does. A simple fact ist that hardware costs are usually just a fraction of what a guy costs to maintain the stuff. What's another $1000 for a server if you need to pay someone $500/month to maintain the stuff?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by shinji 

Just curious...why would someone use OS X Server specifically, who is it targeted to?

I've asked the same question in the past. The answer I got, which seems to make the most sense, is small business folk who are looking for something simple and basic.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I agree that setup is really the most important point other than service. That's why Windows Server exists: people think it's easier to set up than Linux. In principle Linux can do pretty much everything, but you have to have someone who knows how to fiddle with the system. The big advantage of OS X server is that there are (relatively) simple user interfaces that just work for most people.

For companies with a dedicated IT department, this obviously doesn't matter. For the rest, it does. A simple fact ist that hardware costs are usually just a fraction of what a guy costs to maintain the stuff. What's another $1000 for a server if you need to pay someone $500/month to maintain the stuff?

Servers don't just run on their own. You'd be a complete idiot boss if you ran your company without an IT specialist, even if just one that can be called upon on an as-needed basic. This comes down to the difference in what you would pay for a Linux vs. Mac vs. Windows guy/girl.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Like I said in my original post, that only applies to Windows. Red Hat Linux is an additional $250, which doesn't make up for this price difference.

That doesn't make sense. Xserves come with $1000 of software. Strip that off and the hardware is about the same price. You're cherry picking what you want to believe.

There's a $1000 feature on Xserves that isn't available on any other server. You've got to account for that in your comparisons.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay 

That doesn't make sense. Xserves come with $1000 of software. Strip that off and the hardware is about the same price. You're cherry picking what you want to believe.

Cherry picking? Are you really going to run a computer without an operating system? Either way you look at it, you are going to have to put some sort of operating system on the computer. I didn't see an option for removing OS X Server from the XServe altogether, so at the end of the day the hardware costs what it costs, no matter how the final cost is derived.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Servers don't just run on their own. You'd be a complete idiot boss if you ran your company without an IT specialist, even if just one that can be called upon on an as-needed basic. This comes down to the difference in what you would pay for a Linux vs. Mac vs. Windows guy/girl.

Eeeh, yeah, those people exist.
I was once hired by a doctor. She just used the same computer system the previous doctor ran. The server was quite modern, it was a Pentium II 350 running Windows 98. It was called a server, because it had a streamer to back up data. Her computer was running Windows 95. Since it was running some special software, you couldn't just update everything to -- say -- Windows 2000 and be done with it.
Of course it is stupid to do this, I'm not denying that. But it's rather the rule than the exception with smaller companies.

She also hired me to fix her laptop. It turned out that her POS Acer notebook's harddrive was broken and we needed to transfer about 20 GB of data to their home server and then check the harddrive manually. That day, she didn't like that I got paid by the hour. Her boyfriend wasn't much better: he works in the financial sector (!) and believes that there is no need for him to use passwords. The pin of his ATM card is 0000.

All I'm saying is that these people exist. It's unfortunate, but they do.

In some smaller companies, one of the employees is in charge of that and this is the market Apple is targeting: simple maintenance and setup is paramount here.

[besson3c]

Oreo: fair enough, but the legal definition of "small business" in the US can include companies with literally several hundred employees. This large umbrella is the demographic that Apple and Dell seem to be targeting.

[- - e r i k - -]

Speaking of which, I believe the X in XServe stands for Mac OS X. Is it stil pronounced ex-serve, or is it really TenServe?

[Kevin]

DoublePostination

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Servers don't just run on their own. You'd be a complete idiot boss if you ran your company without an IT specialist, even if just one that can be called upon on an as-needed basic. This comes down to the difference in what you would pay for a Linux vs. Mac vs. Windows guy/girl.

Our smaller internal office has 6 Macs. I am one of the graphic designers, but I also do the maintenance work and admin work and such with said computers.

This is how it is in A LOT of Mac based offices. You don't NEED a IT specialist to run such a network or such Macs.

Of the last 3 graphics jobs I have gotten, Mac admin experience was required. Very few companies will pay someone full-time to come and admin something that rarely messes up or needs futzed with. Doing so would make a boss a complete idiot.

Originally Posted by residentEvil 

i declare the entire thread worthless. try to do your homework a little better next time.

Plus Won.

Stick a fork in it.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Servers don't just run on their own. You'd be a complete idiot boss if you ran your company without an IT specialist.

Especially one who forgets to add an operating system to the configuration of a server or still doesn't know how much the latest OS X client costs after it has been on the shelf for two years.

[Kevin]

I am waiting for besson to throw a lung out on the counter and tell us "That is what your lung looks like if you don't use Linux"

Replace the .nix rah rahing with Chewlies gum.

[besson3c]

So, have any of you guys tried the Dell server configuration yet?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I guess when comparing linux with something, it has to be server related since thats about all it does well.

Not anymore. I use Ubuntu 6.10 on a regular basis at home, and I love it. It works with my iPod, has a digital picture manager similar to Picasa, can run certain Windows applications using WINE (including Photoshop 7), has multiple media player options, can work with all your existing files and documents, and can even write to NTFS volumes by installing a simple update to the OS. Ubuntu finds and mounts your existing hard drives (and any external storage you plug in at any time) automatically, so there's no setup required from the get-go.

Seriously. Have you used an all-in-one Linux distro recently? Ubuntu, Fedora, OpenSuse...all of them kick ass and can legitimately work as home operating systems. The one (and I mean one) thing that stops many home users from using them is that they don't look exactly like Windows, so there's a learning curve (just like there would be if you moved from XP to OS X for the first time).

[besson3c]

The one weak point that remains in Desktop Linux is Xorg IMHO, shifulmam. I don't know if your experience matches mine?

It is a PITA to connect a second display and handle the monitor arrangement and resolution and all that. Part of this is because the system I was using had an ATI video card in it, and the proprietary ATI driver was lacking (and the open source driver does not work with Beryl/Compiz), so there are driver related bottlenecks. Still, obviously Xorg configurations are not yet Grandma friendly like other parts of Gnome/Ubuntu are becoming.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Not anymore. I use Ubuntu 6.10 on a regular basis at home, and I love it. It works with my iPod, has a digital picture manager similar to Picasa, can run certain Windows applications using WINE (including Photoshop 7), has multiple media player options, can work with all your existing files and documents, and can even write to NTFS volumes by installing a simple update to the OS. Ubuntu finds and mounts your existing hard drives (and any external storage you plug in at any time) automatically, so there's no setup required from the get-go.

Seriously. Have you used an all-in-one Linux distro recently? Ubuntu, Fedora, OpenSuse...all of them kick ass and can legitimately work as home operating systems. The one (and I mean one) thing that stops many home users from using them is that they don't look exactly like Windows, so there's a learning curve (just like there would be if you moved from XP to OS X for the first time).

I said DOES IT WELL. Linux can do lots of things. But only does really ONE THING WELL.

Can I run Photoshop and Illustrator on it? No. (Not in a native usable way anyhow Running Photoshop 7 in Linux under Wine isn't the same as running CS3 on a Intel Mac. Not.even.close.) Is Gimp or any other graphics application for Linux have any alternatives that are in par with it? No.

So say comparing Linux boxes with Windows and Mac boxes for this type of computer usage would be kinda silly.

So you stick with what Linux CAN do well. Which is sit there and be a server.

I never said Linux couldn't do other things.

You never see say. publishing houses that have rows and rows of Linux boxes doing graphic design work.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The one weak point that remains in Desktop Linux is Xorg IMHO, shifulmam. I don't know if your experience matches mine?

It is a PITA to connect a second display and handle the monitor arrangement and resolution and all that. Part of this is because the system I was using had an ATI video card in it, and the proprietary ATI driver was lacking (and the open source driver does not work with Beryl/Compiz), so there are driver related bottlenecks. Still, obviously Xorg configurations are not yet Grandma friendly like other parts of Gnome/Ubuntu are becoming.

I have a system with an ATI Radeon 9800 pro and two 17" LCDs (both VGA - one uses a DVI male/VGA female adapter). It took me literally five minutes of Googling and following very clear instructions on the Ubuntu forum to get dual display working flawlessly.

And Beryl/Compiz works on both displays with the ATI driver.

I do agree that the xorg.conf part of the OS is somewhat unnerving. But how many grandmas do you know with two monitors and a fancy Logitech MX1000 mouse or other high-end hardware? Unless you have specific hardware needs for your OS, installing Ubuntu with minimal user interaction will provide a fully working and easy to use interface.

Most computer users only do a few things with their computers: browse the web, send and receive email, download digital pictures, listen to music, and write documents. All of these can be done, very easily, with a default Ubuntu installation - Firefox, Thunderbird, F-Spot, and OpenOffice.org are all preinstalled with Ubuntu.

I'm not trying to convert anyone - I'm just pointing out that the all-in-one Linux distros work as desktop operating systems quite well, and match up to XP and OS X in most regards.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I'm not trying to convert anyone - I'm just pointing out that the all-in-one Linux distros work as desktop operating systems quite well, and match up to XP and OS X in most regards.

I would say for companies or household on a tight budget sure. They would work and "do". But match up to? No.

Esp not with ease of use and support.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I have a system with an ATI Radeon 9800 pro and two 17" LCDs (both VGA - one uses a DVI male/VGA female adapter). It took me literally five minutes of Googling and following very clear instructions on the Ubuntu forum to get dual display working flawlessly.

And Beryl/Compiz works on both displays with the ATI driver.

i have an x600, I believe, which hasn't fared as well.

I can get dual heads working, but had great difficulty getting one monitor to be on the right and the other on the left. Even though the ATI driver provided a GUI for configuring this, the GUI configuration had the left hand monitor as primary, which I didn't want.

I do agree that the xorg.conf part of the OS is somewhat unnerving. But how many grandmas do you know with two monitors and a fancy Logitech MX1000 mouse or other high-end hardware? Unless you have specific hardware needs for your OS, installing Ubuntu with minimal user interaction will provide a fully working and easy to use interface.

Agreed, but it would be awesome if you could plug in Ubuntu to a projector, another monitor, or whatever and just have everything automatically detected and functional

Most computer users only do a few things with their computers: browse the web, send and receive email, download digital pictures, listen to music, and write documents. All of these can be done, very easily, with a default Ubuntu installation - Firefox, Thunderbird, F-Spot, and OpenOffice.org are all preinstalled with Ubuntu.

I agree whole heartedly that Ubuntu is a great OS for a very significant population of users.

I'm not trying to convert anyone - I'm just pointing out that the all-in-one Linux distros work as desktop operating systems quite well, and match up to XP and OS X in most regards.

Rightfully so. Mac users fall victim to a lot of FUD about Linux/Unix, as well as myths like the XServe is cheaper than Dell hardware (which it can be only if you install Windows on it and order enough CALs). Back in the day Mac users used to fall for similar FUD like their G4 was faster than the competition, or whatever... Apple's marketing is very clever, but it should not be taken at face value, because there is usually a context it needs to be put within in order to reveal partial truths.

Then, of course, when you point this sort of thing out many become grouchy or try to throw the baby out with the bathwater like some are trying to do here by pointing out my mistakes with OS X Server/Client pricing (which really do not affect my original argument). I guess, like many other things, we believe what we want to believe and can become hostile when somebody tries to reveal a different reality.

Sorry for all of this baggage shifulmam, all of this really isn't a big deal so don't interpret this as a mega rant, just trying to make a point.

Returning to your Ubuntu experience, I thought a little while ago you were bagging using Ubuntu as your primary OS? Was this because of your experiences with 7.04?

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Mac users fall victim to a lot of FUD about Linux/Unix

When is this genius going to stop putting a slash between Linux and Unix and figure out costs correctly? I mean, sheesh, after two years he still hasn't seen the big $129 on the huge screen behind Steve Jobs.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Mac users fall victim to a lot of FUD about Linux/Unix

Does it count as FUD if it's all true? I thought even you realized Linux is almost all shortcomings in the same areas the Mac has its strengths. Our conversations about Linux/Unix always seem to end with you going, "Well, yeah, it sucks for all that stuff, but it makes a kickass server if you have a dedicated IT department, doesn't it? And it's cheap!"

Originally Posted by besson3c 

as well as myths like the XServe is cheaper than Dell hardware (which it can be only if you install Windows on it and order enough CALs).

So only if you compare it to an equivalent setup, then. Gotcha. That sneaky Apple.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Rightfully so. Mac users fall victim to a lot of FUD about Linux/Unix, as well as myths

I was once told the only computer group more zealous acting than Mac users were Linux users. I now see were they are coming from. A lot of us here have used Linux/Unix at work and some just toy around with it. So lots of complaints are very very valid, and not FUD based. You were just spewing your own brand of FUD in this thread. For example this gem


"You'd be a complete idiot boss if you ran your company without an IT specialist, even if just one that can be called upon on an as-needed basic."

That is FUD. Sounds very Microsoftish actually.

Back in the day Mac users used to fall for similar FUD like their G4 was faster than the competition, or whatever...

Actually back in the day most of the users in this forum, who you are referring to for the most part made fun of those FEW people that would come in here spouting Apple stats.

Apple's marketing is very clever, but it should not be taken at face value, because there is usually a context it needs to be put within in order to reveal partial truths.

Well it's a good thing most everyone that comes to this forum, esp ones that participate in said discussions don't fall prey to such shenanigans. Most ANYONE here would use something better/cheaper over a Mac for what they do if there was something out there that existed. Right now, for what I do, there is not.

Then, of course, when you point this sort of thing out many become grouchy

Grouchy? Maybe because you are putting fourth FUD while campaigning against it. Not because you've made a point. Every single "Rah Rah" Go Linux Go thread you make starts and ends the same way.

I guess, like many other things, we believe what we want to believe and can become hostile when somebody tries to reveal a different reality.

Besson you've always had this keen ability to blame others for the very same thing you yourself are doing in the same exact thread. You are getting a little upset (it seems) that the thread didn't go the way you wanted it to. That you DIDN'T do your homework on the matter.

The fact that this is like the 6th thread of the like you've made this year so far probably annoys people.

I surely don't go into Linux forums and get my pom pom's out for Apple. That would be actions of a zealot.