Stroller <MacMonster at myrealbox.com> wrote: >> The "cost of production" for server-level administration tools is not >> low... > > Oh, come on. We're talking about stuff like a Cocoa GUI for editing > things like Apache.conf & Samba.conf. I agree that it doesn't cost as much to create server admin tools as it does to create Microsoft Office ;-) But I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on how much it does cost to produce (and test) them. >> If you really need a server OS, the price of Mac OS X Server is a huge >> bargain. Ask your friendly neighborhood Windows network admin how much >> he/she paid for a server OS with unlimited clients... > > I'm not sure that that's really the point. But it's precisely my point. If you need a server, you need a server. In my opinion comparing OS X Server to OS X Client and saying the former is overpriced is an issue of unreasonable perspective. Comparing OS X Server to Windows server solutions shows you how much of a bargain OS X Server really is. I understand the desire to go the "cheap" route. But sometimes "cheap" in the short term ends up being expensive over the long haul. If you're in the market for a server OS, the client licenses and additional tools you get with a server-level OS will more than make up for the difference in cost over the life of the server, in my experience. Forgetting about the client license costs for a moment, consider how much your time is worth. Now consider each time you have to find a "solution" somewhere on the 'net for doing something using the Client version that is easily done with a click of the mouse in the Server version. Even if you're an underpaid admin who only makes $50 an hour ;-) the 10-client version of OS X server will pay for itself after only 7.4 hours of fiddling around, and the unlimited-client version will pay for itself after only 17.4 hours. That's not much time, considering the life of a server.