+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 30
Windows Thread, RM CC4 vs Microsoft Only in Technical; Afternoon all, This is my first post, so please excuse if I have posted this in the wrong place. I ...
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Tunbridge Wells
    Posts
    2
    Thank Post
    2
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    RM CC4 vs Microsoft Only

    Afternoon all,
    This is my first post, so please excuse if I have posted this in the wrong place.

    I have inherited a primary schools IT system, and we are in major need of an upgrade, our equipment is over 5 years old, and overdue an upgrade.

    My issue is the cost of RM's servers and equipment. We currently have 40 RM One desktops (which I am quite impressed with) and a server running Windows Server 2003 with CC3.

    I was just wondering, do the majority of schools run their own windows network, or do they use RM's CC3 or CC4.

    We are also looking in to leasing as the cost of a complete upgrade is out of our financial grasp at the moment. Is this something they you have experience of.

    I am just worried that if I go for a purely windows network, the support, software and ease of use that RM supply my make my job twice as hard.

    Many thanks

    Stewart

  2. #2
    jsnetman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    887
    Thank Post
    23
    Thanked 134 Times in 126 Posts
    Rep Power
    39
    RM is the best solution for schools that do not have technical staff of what I would say have high technical knowledge of OS's and server technology, in this scenario RM achieves it's goal of a ready setup and easy to manage, don't get me wrong you still need tech knowledge to run an RM network but on the other hand any teacher or technician with a low skill set can run (providing they have a support contract). I'm sure many good network managers have RM but personally I don't see the point. I inherited an RM network in 2000 it may have been connect 2.4 I think or maybe earlier, I hated the fact that we had to rely on floppy disks to do rebuilds as in my mind PXE and server deployment was the way to go, and of courrse licensing costs. Although you are not required to buy RM hardware (over priced and under specced in my opinion) they did put pressure on you to do so. If you feel you have enough skill to implement a vanilla network that would be my recommendation, most of the tools to manage the network are built in, perhaps not in a more convenient way than RM but they are there.

    One thing I would say about RM's hardware is that it is the very best quality so I suppose you are paying for that when purchasing their kit.
    Last edited by jsnetman; 18th June 2010 at 07:06 AM.

  3. Thanks to jsnetman from:

    smullen (22nd June 2010)

  4. #3
    zag
    zag is offline
    zag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    3,765
    Thank Post
    898
    Thanked 416 Times in 350 Posts
    Blog Entries
    12
    Rep Power
    87
    Most of us have moved away from managed solutions like CC4, they are too expensive and not needed any more with the new group policies and features of windows server.

    There is an interesting discussion of this over here

    Do we really need products like RM Connect or CSE ?

    In terms of leasing, don't do it! Computers are cheap these days and leasing just makes things harder and more expensive in the long term. Also look into virtualization if the primary school is bigger and needs more servers.
    Last edited by zag; 18th June 2010 at 08:54 AM.

  5. Thanks to zag from:

    smullen (22nd June 2010)

  6. #4

    bossman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    3,912
    Thank Post
    1,188
    Thanked 1,062 Times in 753 Posts
    Rep Power
    329
    @jsnetman:

    I won't even rise to this old chestnut: You are so out of date and out of proper information quoting the same old phrases "any teacher or technician with a low skill set can run (providing they have a support contract)." this could be said of any platform its called "managed services" and some schools prefer this to the service they get from someone who thinks he knows best and runs with whatever they feel fit because they are in charge.

    Too many times have I been to many schools where the NM thought he was very clever and installed a vanilla system, we have 2 instances near us of a school and a college to which the SLT team would love to have a managed service as the service they receive is dire.

    I really don't care what platform people run as it doesn't matter a jot!!
    All that matters is the service you supply to your customers fullstop!!!

    @jsnetman: I don't know you personally but i feel you could be such a person as what I have described and it is not very professional of me to say that but I find people like yourself very narrow minded indeed and quite irritating to say the least.

    I do hope I that I am wrong on this as I regard all my fellow professionals in high esteem and this kind of nonsense about who's is bigger and better is just childish.
    Your post started off very nice indeed but then ran on on to undermine all the IT professionals on this forum by stating what you did.

    When giving advice in the future I would just stick to the facts that whatever systems people have in place that it does take good skills on any platform to get the best out of it for the students.

    I have not posted to offend but just to try and dismiss this constant barrage of non professionalism towards other members of the IT profession.

  7. #5
    jsnetman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    887
    Thank Post
    23
    Thanked 134 Times in 126 Posts
    Rep Power
    39
    It just so happens I regard people who spout the benefits of a managed network the same way when the person may have highly developed technical skills. I guess we are at odds here, I'm perfectly entitled to my opinion.

    In no way am I decrying technicians, I know from experience that all tech jobs are not equal, meaning you get roped into other duties not directly connected to IT. Therefore you don't get or it takes longer to do more technical duties on a network. I am also advocating RM for these types of school, IN MY OPINION it's the best out there, but very expensive.
    Last edited by jsnetman; 18th June 2010 at 09:29 AM.

  8. #6
    enjay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Reading, Berkshire, UK
    Posts
    4,488
    Thank Post
    282
    Thanked 196 Times in 167 Posts
    Rep Power
    75
    The ease of use of an RM network is something well worth considering. Obviously it doesn't give me anything I can't do with straight MS, but in many instances I can do these things quicker with RM, leaving me more time to do other tasks.

    jsnetman is - sort of - correct when stating that any teacher could "run the network". Any teacher could certainly use the Management Console, although as we all know, there is a vast amount of other stuff to our jobs than adding users and setting access rights. It would be fair to say, however, that a teacher could do the basics of keeping heads above water during the period in between you leaving and your replacement starting, and that is something which you should consider. While you may be able to run a straight MS network, would the school definitely be able to recruit someone to follow you who could also do that?

  9. #7
    jsnetman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    887
    Thank Post
    23
    Thanked 134 Times in 126 Posts
    Rep Power
    39
    The ICT teacher here managed the RM network before I was employed so yes it can be done.
    would the school definitely be able to recruit someone to follow you who could also do that?
    That would be something to discuss with senior management outlining the pro's and con's. Pro's being you get a less expensive network con's you need someone with decent skills to run it which will be more expensive. But on a large network you subtract the the persons wages from the contract with RM you get lots of money left over.

  10. #8
    enjay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Reading, Berkshire, UK
    Posts
    4,488
    Thank Post
    282
    Thanked 196 Times in 167 Posts
    Rep Power
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by jsnetman View Post
    The ICT teacher here managed the RM network before I was employed so yes it can be done.
    Same here, and it was in a poor state as they simply didn't have the time needed. Phrases such as "keeping head above water" and "fire fighting" would be fair.

    Quote Originally Posted by jsnetman View Post
    Pro's being you get a less expensive network con's you need someone with decent skills to run it.
    Also consider that the person with "decent skills" will cost more, possibly more than an RM network and less skilled person. I trust you're not actually meaning to imply that those of us with RM don't have decent skills, by the way?

  11. #9
    jsnetman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    887
    Thank Post
    23
    Thanked 134 Times in 126 Posts
    Rep Power
    39
    those of us with RM don't have decent skills, by the way?
    Not at all, I came to this school with what I would class as a decent skill set and ran an RM network for 3 years, solely because as you pointed out the ICT teacher needed to teach and did not have time for the ever growing network. It would also depend on the size of the network whether implementing a vanilla type would be of any advantage i.e. you have 100 machines and you go vanilla then you need someone relatively expensive to manage it it might not be worth it.
    Last edited by jsnetman; 18th June 2010 at 09:54 AM.

  12. #10
    zag
    zag is offline
    zag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    3,765
    Thank Post
    898
    Thanked 416 Times in 350 Posts
    Blog Entries
    12
    Rep Power
    87
    what he is saying is that RM networks _can_ be run by people with less skills.

    it doesn't mean they all are.

  13. 3 Thanks to zag:

    bossman (18th June 2010), CheeseDog (17th September 2010), jsnetman (18th June 2010)

  14. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Tunbridge Wells
    Posts
    2
    Thank Post
    2
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Thanks for all the replies.
    I just wanted to put a question out there and see what the response was, and after reading them all, I think I will be going down the Microsoft Network route (Never liked calling it Vanilla).
    I have worked in IT for quite a few years now, and have mainly used Microsoft, but this has been my first experience of RM CC3, and to be honest, I don't really understand the point of it, it just sits on top of the servers OS, duplicating the jobs that you have already paid Microsoft to do.
    I am used to creating my own share permissions, group policies, builds etc, and know I can do a better job of it that RM CC3.

    I just wanted all your points of view, I can see both sides of the discussion. I wouldn't mind using RM CC4 Lite, if there is such a thing, as some of the tasks RM does I think works very well.

    Then there is licencing, what do you Microsft only user do for CAL licences on your servers?

    Thanks again for all your replies and sugestions.

    Stew

  15. #12

    sparkeh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    6,744
    Thank Post
    1,275
    Thanked 1,648 Times in 1,104 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22
    Rep Power
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by smullen View Post
    Then there is licencing, what do you Microsft only user do for CAL licences on your servers?
    Not entirely sure what you mean by that but every device accessing a server needs a CAL. A lot of people overlook that *any* device that uses a server service (ie getting an IP from DHCP) requires a CAL.

    You can get either User CALS or Device CALS. I would think that for most, if not all, schools the device CAL is more cost effective.

  16. #13

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    375
    Thank Post
    43
    Thanked 47 Times in 45 Posts
    Rep Power
    25
    I started my IT career in a vanilla Microsoft environment and in a geeky way I LOVED getting into the nitty gritty of Windows Server. I use RM CC3 at the moment and it does have it's benefits but I do miss being able to play with the intricate settings of GPO and NSF and the such.

    I can see the argument from both sides having used both networks but personally I prefer vanilla. All down to personal preference I guess. Although we have a good support contract with RM and I have had excellent experiences.

  17. #14

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,655
    Thank Post
    849
    Thanked 890 Times in 737 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    327
    Quote Originally Posted by sparkeh View Post
    Not entirely sure what you mean by that but every device accessing a server needs a CAL. A lot of people overlook that *any* device that uses a server service (ie getting an IP from DHCP) requires a CAL.

    You can get either User CALS or Device CALS. I would think that for most, if not all, schools the device CAL is more cost effective.
    AFAIK - only services that require authentication against AD require a CAL. Getting an IP from DHCP doesn't, nor does DNS. And that the device needs to be accessing the server not the other way round. So printers on print server do not need CAL's unless the need to authenticate against AD for some reason (web interface security?).

  18. #15

    sparkeh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    6,744
    Thank Post
    1,275
    Thanked 1,648 Times in 1,104 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22
    Rep Power
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    AFAIK - only services that require authentication against AD require a CAL. Getting an IP from DHCP doesn't, nor does DNS. And that the device needs to be accessing the server not the other way round. So printers on print server do not need CAL's unless the need to authenticate against AD for some reason (web interface security?).
    Well this is statement on the MS 2008 licensing page:

    a Windows Server 2008 Client Access License (CAL) is required for each user or device (or combination of both) that accesses or uses the Windows Server 2008 or Windows Server 2008 R2 server software.
    Getting an addresses from DHCP looks like accessing the server software to me.
    Last edited by sparkeh; 22nd June 2010 at 10:29 AM.

  19. Thanks to sparkeh from:

    tmcd35 (22nd June 2010)

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. CC4
    By rok in forum Network and Classroom Management
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 22nd March 2010, 09:21 PM
  2. CC4 Anywhere
    By Edu-IT in forum Network and Classroom Management
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 20th January 2010, 05:05 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 4th March 2009, 10:26 AM
  4. CC4 POLL
    By gibbo_ap in forum General Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 21st January 2009, 09:29 AM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •