Re: [OT] Office X-serve vs windows standard server 2008

["Ho Yin Ng" <architect.hoyin@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for all the replies.

To clarify.

At the moment our IT system is not setup for the number of users my
office is now growing to. It was based on a cheap Linux system with no
exchange server.

My work load has suddenly increased and we have gone from 10 people up
to 45 people and still looking to expand further! So in reality we are
looking to create a new IT system from scratch.

However the other IT consultant that is recommending Windows is not
recommending SBS but Windows Server Standard 2008.

Basically we would have the following:

1 file server Windows Server Standard 2008 - HP DL360 linked to a 3TB
Infotrend fibre channel RAID 5 storage
1 network license and backup server Windows Server Standard 2008 with
SYMC backup and Acronis True Image - HP DL360 linked to a 8 slot
Overland Arc vault SCSI LTO3 tape library
1 exchange server 2007 - HPDL360

All connected to 2x Extreme Networks Summit X45De-48p (which seem
expensive!)

Connected to a UTM firewall - Fortinet Fortigate 110C to the internet
(again expensive!)

Another company suggested the following:

1 file server - xserve connected to United Digital Fibre Raid 5 4.5Tb
1 FTP, Intranet, backup - xserve connected to Sony AIT-4 8 slot 1.6tb
tape backup
1 network license and exchange server and antivirus - HP DL360 running
windows server 2008 and exchange 2007

Connected to 2 Netgear 48 port Gigabit layer 3 switches (which appear
much cheaper than the proposed solution above)
Connected to a Sonicwall firewall to the internet

We are not trying to do anything fancy (I don't think). I just need
the usual setup email everywhere, good backup facilities and the
ability to recover files immediately. Ability to access email and
office files (VPN?) where ever I maybe.

Thanks for your replies so far.

Ho-Yin

2008/10/17 Paul Gordon <paul@xxxxxxx>:
> I think you would be *insane* to choose an Apple server solution over
SBS...
>
> Yes, SBS does demand certain things as far as being the domain
controller
> goes, - that's because it is designed to be the only box you need for
up to
> 75 users. It plays perfectly well with everything else that any other
> "ordinary" Windows box would, but it has some restrictions
imposed - such as
> not being able to make trust relationships with other Windows domains.
-
> This is designed into the product purely to stop it being used as a
"back
> door" way for large enterprise scale organisations to get the
included
> products at a ridiculously knocked-down price. SBS is stupidly cheap
> compared to the combined cost of the seperate products it includes.
>
> You *can* install other domain controllers into the SBS domain to
provide
> redundancy/resillience etc. You *can* install other member servers
into the
> domain to provide additional application services or storage etc. The
only
> thing you can't do is support more than 75 users in the SBS domain.
>
> If/When you get to the point of having 75 users and you outgrow the
SBS
> solution, there is an upgrade path to the "full" Windows
server platforms
> that is also very reasonably priced.
>
> The newest version of SBS has just recently been released, and by all
> accounts is the best so far (although I haven't had time to play with
it
> yet).
>
> I just noticed that in your post, you refer to the Apple server
integrating
> with "the Exchange server" - does this mean you already have
Exchange
> server? - if so you must already have a Windows domain up &
running, so why
> are you talking about SBS? - if you *don't* currently have your
Windows &
> Exchange service, and you need to implement them, then SBS is the
cheapest
> and easiest way of doing that by a country mile. Plus if you needed to
> implement a Windows & Exchange server, why on earth would you want
an Apple
> server as well?
>
> Having said all that about SBS, in the interest of balance &
fairness, I
> must confess that I know absolutely nothing whatsoever about the Apple
> server solution, I have never encountered one, and I have no idea what
it is
> capable of... - and having spent 20 years in the IT industry, perhaps
that
> alone should speak volumes?....
>
> Just my 2p-worth...
>
> Paul G.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: ukha_d@xxxxxxx on behalf of Ho Yin Ng
> Sent: Fri 17/10/2008 13:39
> To: UKHA Group
> Subject: [ukha_d] [OT] Office X-serve vs windows standard server 2008
>
> I have had several consultants look at my office and they are
> suggesting two different approaches.
>
> One is saying we should use an Apple Xserve rather than a windows
machine.
>
> They state that the SBS requires to be the controller of everything
> and does not play well with others. Whereas the Xserve provides a
> lower total cost of ownership when compared to MS server and provides
> similar services and will integrate seamlessly with the exchange
> server.
>
> Can anyone shed any light on this?
>
> We are a 45 strong office looking to expand. Currently we only run
> Windows PCs, but we many have a couple of Macs later.
>
> The Xserve seems cheaper than a similar HP DL360 5450 others are
proposing.
>
> Be interesting to get your opinion on this.
>
> Thanks
>
> Ho-Yin
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> **** Sponsored By http://www.Berble.com <http://www.berble.com/>
****
> **** Computers You Carry ****
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

------------------------------------