[Josefov]

[SwissMac]

I've been looking at updating our server in the office for a while now, we had our first hardware failure this summer and lost productivity as a result. We were going to go for a new Mac mini standard type until the new mini server came out, and I am just wondering if I am missing something. I've discounted Linux for various reasons (we already run one Linux server, it's complex).

Here are some prices in a sort of comparison done in USD as I couldn't be bothered searching for hours on the Microsoft website which is, like a lot of MS stuff, overly complicated and confusing with bits missing in vital areas.

Apple Mac mini server hardware and unlimited software licence (incl MySQL database) - $999
http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MC408LL/A?mco=MTMzNzU5Nzc

Microsoft Small Business Server 5 user (software only) - $1089
Microsoft 5 extra Client Access Licences (makes ten CALs) - $385
http://www.microsoft.com/sbs/en/us/pricing.aspx

But it costs more if you want a server database like most businesses need because you then have to buy the Premium version:
Microsoft Small Business Server Premium 5 user (software only) - $1899
Microsoft 5 extra Premium Client Access Licences (makes ten CALs) - $945

On top of that you need to buy the server hardware. I looked at Dell but they were even more than HP prices, so here are the HP ones. I just picked the cheapest one HP listed for a Small Business. It comes without any OS installed:

HP ProLiant ML110 G5 Server - $599
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF25a/15351-15351-241434-241646-3328424-3577708.html

TOTAL COST MICROSOFT ROUTE = $2,073 or $3,443 with database
TOTAL COST MAC MINI SERVER = $999 or $999 with database.

COST SAVING WITH APPLE MAC MINI SERVER = $1,074 to $2,444 with database.

Who said Macs were more expensive? This calculation makes Microsoft either TWICE as expensive as Apple, or MORE THAN THREE TIMES more expensive than Apple.

Have I missed something? Other than the fact that the Mac mini has more RAM and not just one bigger disk but two bigger disks than the HP and you don't have to pay extra for more users with the Mac OS and there may be even more hidden costs with the MS route?

Mac
_________________
Mac

[cats_five]

Suspect the title should be:

Six out of ten firms have no plans to roll out Windows 7 - yet

It will come, but not for a year or so, and will also depend on replacement cycles.
_________________
Pegase 101a
Olympus E510

[Amnesia10]

[Bluespider]

[pocket73]

Having 100,000 users doesn't really have any bearing on whether or not you should roll Windows 7. In fact, there might be a lot of good financial reasons why you may want to deploy it in an environment this size.

Depending on asset life, you will be replacing 20-35,000 machines a year, and core Windows Vista/7 improvements like language-neutral binaries, better image handling and deployment tools may realise significant savings for your organisation.

If you face challenges such as securing laptops, BitLocker may be a better solution than a third-party product. Or you may be trying to reduce your server count by removing systems such as file and print servers at smaller sites, in which case BranchCache would be highly compelling. Even the ability to control power settings for 100,000 PCs through group policy could save an awful lot of money!

A large organisation is also likely to have teams of people who perform desktop support, making it far easier to assess and deploy Windows 7 than it would for a small 1,000 user environment where there are a handful of over-stretched sys admins.

If I was advising a company this size, I would be telling them to begin Windows 7 preparations now. With the number of applications they are likely to be running it could easily take 18-24 month period to complete compatibility and pilot testing. That's going to take you to 2012, at which point Windows XP will be eleven years old.

Windows 7 isn't in its infancy. Most of the hard work was done with Vista, which was a much more significant release under the hood than many people realise (again, think of the language-neutral binaries as a good example). Despite the name, 7 is more of a dot release, albeit it a big one. The old adage that you need to wait for SP1 has become increasing less relevant in the modern environment: software updates are released every month, any one of which could break your environment. As you've rightly said, having a proper software release methodology is much more important.

Although I once wondered why users would want to upgrade from Windows XP, I've changed my mind in the few months that I've been running Windows 7. The more time I've spent with it, the more I've realised how much XP was creaking in the enterprise environment, weighed down by Office, desktop search, antivirus, firewalls, patch deployment and the various other third-party utilities that were required to force XP to do what organisations needed it to. A lot of corporate users are going to be surprised by how fast, responsive and mature Windows 7 feels once they leave XP behind.
_________________

[SwissMac]

Does W7 play more nicely in a Networked environment than does Win XP? I've read reports that XP is problematic for servers running Linux, OS X or Windows Server, most problems being related in some way to XPs habit of grasping ownership of files that are downloaded from a fileserver, used/saved locally, then uploaded back to the filesaver again.

We have a few XP boxes and if W7 is better we may upgrade, but that depends on software and hardware dependencies eg our rubbish Xerox printer's contract runs until next August and as it is now 4 years old it may not be supported.

Mac
_________________
Mac

[Bluespider]

@pocket73

I agree with your analysis completely, but this specific client is tightly controlled by regulators and has a very time critical environment where missed deadlines = huge $$$ penalties.

They will not install anything until its been thoroughly tested against all critical apps.

We are only now installing SP3 for XP...
_________________
System Error... Please reboot universe.

[Josefov]

[Bluespider]

I didn't mean to imply it was industry standard, just that there is significant hurdles for many companies, regardless of scale, to adopt new technology.

If its going in with the bricks, so to speak, yes absolutely roll out windows 7. But to upgrade a geographically spread out infrastructure, where everybody needs to be able to un the same apps on the same data, takes a considerable amount of time and resource.
Personally, I'd love to see win7 rolled out ASAP. it would fix a lot of niggles and speed up the whole user experience.
Unfortunately in this environment it will be a few years before we are ina position to do so.
_________________
System Error... Please reboot universe.