The Apple Core

Jason D. O'Grady & David Morgenstern
Home / News & Blogs / The Apple Core

Snow Leopard Server to include Mobile Access Server

By | April 24, 2009, 8:40am PDT

Summary: In an aggressive move into Microsoft’s server market Apple has added new features to the upcoming Mac OS 10.6 (a.k.a. Snow Leopard) that will make it a viable (and less expensive) alternative to Redmond’s offerings. Apple has previously hinted at Snow Leopard’s upcoming “Remote Access” features, describing them as being a combination of new “push notifications [...]

In an aggressive move into Microsoft’s server market Apple has added new features to the upcoming Mac OS 10.6 (a.k.a. Snow Leopard) that will make it a viable (and less expensive) alternative to Redmond’s offerings.

Apple has previously hinted at Snow Leopard’s upcoming “Remote Access” features, describing them as being a combination of new “push notifications to mobile users outside your firewall” and a proxy service providing “secure remote access to email, address book contacts, calendars, and select internal websites” reports AppleInsider.

A WWDC 2009 session preview describes how the new proxy service works and presents its new name for the service:

The Mobile Access Server provides a path through a corporate firewall for IMAP, SMTP, HTTP, and CalDAV without using VPN. Learn about the features of, and deployment tips for, this powerful new service in Snow Leopard Server.

The new Mobile Access Server will allow clients to access internal network resources from their iPhone or iPod touch without having to first initiate a secure VPN tunnel. The advantage of the new Mobile Access Server components will be cost.

AppleInsider created a chart comparing the costs of comparable Windows and Apple servers with 100 Client Access Licenses (CALs) and the Microsoft offering costs almost 10x more than the Apple solution.

Snow Leopard Server

Even without 100 CALs, the Xerve ($3,749) is less expensive than a Dell PowerEdge 9150 after you add Windows Server 2008 ($4,014).

I sense another TV commercial coming…

Tip and chart: AppleInsider

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “The Apple Core”

Topics

Microsoft Access, Mobile, Apple Inc., Advertising & Promotion, Remote Access, Marketing, Jason D. O'Grady

Jason O'Grady is a journalist and author specializing in mobile technology. He has published six books on Apple and mobile gadgets and his PowerPage blog has been publishing for over 15 years.

Disclosure

Jason D. O'Grady

Jason D. O'Grady is the creator and editor of O'Grady's PowerPage, which has been publishing mobile technology news since 1995. He maintains an advertising relationship with the following legacy advertisers on the PowerPage:

  • Amazon Associates
  • Google Adsense
  • Tekserve

    • Advertising on the PowerPage is brokered by a third-party agency (BackBeat Media) and he recuses himself from these negotiations.

Biography

Jason D. O'Grady

Jason D. O'Grady developed an affinity for Apple computers after using the original Lisa, and this affinity turned into a bona-fide obsession when he got the original 128 KB Macintosh in 1984.

He started writing one of the first Web sites about Apple (O'Grady's PowerPage) in 1995 and is considered to be one of the fathers of blogging. He has been a frequent speaker at the Macworld Expo conference and a member of the conference faculty. He also co-founded the first dedicated PowerBook User Group (PPUG) in the United States.

After winning a major legal battle with Apple in 2006, he set the precedent that independent journalists are entitled to the same protections under the First Amendment as members of the mainstream media.

O'Grady is the author of The Nexus One Pocket Guide, The Droid Pocket Guide, The Google Phone Pocket Guide, and The Garmin nuvi Pocket Guide (Peachpit Press), the author of Corporations That Changed the World: Apple Inc. (Greenwood Press), and a contributor to The Mac Bible (Peachpit Press). In addition, he has contributed to numerous Mac publications over the years, including MacWEEK, Macworld, and MacPower (Japan).

When he's not writing about Apple for ZDNet at The Apple Core, he enjoys spending time with his family in New Jersey.

41
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Snow Leopard Server to include Mobile Access Server
jackson1984-24316069205748857739440257893812 10th Oct
What i unearth problematic will need to be to find a webpage that may seize me to receive nfljersey a second but your site web-site differs. Bravo.
View in thread
0 Votes
+ -
Shame you, Microsoft!
Grayson Peddie 24th Apr 2009
grin

You can get an Xserver at a fraction of a cost of WS 2k8 system.

Now that makes much economic sense, but I'm a home user, so I prefer Linux server, but needed some features like IIS 7.0 with .net Framework 3.5 for web development (for home automation), but to each their own (I'm more productive/comfortable at writing ASP.net/C# code than PHP).
0 Votes
+ -
It's always been this way
ChiperSoft 24th Apr 2009
Windows has always been the most expensive option when it
comes to this sort of thing. Both OSX Server and Linux beat
it hands down.

This table doesn't even mention the half dozen other features
that Microsoft charges you for, like database software, a web
server, directory management, version control...

Apple tax my ass..
0 Votes
+ -
I'm glad to see it....
OhTheHumanity 24th Apr 2009
This will put pressure on them to bring the costs down on these things. I like most MS products but if you ask me the one single thing I do not like about MS is the whole CAL's business as it is confusing and hard to keep up with sometimes. I applaud competition in the market, it keeps people more honest that way and lowers cost. MS has been riding high for years on corporate networks so I invite this kind of stuff even though I their products are rock solid on my network.
0 Votes
+ -
Woah. Creepy stats.
HypnoToad 24th Apr 2009
Thanks much for the article!
0 Votes
+ -
The hidden Microsoft tax...
gregory.dworak@... 24th Apr 2009
Why corporations allowed themselves to fall into the Microsoft trap in the first place, I'll never know. It's no wonder why companies are sticking with their current 8 year old Windows technology. With all the belt tightening companies are doing to survive in this down economy, it's no wonder why they're holding off on updating to Vista or why their not anxious to migrate to Windows 7 when it comes on line. With the capabilities, ease of use, elegance and true UNIX underpinnings that will be offered with Apple's new Snow Leopard server, this may be a good time for companies to re-access and break free from the burden and high cost being locked into the very expensive Microsoft licensing model.

Microsoft has gotten away with their yearly licensing renewal costs for years because they were one of the few centralized corporate management systems that offered a pretty much full solution model in corporate environments. Up to this point, Apple wasn't seen as a threat or a solution because their wares were aimed at the individual user or small business environments. On top of that, Apple gave the impression that they weren't interested in competing with Microsoft in the corporate space.

My guess is Apple played it that way because they felt they weren't ready, and in typical Apple fashion, they don't show their hand until they feel they truly have a viable alternative that is not only less expensive, but is also easier to implement, offers better security and is much more elegant then what's out their. Apple likes to blow their competition out of the water as opposed to competing to a photo finish.

Steve Ballmer is no visionary, and I don't understand why he's still allowed to run Microsoft. If the board of directors at Microsoft had an ounce of common sense, they would be looking franticly for his replacement. Without new leadership at Microsoft, they are doomed to eventually fail. I don't know how much longer they can succeed with their current model.

It will be very interesting to see how Apple makes out with Snow Leopard and which companies will switch to it after its initial deployment. The cost savings alone should be enough for corporations to at least give it a hard look.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Snow Leopard Server to include Mobile Access Server
robshelby@... 24th Apr 2009
When is Snow Leopard being released?
0 Votes
+ -
I believe...
gregory.dworak@... 24th Apr 2009
This summer some time after Apple's WWDC in June.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Snow Leopard Server to include Mobile Access Server
geoff_chan 24th Apr 2009
i think software is difficult to earn money in these
days where many ppl expect free software...m$ will be
bound to fall if they do not move into
hardware+software
0 Votes
+ -
Comparison between the software
LiquidLearner 24th Apr 2009
Cost is one thing but how does OS X Server handle user management? Logon script processing? Is it directory based? What are the differences between Exchange 2007 and whatever it is Snow Leopord offers? Does it allow custom programming on top of the mail interface? Does it allow public folder storage? What is their alternative to SharePoint and how does it compete?

I'm aware there are cheaper solutions. I've yet to see a better solution, or even one that makes the cheap solutions a viable alternative. I'm sure I'll get dismissed as this being your typical "Windows fanboy" or whatever, but no one will actually answer any of these questions.
0 Votes
+ -
Great Question
CowLauncher 24th Apr 2009
I think it is IT people like you that have the smarts to answer these sorts
of good questions and now more than ever there are compelling reasons
to do the research. Get your employer to get you a Apple Developer
Connection Membership, download the Snow Leopard Server pre-release
and try it out.

Cheers
0 Votes
+ -
I think you raised some good questions
xXSpeedzXx 24th Apr 2009
Here are some resources...
http://www.apple.com/science/whitepaper/
http://www.apple.com/server/resources/

Honestly I can say I don't know, as I work in a MS environment myself.

I have used Novell's Teaming software at my last job, in a Novell environment, and I liked it. I think it is more friendly than sharepoint and easier to use.

What I don't like about MS and Windows based software is that it doesn't support opensource or open standard stuff. Take for instance that rendering of sharepoint pages in Firefox or Safari is just awful, and you loose functionality, which is really bad when you work in an environment where there may be different hardware and software in different locations.
0 Votes
+ -
Teaming isn't bad
LiquidLearner 24th Apr 2009
I've played with it a bit at a school district who is heavily vested in the Novell platform.

What I don't like about MS and Windows based software is that it doesn't support opensource or open standard stuff. Take for instance that rendering of sharepoint pages in Firefox or Safari is just awful, and you loose functionality, which is really bad when you work in an environment where there may be different hardware and software in different locations.

I'll agree with you here. One of my annoyances, which are no longer an annoyance though. The entire 2010 line of products work in any browser on any OS. Microsoft's server team, at least, seem to have realized it's more important to play nice with all the browsers and OSes if they want to keep their server business viable than trying to use it as vendor lock-in for the Windows platform. I've had the chance to play with Outlook Live on both Safari and Firefox and it performs better in FF3 than it does in IE8, with all the functionality there.

I'd be substantially more interested in switching had MS not finally moved the big guns to a platform agnostic approach.
0 Votes
+ -
hm.
isulzer 24th Apr 2009
Cost is one thing but how does OS X Server handle user management?
Depends. You can integrate it with an existing system, or use Apple's system. It isn't,
however, quite as detailed and does not provide as many options and tricks as
Windows Server.

Logon script processing?
Yes. In various forms.

Is it directory based?
Yes. It provides various directory services and integration including net info, LDAP,
AD, BSD flat files(what used to be yp) etc.

What are the differences between Exchange 2007 and whatever it is Snow Leopord
offers?
No idea. But look on the apple website. Supposedly its decent. If not quite as full
featured as Exchange.

http://www.apple.com/business/solutions/it/

Does it allow custom programming on top of the mail interface?
Not sure. Never used their mail system.

Does it allow public folder storage?
yes.

What is their alternative to SharePoint and how does it compete?
Pretty well actually. It offers ftp, afp, smb, nfs and other services. Using user
credentials, group, or guest, customized for each share. etc. Works pretty well.
0 Votes
+ -
Exchange
ChiperSoft 24th Apr 2009
OSX uses a combination of Sendmail and Postfix for email functions,
CalDAV for scheduling, and an iChat server for IM. I think that covers
most of exchange's features? It's all administered through an apple
made admin interface, but you can also manage it manually the same
way you would on linux.
0 Votes
+ -
CalDAV isn't
LiquidLearner 24th Apr 2009
nearly as full featured as Exchange with Outlook for calendering, I don't think that point is even debatable. For a lot of people it's "good enough" though. IM is pretty low on the totem pole for Exchange features. You covered Exchange's absolutely most basic features. What about data sharing? What about custom forms? What about Outlook Web Access? What about Unified Communications? Voicemail processing? Voice access to mailboxes? Clustering? Multi-site replication and failover?

These are the reasons why most companies buy Exchange. If they wanted just a mail server you can get Merrick mail server for $400 and load it on XP.
0 Votes
+ -
In all due respects
Kaiwai Updated - 25th Apr 2009
In all due respects, and I don't mean this in a patronising way, how many organisations actually use all those features? I have been in very large companies and I've yet to see an organisation use the depth and breadth of features provided by Microsoft.

Now, I am not saying that these are worthless features or that it makes the said software from Microsoft bloated - I just think that you need to stand back and look at the larger picture. Once you step back - features are the least of you worries.

For me, the problem with Apple has always been the lack of a long term support policy for their operating systems. Microsoft has policies set down so that you know when you purchase their software there is a set period of time to expect updates from them. The problem with Mac OS X there is no set policy - they might provide updates but then again, they might not.

How can one run an IT department based on the hope and prayer than maybe Apple will release updates? I love using my iMac and MacBook at home, and for the enterprise desktop it could be a shoe in but the problem I find is that with the server there isn't a long term policy set down.
0 Votes
+ -
@LiquidLearner
Axsimulate Updated - 27th Apr 2009
What about data sharing?
yes

What about custom forms?
don't know

What about Outlook Web Access?
yes, although not as full featured as OWA
http://squirrelmail.org

What about Unified Communications?
don't know

Voicemail processing?
don't know

Voice access to mailboxes?
don't know

Clustering?
yes

Multi-site replication and failover?"
yes
0 Votes
+ -
Re: Sharepoint
dvm 24th Apr 2009
"What is their alternative to SharePoint and how does it compete?
Pretty well actually. It offers ftp, afp, smb, nfs and other services. Using user
credentials, group, or guest, customized for each share. etc. Works pretty well."
Sharepoint is more than file sharing. You can read more here,
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepointtechnology/FX100503841033.aspx

From what I know, Apple don't have something similar to Sharepoint.
0 Votes
+ -
There is one
Kaiwai 25th Apr 2009
There is Wiki Server included with Mac OS X Server:

http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/features/wikis.html

There are also others such as Alfresco:

http://www.alfresco.com/

There is an OpenOffice.org plugin so you can publish it straight to the server and according to the website Microsoft Office views Alfresco as a Sharepoint server is able to access all the features.
0 Votes
+ -
Google Apps is quickly making SharePoint, well, pointless. [nt]
olePigeon 26th Apr 2009
[nt]
0 Votes
+ -
Sharepoint does quite a bit more
LiquidLearner Updated - 24th Apr 2009
than file sharing. If you take Sharepoint at its most basic then yes, the Apple alternative may work for smaller organizations.

On the logon script policy, I'm talking about centralized, user or group-based scripts.

It does sound as if it may be a viable solution for a file server but why wouldn't I just buy that Dell and put Linux on it instead? I can tie into AD with LDAP. I can assign permissions based on LDAP membership on the Windows AD server.

I'm just not seeing the compelling reason to "switch" to an Apple product, except price, but when it doesn't offer the features you need... Although it is amusing that the reason to pick an Apple server is price, but when you talk about picking a desktop based on price you get flamed because "you get what you pay for". Which is it? You can't really have it both ways...

As to the other poster talking about the compilation of services that provide Exchange-like features, from the sounds of it it doesn't come anywhere near close. Clustering, Unified Messaging, Voicemail Processing can all be done from Exchange. You can custom program forms, setup linked folders in mailboxes between multiple users, sync offline/online both local mailboxes and public folder info.

That all said for a small business it doesn't sound like it would be that bad.

PS - You also have to consider features in 2008 and 2008 R2. Branch Cache, RPC over SSL, Published Applications and Terminal Services, etc etc...
0 Votes
+ -
@LiquidLearner
Axsimulate 24th Apr 2009
On the logon script policy, I'm talking about centralized, user or group-based scripts.
Yes (openLDAP)

"Clustering"
yes

"Unified Messaging"
not sure

"Voicemail Processing"
not sure

"program forms"
not sure

"linked folders in mailboxes between multiple users"
yes

"sync offline/online both local mailboxes and public folder info"
yes

"Branch Cache"
not sure

RPC over SSL
it uses ssl for a lot of things not sure if it does for this.

"Published Applications"
yes (jboss & Tomcat)

"Terminal Services"
yes (x windows)
0 Votes
+ -
*shakes head*
Kaiwai 25th Apr 2009
The user is authenticated against the server and the user directory from the server is mounted on the client and thus there is no need for a local account. The need to lock things down doesn't apply because they would be a standard user and thus cannot write to any other location but the user directory.

We know how Microsoft hasn't yet been able to wrap their small brains around the idea of mounting the server user directory on the end users computer so that all settings and so forth are saved on the server - maybe in a few years they might work something easy like that out.
0 Votes
+ -
OS X Server does logon user and group scripting...
olePigeon 26th Apr 2009
"On the logon script policy, I'm talking about centralized, user or
group-based scripts."

OS X Server does logon user and group scripting. You just go to the
Managed preferences for either a user or an entire group, go to the
Logon preference pane, then click on the Scripts tab. They can be
Bash, AppleScript, or any other scripting language you install.

You can also run Apple Remote Desktop Server scripting which works
like ActiveDirectory scripting. You can push out applications, updates,
change preferences, etc. upon logon, logout, upon sync, or any
combination thereof.

"I can tie into AD with LDAP. I can assign permissions based on
LDAP membership on the Windows AD server."

So does OS X Server... and then some.

"Although it is amusing that the reason to pick an Apple server is
price, but when you talk about picking a desktop based on price you
get flamed because "you get what you pay for". Which is it?"

It's not both ways. The operating system is free on any new Mac, so
the comparison is always the hardware. Apple doesn't make
commodity computers like Dell or HP, so Dell and HP will always be
cheaper.

When it comes to server hardware, the prices are more on par with
each other. Suddenly it's no longer commodity parts thrown together,
even Dell has to do some more-than-average QA testing, pay for
more expensive components that meet stricter fault tolerances, etc.
Since price is not really the object of comparison as the hardware is
concerned, it comes down to the software. OS X Server is free with any
new XServe, so compared to a Windows solution, it's darn cheap.

The price would be more comparable on a Dell or HP running Linux
instead of Windows Server.

"Clustering, Unified Messaging, Voicemail Processing can all be
done from Exchange."

Currently UM and Voicemail Processing only work with the iPhone.
Apple doesn't support other phones at the moment, so Exchange does
have the advantage there. OS X Server does support clustering.

"You can custom program forms, setup linked folders in mailboxes
between multiple users, sync offline/online both local mailboxes and
public folder info."

Well, technically you could do all of that with OS X Server if you
wanted to take the time. That's the nice thing about UNIX and
working with open source software. Exchange does have the
advantage that it's already setup rather easily. OS X Server takes more
work. I don't know what 10.6 Snow Leopard has to offer in that
regard, though.

"Branch Cache, RPC over SSL, Published Applications and Terminal
Services, etc etc..."

Branch Cache seems like an exploit waiting to happen. RPC over SSL
currently available only for Mail and Chat services. According to this
article, it looks like Snow Leopard will extend that. The build in
SSL/TLS can be used to secure almost any communication.

Apple also offers Terminal Services, which are at no additional cost. If
you visit any Apple Store you can experience it first hand. It may not
be as robust as Microsoft's, but it's free. You can also always just use
SSH. happy

Windows Server requires an additional Terminal license fee for each
person wanting to use Terminal services. User and Device CALs do
not qualify for Terminal services.
0 Votes
+ -
NetInfo was dropped in 10.5 and newer. Just FYI. [nt]
olePigeon 26th Apr 2009
[nt]
0 Votes
+ -
I am curious......
James Quinn 24th Apr 2009
Are those things necessary? I don't know the answer to your
questions but I often wonder if in the case of MS "features" that any
given product that MS makes are they needed?

Its like when the iPhone first came out. A great many people claimed
very loudly that the iPhone was NOT a smart phone cause it did not
have the "features" that the typical smart phone offered at that time.
Now that argument seems to have fallen to the way side. Yet even the
yet to be released iPhone 3.0 still does not have "all" those features
that were part of the "It's not a smart phone" list.

Look its not a secret that Im not a MS products fan. I've often felt that
their stuff is feature rich and cluttered. Not a fan of Outlook because
of just that.

So in the end how many people/businesses actually need these
"features"?

Pagan jim
0 Votes
+ -
It's no wonder
LiquidLearner 25th Apr 2009
the iPhone really saw success with 2.0, when they integrated Exchange sync. So yes, people were correct when they said the first iphone wasn't a "smart phone". It got a lot better with 2.0.

The iphone will be very tempting if it ends up on Verizon...
0 Votes
+ -
Why would I buy this instead of Linux?
NonZealot Updated - 24th Apr 2009
Answer: there is no reason.

All the Apple zealots shrieked with glee that MS was being squeezed on the high end by Apple and on the low end by Linux. Here we have a PERFECT example where Apple offers NOTHING over Linux. Look at all the apologies in the talk backs and then ask yourself which apology doesn't apply to Linux for less money and MUCH less lock-in. In this example it is Apple that is being squeezed by MS on the high end and Linux on the low end. OS X server is never, not even once, a better solution than MS or Linux.
0 Votes
+ -
Mac fans would use Linux instead if...
ashdude 25th Apr 2009
1. Linux was as easy to configure as OS X.
2. Linux had support of the major software companies.

That's the main two reasons why I switched from Linux to OS X.
0 Votes
+ -
I could accept that argument for the desktop
NonZealot Updated - 25th Apr 2009
Desktops are typically run by idiots. We are talking servers here that should be configured by professionals.

However, take a look at all the software packages that are mentioned in this article and the talkbacks. 99% of them are standard *nix packages that you get with Linux. There is no difference in the software and therefore no difference in how you configure that software.

Like I said, while I don't agree with the "ease of use" argument for the desktop, I can at least recognize it as an argument that would appeal to some. On the server side though, OS X is not easier to use. Period. It can't be, it runs the exact same web and mail software that Linux does.
0 Votes
+ -
Easier means less downtime.
ashdude Updated - 25th Apr 2009
Practically everything in OSX Server is represented in the GUI. Point & click. Just like on the desktop version. Which makes it a lot faster to get stuff done.
0 Votes
+ -
Yep, and makes troubleshooting a heck of a lot easier. [nt]
olePigeon Updated - 26th Apr 2009
[nt]
0 Votes
+ -
There is a difference in how you configure the software...
olePigeon 26th Apr 2009
"However, take a look at all the software packages that are mentioned
in this article and the talkbacks. 99% of them are standard *nix packages
that you get with Linux. There is no difference in the software and
therefore no difference in how you configure that software."

There is a difference in how you configure the software. Under the
hood, many Linux distros and OS X share the same software, but Apple's
Server Management software is really easy to use. 99% of it is all
done through Server Admin & Workgroup Manager, you almost never
have to touch the CLI.
0 Votes
+ -
Actually I can think of two....
James Quinn 25th Apr 2009
Support being one. Take your Linux solution. You have the hardware
that runs the server who supports that? Then you have the OS..who
supports that? WIth Apple you have a one stop solution.

Second is still ease of use/administration.

See that wasn't too hard after all there NonZ:P

Pagan jim
0 Votes
+ -
Simply because...
zkiwi 25th Apr 2009
a) If you got a Mac you'd increase your cool quotient.
b) You know you want one, but are resisting.

Besides, if you believe LoveRock, you'd be in perpetual kernel panic, and have to recompile each and every application at least three times a day, that and you'd also have to ponder which distro you were actually using on any given day of the week. And then there's the others who think that Windows is cheaper/more secure than either Linux or Apple products.
0 Votes
+ -
@NonZealot
Axsimulate Updated - 27th Apr 2009
1. Ease of setup, configuration and maintenance. All server setup and user configuration is done via GUI. However it can be done via the terminal as well.
2. Setup, configuration and maintenance can be local or remote with the same GUI interface.
3. Old Unix/Linux hats can forgo the GUI and jump in and feel right at home.
4. One stop solution, which many corporations prefer. Hench why many are Dell shops or HP shops, etc.
5. Support costs can be lower. Just look at what Redhat charges for yearly support. Yes you can find a lot of help for free on the web, however if a server goes down, face it, nobody knows everything there is about Linux, and don't have the time for someone to search the net for a solution. They need the server back up now.


0 Votes
+ -
You're kidding right?
InformedComment 25th Apr 2009
Exchange and Sharepoint are the same as included in the Apple OS?

Have you actually *looked* at Exchange and Sharepoint?

Wow.
0 Votes
+ -
Have you ever used OS X Server? [nt]
olePigeon 26th Apr 2009
[nt]
0 Votes
+ -
Jason wheres your critical analysis?
Johnny Vegas 25th Apr 2009
Surely you know Apple Insider is unfortunately but unsurprisingly biased and misleading. Why would you blog about it uncritically? Please use fair comparisons. Hardware vs hardware, os vs os, remote access vs remote access, etc...

Tell us why this Xserve isnt compared to a Dell PowerEdge 610 or the HP Proliant, both also Quadcore Xeon 5500 (E5520) 2.26GHz, 6GB RAM, and 160 GB SATA and both I just spec'd out for $1684 and $1830 respectively on the Dell and HP sites? Add WS2008 (only $699 for HP) and it's still $1250 less than the XServe.

Explain why they're adding in Exchange and Sharepoint and CALs for them on the Windows side when the freeware included with Xserve is not comparable at all, but more aptly comparable with Windows freeware?

Or how by the time you've added 10-15 more CALs youve got enough remote access for a company typically with 100 or more employees and they'd then be looking at different licensing terms. Well before the 35 CAL's you can get and still be under the XServe price.
0 Votes
+ -
Typical Apple FUD...
Wolfie2K3 Updated - 28th Apr 2009
Of course, you guys are going to go with THE most expensive examples for buying Windows software just to make Apple look good...

If you buy Windows SBS Server 2008, it already comes with Server 2008, Exchange 2008 and Sharepoint Server 2008 bundled together. It also comes with Forefront Security for Exchange and 5 CALs for $1,089.

Therefore, you can have the first 3 items on your list for $4304.

Additional CAL packs can be had at significant discount as well. The CALs for SBS apply to not only Server, but Exchange and Sharepoint as well. A 5 pack of CALs for SBS 2008 Suite goes for $385. A 20 pack goes for $1540. So if we run the numbers to get SBS 2008 up to 100 users, it'll set you back an additional $7315 for a grand total of $11,619. That's WELL below 1/2 of the $29,238 figure you came up with. It's about 40% of the price. Way to jack things up Jason... Mind you, these prices are MSRP. Not what you can actually get them for if you shopped around.

And of course, the Mac cultists all complained rather loudly when Microsoft presented arguments that OSX was overpriced... Sheesh...

Of course, it may all be a moot point. If you buy the Apple Server product, do you get Windows versions of their collaboration tools? I'm sure that the Apple Server can likely do POP3 and SMTP services - so e-mail isn't likely going to be an issue.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Snow Leopard Server to include Mobile Access Server
jackson1984-24316069205748857739440257893812 10th Oct
What i unearth problematic will need to be to find a webpage that may seize me to receive nfljersey a second but your site web-site differs. Bravo.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

Blog Roll

Blog Archive

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix