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

["Paul Gordon" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Aaaah.... - well that's not actually a classic outsourcing arrangement
then=
really, since you are apparently taking on all the upfront capital expendi=
ture for both hardware & software, and you seem to be carrying all the
risk=
... >You< will be buying and owning the hardware yes? - not the VAR?
- and =
thus you will absorb all the capital depreciation...

It sounds to me like there's nothing actually being outsourced here other
t=
han the design & implementation of the solution. Will the VAR's be
providin=
g support & maintenance too? - Will they working to a formally agreed
SLA? =
- will they be contracted to continue to provide these services for a set
p=
eriod? Will they contractually commit to fully support whichever solution
t=
hey are proposing? - In which case the issue of finding people who can
supp=
ort it should become a non-issue for you...

As for the actual specs you've mentioned, I'm not familiar with *some* of
t=
he big-ticket hardware items, I'd just say that it's very much easier to
ov=
er-specify the solution when you're spending someone else's money...

One of the biggest ticket items will likely be the software licensing
costs=
, and the CAL's. In both respects, SBS will *probably* work out the best
va=
lue. There is some merit in specifying "full" windows/Exchange
versions rig=
ht from the off, but at the end of the day, you will end up with exactly
th=
e same features & functionality, but for a much increased initial cost.
The=
potential benefit would likely only become evident when (if) you reach the=
75-user limit of SBS.. - If you don't reach this limit (in the lifespan of=
the solution), then you've pretty much wasted that extra money.

The X450e-48p switch seems to my mind to be *massively* over-specified for
=
your requirements.. - best price I could see for this was in the order of =
=A33,500 for a 48-port switch. Whilst undoubtedly good, it's an
enterprise-=
grade product that is far more than you need. There are any number of 48
po=
rt 10/100/1000 switches that will do everything you need for a fraction of
=
this price. E.G.

- 3Com Baseline 2948 48 Port Gigabit SFP - Approx =A3380 (ex)
- Netgear ProSafe GS748T 48-Port Gigabit Smart Switch - Approx =A3390 (ex)
- There are also numerous products in the HP procurve and Dell ranges
which=
would meet your requirements in the =A3700-=A31K bracket.

Also consider whether you actually *need* gigabit to the desktop.. - there
=
are numerous switch products available with 2 or 4 GBe ports for
backbones/=
servers, plus 22/44 100MB ports for desktops, which are  correspondingly
ch=
eaper. If all you're doing is standard office productivity type stuff,
100M=
B to the desk may well be sufficient.. - You'll have to make that
determina=
tion depending on what you're pushing over the LAN. I know as well as you,
=
that it's always very tempting (and our natural inclination) to want the
la=
test/greatest/biggest/smallest/fastest etc. of whatever we're buying, but
t=
his should be a cold business decision, based on nothing more than meeting
=
your actual needs and nothing more... - Do you in fact require PoE? -
would=
you use it? - will you be using low-power thin clients that could run on t=
he limited power available from such a switch? If 99% of your client
device=
s won't utilise PoE, there's no point paying for it, and if you do, you're
=
wasting money... Also, I'd consider using 2 x 24-port switches rather than
=
a single 48-port one.. - what happens if the switch dies? - with separate
u=
nits, at least half your network carries on running and the impact of
failu=
re is reduced. Selecting 24-port models increases your range of choice
even=
further. At the kind of prices these run to, compared to the =A33,500 unit=
proposed, you could actually purchase 4x24 port units, and keep 2 under yo=
ur desk as hot spares, & thus have 100% redundancy!

It's not for nothing that the HP DL server range is *the* most popular on
t=
he planet... (according to their own marketing)

The Fortinet Fortigate 110C is another undoubtedly capable unit, but at
app=
rox =A32000 is again fairly steep for your size of network. Also, does
this=
device require an ongoing subscription? - It looks like it might require a=
nnual licensing for its AV & Anti-Spam functionality. - Does your
upfront c=
ost include this licensing? - and for how long? - just the first year? -
wh=
at are the annual costs that you would be committing yourself to after the
=
first year? - does the device carry on working if you don't re-subscribe?
A=
gain, there are other less expensive edge devices available, but I can't
co=
mment very much on suitability without knowing a lot more about your
overal=
l security strategy. I would just suggest that you question the VAR who is
=
proposing this device and ask them to justify their choice, and explain
the=
reasoning underlying that design decision. It may be the case, and I would=
suggest you investigate, that a much simpler (i.e. cheaper) device, in com=
bination with other methods, possibly including online services such as
Mes=
sagelabs/Windows Live Onecare/Forefront et al may be more cost effective.
-=
Note that SBS 2008 includes 120-day evals of both Forefront & onecare
buil=
t in out of the box, and continued use requires no more effort than
subscri=
bing online.

Gosh, I think I've rather gone on a bit... I'd better shut up now...

HTH

Paul G.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukha_d@xxxxxxx [mailto:ukha_d@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Ho Yin Ng
> Sent: 17 October 2008 15:30
> To: UKHA Group
> Subject: Re: [ukha_d] [OT] Office X-serve vs windows standard server
2008
>=20
> But if I cancel I still have all the equipment sitting in my office
> which someone else will need to maintain and service?
>=20
> So therefore if I go for Xserves I may be limited to the people that
> could service them?
>=20
> Ho-Yin
>=20
> 2008/10/17 Ben McCormack <yahoogroup@xxxxxxx>:
> > Ho-Yin
> >
> > Paul is right on this. If you are buying a Service from the
support
> > consultancy the underlying technology should not matter. If you
are
> > able to write down simple requirements that meet the business
needs
> > then technology does not come into it.
> >
> > Very Simple Example (No basis on fact, used to illustrate the
example)
> >
> > MAPI based email supporting Outlook Clients
> > 50 Users
> > Uptime of 99.99 08:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday
> > Maintenance completed out of hours with 3 days notice given
> > New users added within 48 hours
> > Users deleted within 48 hours of request being received.
> > =A3500 per month
> > If SLA is not met for 2 months running you have the right to
cancel.
> >
> > In this instance does it matter what the technology is? If a
teas-maid
> > could deliver the above then you would be happy.
> >
> > Worth thinking about what the business needs. Start your thoughts
there=
.
> >
> > regards
> > Ben
> >
> > On 17 Oct 2008, at 15:13, Ho Yin Ng wrote:
> >
> >> I still care!!!
> >>
> >> It is my money!
> >>
> >> We still have to buy the products. I just want to be aware of
the
> >> limitations if any or perhaps advantageous of one system over
another.
> >>
> >> I've been duped in the past and forked out for a system that
severely
> >> let me down.
> >>
> >> I think both provide the service we require, but surely one
must be
> >> better or offer us something that the other cannot.
> >>
> >> Ho-Yin
> >>
> >> 2008/10/17 Paul Gordon <paul@xxxxxxx>:
> >> > Hmm... in that case, aren't you going be paying for
SERVICES
> >> rather than
> >> > PRODUCTS? - If it's all outsourced, do you actually care
what it
> >> runs on,
> >> > provided you stipulate your requirements to the solution
provider,
> >> and they
> >> > meet them?....
> >> >
> >> > E.G: if you state your requirements to be:
> >> >
> >> > Identity management for your 45 users
> >> > Access control & authentication
> >> > Private storage allocation for each user (home
directories)
> >> > Shared storage between all users
> >> > MAPI based email supporting Outlook clients
> >> > Collaboration between users (calendar sharing, free/busy
info etc)
> >> > Shared printing facilities
> >> > Policy-based management of the workstations
> >> > .
> >> > .
> >> > .
> >> > etc...
> >> >
> >> > And the man from DelMonte, he say "yes", - and
it fits your SLA
> >> > requirements, and budget, then do you (or should you)
care (or
> >> even know)
> >> > what the underlying platforms are?
> >> >
> >> > Paul G.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ________________________________
> >> >
> >> > From: ukha_d@xxxxxxx on behalf of Ho Yin Ng
> >> > Sent: Fri 17/10/2008 14:41
> >> > To: UKHA Group
> >> > Subject: Re: [ukha_d] [OT] Office X-serve vs windows
standard
> >> server 2008
> >> >
> >> > Currently we would be outsourcing all our IT to a
support
> >> consultancy.
> >> >
> >> > I have no in-house IT manager etc.
> >> >
> >> > 2008/10/17 Ben McCormack <yahoogroup@xxxxxxx>:
> >> >> Ho-Yin
> >> >>
> >> >> Simple question - Do you have anyone within the
company who can
> >> >> support the XServe and OSX?
> >> >>
> >> >> Ben
> >> >>
> >> >> On 17 Oct 2008, at 13:39, Ho Yin Ng wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> 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


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