Compare MacOS X Server to Windows Server 2003

[gladmax]

I am the technology administrator for a poor startup non-profit agency who would like to install a server running either MacOS X Server or Linux; the new Mac Pro seems like an ideal minitower for server.
Several people in the agency are Windows die-hards who only think of Windows Server as a viable alternative. I am looking for justifiable reasons for saying MacOSX server or Linux is better than Windows in being a server for PCs running XP Pro as well as the few Macs we have, including providing Exchange-type services, document storage and sharing, and database management. I don't need Microsoft bashing, which I can do myself very well. I need clear, convincing reasons that MacOS X Server or Linux is clearly superior to Windows in as many ways as possible.
Can anyone help?
P.S. I am a Macintosh consultant and troubleshooter with very little experience or training in servers in general, and anyone's server OS in particular. Am willing to learn, but can't learn fast enough to meet the agency's needs. I just hope to steer them away from Microsoft products.

 

[Tommo]

It will depend on what you want the server to do, but I can't think of a justifiable reason why OSX or Linux is better than Windows in the server environment.

My experience has shown me that it will be easier to integrate your Macs into a Windows server environment (they do it straight out of the box) than trying to get Window systems to integrate with OSX or Linux.

For a start you will need to set up samba for windows to access any file shares on non-windows based servers. I would have to say that Windows server is probably the way to go, just make sure it is kept up to date with security patches (something you would have to do for the other platforms anyway) and limit its visability to the outside world and things should work well. I'm sure you will find someone here to conrtradict me on this though.

 

[Go3iverson]

The Mac OS X Server is going to have a lower cost of ownership and much lower software costs. Open Directory is a great Directory Service, though Mac OS X client will integrate into an Active Directory more readily than Windows into Open Directory. With that said, if you have ~50 or so Windows clients, you could use the PDC architecture to integrate them, but remember, this is NT level integration. You also could look into third party NT controllers that may offer more services and run on Mac OS X Server, or use something like pGina as an LDAP plugin on the Windows clients, allowing them to directly interact with Open Directory.

As for groupware, there's always Leopard, which has been announced to include such items. If you are looking at the *now*, Zimbra is a great collaboration suite that runs on Mac OS X and is an Exchange replacement, with lower costs than Exchange.

Hope that gets you started!

Michael

 

[gladmax]

The responses to this question and the results of the poll are somewhat disappointing, in that I expected to receive much more interest on this. Also, no one seems to have done any kind of thorough comparison of server software products. It's pretty hard to get objective information, although the two posts responding my question have been helpful.

 

[Natobasso]

Perhaps if you asked for folks general experiences you might be able to get more response and build a better overall picture.

That being said, as I see it, it's your job to present a plan to your bosses in terms they understand, namely in monetary terms. They really don't care that you don't want to use pc servers, they want their new server system to work seamlessly with their pc laptops and desktops and to appear as though they are saving money for the company.

It all comes down to support. How much support do you get from each platform type after you install them? I think Windows 2003 is the most ubiquitous and thus, has the highest level of support. Apple, frankly, is a baby in the server industry though their products are very good. Their service leaves something to be desired.

How does Linux compare? Well, it doesn't seem since it's open source that service is as high a priority so you'd need to be on top of it and solve issues on your own as they crop up. I could be wrong about this, however.

Pick two server plans, their desired plan and yours, and do a cost analysis. Part of that analysis is going to be downtime and servicing down the road. Which system has the least amount of down time?


Unfortunately, your bosses are correct in asserting that going pc for your server network is the way to go. In fact, Server 2003 (I'm told by a good friend who's done IT For the past 20 years) is one of the best because they never stop working! Mac OS X servers are fantastic, but they aren't quite there when you compare them directly to pc servers on 2003. And don't forget you'll need some sort of external back up system. Mirroring drives isn't enough.

With the Intel chips, mac servers will be more and more price competitive in the coming years, but they aren't there yet.

The downside to pc servers are the virus threats and all the baggage that comes with dealing with Microsoft. However, a good Barracuda firewall goes a long way toward eliminating most threats, as does educating your staff on what attachments to open and which to trash.

Hope this helps, but it probably doesn't because the real issue is a difference in priorities between you and your bosses. That will have to be mitigated and, in the end, is that a battle you want to fight?

 

[Go3iverson]

Also, no one seems to have done any kind of thorough comparison of server software products.

Well, what are you looking for then? I talked about cost of ownership, I talked about integration with multiple platforms. You asked about centralized services and collaboration suites, which I talked about as well, in both capability and cost, so I guess I must have missed what it is you are looking for?

As far as support goes, Apple *does* have Enterprise level support contracts, which my clients have always said are a great addition to their organizations.

If you are looking for specific costs on parts/products, I would suggest calling the Enterprise division at Apple, as they can provide you a full solution plan, which you can then compare against the cost of Windows/Linux/etc and their associated hardware solutions and support offerings. I would wager to say that the 1U Xserve featuring the new Xeon chips would be tough to beat in price/performance. As I said before, the hardware includes unlimited licensing of the Mac OS X Server platform, so there is no additional need to license any parts of the OS for functionality. No matter what service you are using, Web, Email, File Sharing, Directory Services, iChat, etc, you have no software licensing restrictions.

If you just want clear & concise on cost:

- Open Directory has lower licensing costs than Active Directory
- Zimbra has lower licensing costs and parallel functionality to Exchange
- File sharing is unlimited out of the box with an Xserve
- All services are unlimited out of the box with a full Xserve purchase
- The Intel Xserve is very price aggressive and performance rich

You then need to evaluate how that integrates into what you need. If you have 1000 PCs and 10 Macs, maybe this doesn't make as much sense as other routes, depending on your need. Lots of folks buy AD for its close integration with the Windows clients, but then don't use that integration to its fullest, making third party solutions even more viable and more cost effective. Lots of people buy Exchange and barely use the collaborative features, making them less valuable and higher in cost, as they aren't returning much on their investment.

There are lots of ways to build an enterprise and it rarely is done all in one swoop. If you are starting from scratch, you have lots of options and tools that run on a variety of platforms that will work together to build your finished product.

 

[zynizen]

I just had a question related to this thread.. I do server consulting for a small business in my area, i'm fully versed in server 2003 on pc and the organization is about 15 users., there has been some problems in the past and im working towards a no downtime solution going into the new year.

would this solution work aswell for converting a current pc server environment to a mac server environment?

in terms of saving the company money, buying new hardware and deploying it wouldn't work at all., and most would agree to just work with what we have.

so, my question is.. for current file server role, and future integration for hosting own website, and using an "exchange" type of solution to bring emails inhouse, in terms of the long run, licensing is a major issue here, as we just purchased a 10 user license for CA internet security suite, for each user, but im not sure which setup is the right one..

the company is very flexible in terms of which route to take for future roles.. just want some advice in how easily mac based solution is integrated with pc's upfront.

thanks again, and sorry this doesn't help this post but its somewhat related.
if it needs to be moved to its own post, i understand.

 

[Kees Buijs]

The responses to this question and the results of the poll are somewhat disappointing, in that I expected to receive much more interest on this. Also, no one seems to have done any kind of thorough comparison of server software products. It's pretty hard to get objective information, although the two posts responding my question have been helpful.

If you do not specify what the demands are, it is hard to argue which is better (unless solution 1 is always superior / inferior to solution 2).

MAC OS X server has unlimited licensing, so compare a 50 user windows solution to a 50 user mac solution is quite an easy solution.

I have absolutely no experience with Windows, nor do i ever want to get it, bu i am sure that if you need support for windows, either have a contract or use the web for it, as micorsoft will not be very easy on giving free support (just like apple).

I use mac os x server for file-server (mac and pc), mail and webhosting and i am very satified with it. Needless to say up to now VIRUSSES are no issue as designers find MICROSOFT a much bigger / easier target.

So first find out what you need and repost with those issues mention. It might give a much better response.

Good luck with the choice, Kees

 

[zynizen]

ok thanks! Things seem to be ok as of now, appreciate the help.