Windows CAL is a couple of quid.
Each to their own I suppose, even with Vanilla you need client licenses at what cost? Then Ranger on top which i have experience of in three other schools (no longer as they have moved on). Ranger has now been bought out by RM and you can bet they will take out any good bits and make that a part of the CC3/CC4 upgrade, then after a couple of years stop supporting Ranger.
Windows CAL is a couple of quid.
Time to respond,
£100 A client licence is what it said on the RM web site back in 2003 when we were looking at removing RM Connect 2.4 and "moving on".
As for the time frame, i had 1 week half term before July 2004 to completly move the Connect 2.4 network out and get 110 workstations moved over to a new system. (The reason we decided on that time and not the summer holidays was to allow the kids to use it in a non critical time, so any problems could then be sorted before september)
They were all the same PC's so how long does it take to pull Windows XP down of the server, install all software and drivers and it push it back up?
The only jobs done before that half term week was to install 2003 Server on the new 3 servers, setup the domain, and transfer DNS and DHCP services over to the new systems.
Its still sitting here now, more or less in the same config as back when it was put in, it just works, and the only time it requires of me is the patching.
I still fail to see what CC3 actually does for its money. Even things such as RM Tutor is not made by RM its Netops "Netop School" rebadged.
Sorry if i upset anyone with my comments but RM is a very heavy topic with me, like a hell of a lot of people i detest them.
What i ment by real tech was when we ran RM Connect 2.4 i was more like a secretary, anything went wrong i never got to fix it my self it was always tell the LEA the problem. All i did was put build disks in the PC's and install software with the repackager, my year 7's could have done that.
So about three years ago then. CC3 has changed and has lots of added features, and licenses are cheaper.Originally Posted by Quackers
On CC3? About 10 minutes initial manual typing per machine - includes inserting build disk, entering information and waiting for "remove disk and go and put your feet up" message. Depending on software packages allocated, speed of machines and network traffic, the machine will be ready somewhere between 1.5 and 2.5 hours later. After that, create an image and restore from image takes ~10 minutes.Originally Posted by Quackers
Our migrate from 2.4 to CC3 in December 2002 I think (was still a pupil at the time) went smoothly.
Same.Originally Posted by Quackers
Quite a lot. As it's been covered many times before - remote access, remote management of users/workstations, package management, GPO security, unattended setup, printer management & credits.Originally Posted by Quackers
Apology accepted; but there are also a hell of a lot of people who like them because they have a properly-implemented CC3 network that works for them.Originally Posted by Quackers
More time for you to develop new ideas and learn about new technologies. Do you think your time is better spent fighting fires all the time?Originally Posted by Quackers
Now you're doing it. Just because I don't run CC3 here, does that mean that I'm constantly fighting fires? I can tell you this right now, it damn well doesn't.
The only thing that you've listed there that a vanilla Windows install doesn't have is printer credits.Quite a lot. As it's been covered many times before - remote access, remote management of users/workstations, package management, GPO security, unattended setup, printer management & credits.
Fixable on the cheap with Linux+Samba+CUPS+PyKota.The only thing that you've listed there that a vanilla Windows install doesn't have is printer credits.
Norphy; no, I was quoting and replying to Quackers on his RM 2.4 issues - he was complaining that if "anything went wrong i never got to fix it my self" - just put a build disk in. He seemed to imply that he'd rather have a non-CC3 network and fixing things another way. If I got the wrong end of that particular stick I apologise.
Getting back to the question! (I am not going to get involved in the RM war)
Another option could be to buy some support in sort the network out and point you in the right direction.
A few days consultancy and some training thrown in wouldn't cost too much….. and before anyone asks, I am not touting for business, I have enough at the moment and Nottinghamshire doesn’t really appeal to me.
Consultancy at what cost! £1000 per day from some one who wants to sell you something as well as his advice. three days and there is your RM CC3 server fully commisioned and ready to go, just add PCs and stir gently adding peripherals to taste fully supported with no extra costs involved you don't have to buy your PC's from them, all told for 50 PC's one RM server plus peripherals approx 25-30k all kitted out raring to go.
Or if you go down the Vanilla route, 1 server 1-2k with 2k3 R2 then time after having a consultant in three days add 3k then sorting RIS server and building MSI's deploying through various third party software or GPO and a good six weeks to set up, sorry but i know what i would rather do you can learn as you go on with the RM and maybe at a later state if you wish move away at very little cost.
£1000 a day! I would be in the Behamas right now if I could get away with charging that!
Some of us are not out to rip schools off, are completely independent and provide a valuable service for those who need it.
You should expect to pay no more than £500 per day for this kind of service.
RM must charge a service element over and above license and hardware costs. They have to pay their technicians too.
dont think it was rm who charged £1000...
I don’t want to get into a war over daily consultancy rates, I was just pointing out other options and for some schools especially primary’s where they cannot justify £25k pa for a network manager a managed service is a reasonable compromise.
All of my educational clients have network managers, many have two or more technicians but they buy in support for various reasons.
no wasnt trying to post was aimed @NetworkGeezer sorry
There is nothing wrong with buying in support. People often confuse buying in support with having naff tech support ... and often it is quite the opposite.
Knowing when to buy in support is a sign of good management and it varies from school to school.
An example from my experience. At a previous school we had to move from a Unix based file and auth server to W2K ... no training and no real time to do it. It wasn't perfect and we still ran with the Unix box as file server which need some software updates which manglement had decided not to cough up for ... and with disasterous results during an OFSTED.
So they touted round for some conslutants who said they could do everything in spite of the NMs reservations ... and they couldn't ... so it was left with the NM and myself to sort out the Mac and unix side of things ...
The amount of time and money that was spent on it could have been spent on training and utilities to do the job in-house ... and we had the capacity to do it too. This is an important point to remember.
Then we have my present school ... last summer we needed to make some major changes to the network infrastructure ... change the core switch, reroute some cables ... and so we got someone in to do it.
This freed up time for the NM to work on a new deployment of the domain, moving from admin and curriculum to a single domain and then making changes to the way we deploy machines and software.
With the amount of work we have on, there have been a number of times when I know we can save time and make things more efficient by moving onto some sort of managed system; that is why we looked at LNM earlier in the year ... but it is not quite up to what we want yet. CC3 is a lot closer, but Ranger on top of a Vanilla domain seems to offer best value for money *for my school* ... but we are sticking with a vanilla system for a few reasons (including some future developments invloving rooms full of Vista machines).
For some schools TCO is just about the cost of the software / hardware ... for some schools it is about the time saved so staff can do other things.
I suppose it depends on your drive or focus in the school. If you are expected just to make sure those pretty lights work in the network cabs then freeing up more time may not be as important ... but freeing up technical staff to work with and support departments (usually to help them become *more* independant of the tech support team) is crucial to me. Anything that allows for this is a good thing IMHO ... as a former member of the "RM is the second source of all evil" team I have had a change of heart ... and whilst not exactly as evangelical about these things as some may be about Macs or OSS I do believe that if it works for a particular school and they have spent time to ensure it is the right decision don't start having a go and say they are wasting money.
Respect their decision and respect their professionalism.
I think I'll leave this thread now ... I don't think I have anything else to add that I haven't already said ... but I am glad noone mentioned CSE. Now *there* is a waste of money!!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)