OSX Server V Windows Server 2012 Pros and Cons for SME ?

You base question is "Can a Mac mini Server replace my Windows 2003 server?" The answer is yes. Maybe. And no.

The yes part. If your decision is to move all your Desktop/Laptops systems to Macs and you are already iOS heavy, then there is nothing better than also having a Mac Server in the environment. You become homogenous in your deployment and everything is under the same vendor. This is just like the Windows environment you are coming from. The Mac server can provide file services, you can enable Apple Remote Desktop or screen sharing to remotely connect to your systems, and you can enable the profile manager to manage your iOS devices and even do the VPP managed distribution of Apps if desired.

The maybe part. OS X Server is a great product. But it has weaknesses. I for one am very critical of Apple's built in Mail service. It is finicky, fragile, and lacking in features and customizations. Plus, it is a single point of failure on your single most important feature. Likewise, calendaring can be an adventure (getting better but still...). Know and understand what your needs are first. Then see if OS X can excel at satisfying those requirements.

The no part. OS X can not act as a domain controller for Windows machines. If you are keeping some, they are islands (in relation to centralized directory management). Mac minis have one redundant feature... two hard drives. But if you want RAID, you need to build it yourself. Apple doesn't do RAID for you. This can be unsettling for some customers. However, since the price is so low, my general reply is "buy two."

Now, a few more thoughts. I applaud your desire to cut spending and get away from the extortion that can be Microsoft. However, Exchange is a good product. This is clear. While there is Kerio and Communigate, it is often just easier to stay in the integrated and largely compatible world of Exchange. Now, that does not mean you need to host it your self (unless you have a regulatory or compliance requirement that demands this). You are looking to come out of the shadow of managing a Windows server. If so, then move your mail offsite to a hosting provider. Why deal with the headache of managing something as vital as mail in an environment with so many single points of failure (one server, single electric source and likely little battery runtime, single Internet connection, etc). If your desire it to "not pay Microsoft," then look at Rackspace's Exchange hosting service. Excellent support and free migration to boot.

Many small and large businesses use Apple products. This includes server. However, you must be strategic in your deployment objectives. For example, while I entrust a Mac server in a 100 person ad agency performing file services, source control, and profile management tasks, I would not ask it to host groupware for a 500 person organization.

And finally, you have not detailed any issues with software. I assume you've performed your analysis and found nothing that is not natively available on the Mac. One thing that makes me nuts is companies that say they want to go all Mac and then turn around and ask me to order VM software and Windows because, "we have this one application we forgot about...).

Ok, there is my Sunday soapbox. Know what job you need done and then pick the right tool for the job. Mavericks Server is a very capable tool. But it may not be for every job.

R-

Apple Consultants Network

Apple Professional Services

Author "Mavericks Server – Foundation Services" :: Exclusively available in Apple's iBooks Store

I'm gong to be devil's advocate on this forum and recommend that you keep a Windows server.

While there are many arguments for outsourcing email (I would use Google) at the end of the day I suspect you don't want to be paying monthly fees.

Since you are clearly already very proficient with Windows exchange I think you should keep it. Your cost to upgrade is really not all that great and it's a one time cost. Window is very capable as a server supporting Macs.

Hi

We are a small business and we use a regular spec Mac Mini (2012) with Server 3 and use it to provide all the services you describe without any problems at all. I am sure you could do what you describe using the Mac Mini and Server 3 solution. We have about 10 users, almost all of whom access the server remotely (across public internet - server sits on its own fixed IP), but three machines that can connect to the server sit on the same LAN. We have been using this configuration since Lion Server - upgrading to new versions from time to time. We use macs for work (mix of iMacs and laptops), and iThings for phone / tablet computing.

Taking each of your points in turn:

• File sharing - it is easy enough to do this on a LAN (the Macs will 'see' the server automatically). Setting up the server to share files is not complicated. For users who are not on the LAN there are several options - you can set up a variety of remote access protocols fairly easily - we use WebDAV and a mixture of SFTP and HTTP access and manage shared file sets remotely - but you can also use FTP and so on.
• Mail - for legacy reasons we used to use a non-apple mail system (CommunigatePro - an exchange clone / replacement) on the server, and it actually worked OK. But when we moved to Server 2.2 (Mountain Lion) we dropped it and moved over to the Apple built-in mail server. We were concerned that it was not as complicated as CGPro and thus not going to work so well - but actually it has turned out to be a very good move: our experience is that Apple's mail solution works very well, is much easier to administer and has been very stable / reliable. The Apple system is actually several stand-alone systems bolted together (postfix, dovecot, clamav etc.) and perhaps this is a good thing as the component parts all work well. Migrating our mail over from CGP was made easy by a general purpose IMAP migration utility they include in their distribution: you can get a copy for free from them (there is another thread somewhere explaining how to get it, but if you can't find it ask and I'll post it here again). You need to migrate the accounts over using a utility such as the CGP one - but it is not hard to do and 'non destructive' (in that the migration leaves the Exchange server 'untouched' by the process - so you can go back to try again as often as you need.
• Calendar Sharing - this works better under Server 3 than Server 2.2, and much better than we experienced with CGP.
• iOS support - all our staff routinely use their iThings to connect to mail and calendar server without any problems at all. Since most of our users are remote connecting, we don't use any of the server based LAN type features (e.g. caching app store stuff etc.), so can't comment on those.
• Server apps - in addition to mail and calendar and file sharing, we use the OS X wiki system a lot, and run two other OS X server apps as well - one for time management (Studiometry) and one for project management (Merlin) and these work fine (within the limitations that both apps are pretty unstable). We also run a Parallels virtual machine that holds up a W2K Server image running two very old legacy apps.

The only thing that doesn't work well with the Server 3 set up from our viewpoint is that it is not very good at sharing contact information - Apple have said they will provide group address sharing at various points in past but never delivered. Under Server 2.2. you could 'hack' the contact sharing system to allow you to share addresses between arbitrary groups of users - but it wasn't easy and the hack does not work in Server 3. In general contact sharing is not a well supported service on OS X (in our experience).

HTH.

Great news. Make it a successful deployment and enjoy the simplicity and power of OS X.

Hello 998Gav, we are currently at similar crossroads and were hoping you could give us an update on how it all went - pro's cons?

Thank you in advance!

Thanks for your quick response and great to hear! - I'm more looking for a small server to manage dns and users - outside of that we use google mail for calendering and file storage which works best for us - the cost is so minimal that it's well worth it for us. Still looking for someone who has some Apple knowledge myself for setting up the DNS and connecting windows clients -

Hi

We have been in a similar situation using a very similar config with a 64bit HP server SBS 2003, a 32 bit HP citrix server running on Win ser. 2003 and 24 XP workstations over 3 locations.

Over the last 3 years we have been upgrading our XP's to windows 7 etc - something that also need a change in some of our apps. However our main plan has been to isolate the Windows server to be an archive and legacy reference on a VM environment. To do this 3 years ago we went over to a hosted exchange with rackspace and 18 month ago moved over to Office 365 now that windows have reliable mac apps - we did this for less than the rackspace fees and have never had the exchange drop.

2 years ago we pushed our files out on to Box.com that allows excellent security and sharing, again taking yet another duty away from the server. Of late we have been upgrading PC's to the latest 1.4gh 8gb 500gb imac for £899 to become our typical workstation. At the moment we are still 75% windows but thats changing. Our next step once all mac we will virtualise the server for the sake of legacy reference. We are now looking to add the Mac mini server to manage profiles and apps. Outside of that there really is very little it needs to do as it does not manage firewalls and virus software etc. (We have a watchguard firebox between router and server).

We use Fusion VM with windows 7 (hate W8) on a mac for the occassion we need explorer (banks and similar) and Sage (accounts).

So whilst the cloud hosting services add a monthly or annual cost this weighs in significantly lower than the annual cost on service maintenance of a local exchange, virus subscriptions etc even after the annualised cost of the marginally more expensive mac hardware. The added benefit is that with office365 all office apps are the latest version across all users - something you would end up having to pay for every couple of years to keep up with change.

The only issue to be considered for this model - bandwidth - this would be a frustrating experience on a slow broadband feed of 5mb or below. Our three different sites are 15gb, 40gb and 50gb and thus find with staff syncing docs etc at once and with a SIPP phone system there are no issues.

MAC IT specialist are few, I suspect because there is limited work for them because the ecosystem works more reliably making it harder to draw a return. Suspect that will change when the volume of mac users increase as it clearly is doing - specially now that Apple has entry price point at £899 for an imac and £499 for a mac mini.

Hope this helps.

Cheers

C