RM CC3 - any good?

[webman]

Wow Craig. This is the only time I have seen you this animated. You must really love CC3.

 

 

The way I (and Bossman) see it is, there are only two of us to run IT in the school and CC3 does what we want. We have printer management per-room & printer credit system; we can build, allocate and install software packages on machines in another building from our office; remotely re-build/re-image/shutdown/restart workstations; remote access to work areas over the Internet; tight yet customisable restriction policies; easy delegation of password resetting. There is so much CC3 allows you to do without doing everything the RM way, but they'll have you believe otherwise.

 

Without CC3, we'd have to spend a lot more of our time messing about with the problems that people with Vanilla networks post on here that CC3 does normally. (From the top of my head) such as locking down the address bar in Windows explorer, which remote access systems to use and GPOs. That time can be better spent on improving the network as a whole and developing new ideas. We also save a lot of money on third-party software like MSI creating/editing tools and the like.

 

Don't get me wrong, there are some things I don't like about RM. For instance, you need IE6+ to access the remote features, and it is all closed-source.

[Andycat]

We're CC3 here. Works very well, and we support primary schools with Server 2003 and CC3 is far better to manage. You can adapt it if you know what you're doing, whilst being able to let Modern Apps/Trainee's loose on it very early with the simplified management tools.

We have Proxy (Smartcache 2) with them as well as the general stuff. We don't buy there machines any more, we have them built and they work like a dream.

Kate, personally I'd suggest CC3 is ideal for someone part time like yourself, without the time a nd resources to invest in starting from scratch.

[Quackers]

RMCC3 is short hand for "how to waste money". £100 per PC client licence alone, that would cost us £23,000 just on that, never mind the the actual server software.

 

In the 9x era there was a stronger case for it, as NT on the workstation then was not a viable option in high schools lots of educational titles would only run on 95/98, and NT is where MS aimed its managment tools then, RM Connect 2.4 had some good tools in that MS did not provide for 9x (only NT with SMS Server 2.0 etc)

 

Now that NT has moved on into the 2000/2003/XP type OS most of the tools you will ever need are there (nice one MS), only one its missing is print quota, and thats a £400 third party add on which is more powerful that the one provide by CC3.

 

Bulk creation of users (Sims, Excel and a batch file, 5 min job)

 

Pushing out the OS's to the client PC's (RIS FREE with 2000/2003 Server)

 

Managing users look and feel of the desktop (Group policy which is not difficult, or use mandatory profiles to have full control over the look and feel, just need a few tools like delprof which is in the resource kit, and a few small batch files)

 

Pushing out new software (again group policy or ris)

 

Printer allocation (just allocate a .vbs file to each OU for each room in Active Directory, 3 lines of code not hard or use the managment console provided in R2 2003 Server)

 

Printer Auditing (Pcounter £400)

 

Use Microsoft Managment Console to create "Task Pads" ie a password manager so staff can reset pupils passwords, gives them only what they need to see, takes 10 mins to create the task pad.

 

Remote files access (use webdav, free and comes with Windows 2003 Server)

 

Should take 1 week max to have a whole system setup and ready to go, and when its in it should just work, anybody who has Administrator rights on an Active Directory should be more than capable of setting up the above.

 

Save tens of thousands of ££££ in money

Have a fast and clean network system

Move client OS when YOU choose to, not when the 3rd party managment software supports it and then get charged stupid money for an upgrade.

 

If your a school with no tech and just teachers then CC3 would prob be a good move then, but if you have a REAL tech on site an industry standard system is the way i would go.

[Roberto]

I'd like a little bit of advice please. We are running a cobbled together network, using Windows 2000 Advance server & a variety of WinXP & Win98 machines (Win98 soon to be replaced). In total around 50 stations & 1 server.

 

I am not very skilled with group policy & am having quite a few problems with various things not working as they should & have heard good reports about RM CC3. Can anybody tell me if this program deals with group policy etc to make my life easier? Is it easy to use & configure? Do I need any special equipment? Is it expensive? Any good for students with special physical/visual needs?

 

Many thanks guys & gals. :newb:

 

Welcome!

There will be a lot of opinions on this one, many of them are going to be polar opposites to each other. Someone has mentioned already that CC3 is a "love it or hate it" kinda thing and I'd agree. Of those two groups, I'm very firmly in the latter camp.

 

Having said that, if you don't have a lot of on-site support, if you're struggling to get things going, and you don't need to deviate substantially from RM's standard deployment, it will probably work well for you.

 

When I talk about deviating from their standard, someone mentions adding your own stuff on top of what CC3 provides (e.g. own mail service, etc.) working fine and I'd agree with that. If you want to buy an end to end solution from RM, or want to buy CC3 and layer your own stuff on top then you'll be fine. Probably spending a lot more money than somone who does it all themselves, but you'll be fine. As much as I'm personally not a fan, I understand how this may well be the best option for you to support learning at your school and that is why we're all here.

 

Making changes to what CC3 tries to provide in and of itself doesn't end so well. The last sentence there is why of my dislike for it; we purchased it when it was new, tried to adapt it to our needs, and broke our teeth on it. If you look at it and think "ooh it nearly does what we want, maybe we can buy it and just make our adjustments...." then my advice would be to run, not walk, away from the deal.

 

I hope that helps. You've certainly picked a thorny topic as part of your opening salvo!

 

rob

[GrumbleDook]

The thing that makes me wonder about the "love it or hate it" part of discussing CC3 is that for years this was done for Macs with MacAdmin from Hi-Resolution ... and noone slagged that off ... even now when it is perfectly possible to do things via OSX Server, people have no problem with MacAdmin being a viable solution.

 

Would people have the same atitude if Karoshi cost money or the Cutter Project was more that just managed service charges?

 

I think people remember the bad things too easily and those that can see the good side get caught up on initial cost (I won't mention TCO here ... because TCO is slike stats ... it can be made to say anything!)

[Roberto]

The thing that makes me wonder about the "love it or hate it" part of discussing CC3 is that for years this was done for Macs with MacAdmin from Hi-Resolution ... and noone slagged that off ... even now when it is perfectly possible to do things via OSX Server, people have no problem with MacAdmin being a viable solution.

 

*grin* when was the last time you ever saw me recommend 3rd party admin middleware for OS X either ;-)

 

Would people have the same atitude if Karoshi cost money or the Cutter Project was more that just managed service charges?

 

Fair point.

 

Though I'd make the same arguement for/against Karoshi that I did for CC3; if you want just about everything it offers and can't put it together yourself with the resources to hand then go for it. If you can and will be customising whatever baseline you get quite heavily because none of them quite meet your needs then they all start to look like poor value (even Free software, unless your time is worthless).

 

We spend far to much time fighting CC3 where I am, because we're trying to go in a different direction from the direction it wants us to go.

 

I've actually just distributed a paper at work discussing "the future of our network" where I talk about things, and I describe our use of CC3 as trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. And as I pointed out in this paper, it isn't the fault of either the peg or the hole that this doesn't work.

[russdev]

If your a school with no tech and just teachers then CC3 would prob be a good move then, but if you have a REAL tech on site an industry standard system is the way i would go.

 

ok i did try and stay quite i really did...

 

But i have pet hate that for people who use term real techwhen saying not to go for something like CC3 sorry but i'm a real tech (and think can justify that) and work on cc3 network...

 

 

Russ

[GrumbleDook]

If your a school with no tech and just teachers then CC3 would prob be a good move then, but if you have a REAL tech on site an industry standard system is the way i would go.

 

ok i did try and stay quite i really did...

 

But i have pet hate that for people who use term real techwhen saying not to go for something like CC3 sorry but i'm a real tech (and think can justify that) and work on cc3 network...

 

Russ

 

Russ ... don't worry ... you're not a techie ... you're an EduGeeker ... it transcends *real* techies ;-)

[GrumbleDook]

The thing that makes me wonder about the "love it or hate it" part of discussing CC3 is that for years this was done for Macs with MacAdmin from Hi-Resolution ... and noone slagged that off ... even now when it is perfectly possible to do things via OSX Server, people have no problem with MacAdmin being a viable solution.

 

*grin* when was the last time you ever saw me recommend 3rd party admin middleware for OS X either ;-)

 

Fair cop guvna ;-)

 

Would people have the same atitude if Karoshi cost money or the Cutter Project was more that just managed service charges?

 

Fair point.

 

Though I'd make the same arguement for/against Karoshi that I did for CC3; if you want just about everything it offers and can't put it together yourself with the resources to hand then go for it. If you can and will be customising whatever baseline you get quite heavily because none of them quite meet your needs then they all start to look like poor value (even Free software, unless your time is worthless).

 

We spend far to much time fighting CC3 where I am, because we're trying to go in a different direction from the direction it wants us to go.

 

I've actually just distributed a paper at work discussing "the future of our network" where I talk about things, and I describe our use of CC3 as trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. And as I pointed out in this paper, it isn't the fault of either the peg or the hole that this doesn't work.

 

Any chance of a copy of that paper? I am still looking at and working on the difference between the technical and functional specifications on infrastructure from Becta ... and real world solutions give far more weight to the discussions

[ajbritton]

Katem,

 

You might also consider the support angle to all this. Suppose you manage to get a working system together by doing some reading up, making use of local resources and edugeek website. What will then happen is that something will break and you will have to fix it. You need to feel confident that you can make it work again. If that's not the case then you need to be paying someone so you can call them up and get help.

[wesleyw]

@Russdev: I have to admit I was in the category for "trained chimp = CC3" but since using it for two years before I finally moved away from CC3 I realised I was just being evil CC3 is these days a good option if it weren't for the price and a few sore points I had with the old Service Pack 4 (for instance) from RM its a good package I think it does make things easier and means you can concentrate on the actual running of the network and technical innovations. I have been told by RM in the past though that the CC3 client access license isn't needed if you just want to connect a "normal" machine to the network without extra CC3 connect workstation software which means most of what you want CC3 for setting up and running the domain can be done and still have some control of the system itself, I think you may lose the Package management but you could just use Active Directory to push the MSIs out you create with Winstall LE. So then you only need a Microsoft Windows CAL ?

 

Don't worry Russ you are a real techie! lol

 

Wes

[russdev]

@wes

 

Gald to know i am

 

Yes you only need cc licnese if using rm package manager, tutor, virutal cd software and couple of other things...

 

But if go down that route what will need to buy is a cal

 

Russ

[webman]

Lol, if you were quoted £100 for CC3 license you have been ripped off Buying in bulk is even cheaper

 

How can you justify your assertion that CC3 techs/managers aren't real?

[GrumbleDook]

I know you have already annoyed some people with these comments but I would seriously like to challange certain statements.

 

RMCC3 is short hand for "how to waste money". £100 per PC client licence alone, that would cost us £23,000 just on that, never mind the the actual server software.

 

You are being ripped off at that price ...

 

Should take 1 week max to have a whole system setup and ready to go, and when its in it should just work, anybody who has Administrator rights on an Active Directory should be more than capable of setting up the above.

 

Are you serious? 1 week? Have you never heard of planning a deployment to meet the needs of the client? Heck, you should be spending at least one week talking to the staff about needs ... not including the time spent building the test system, preparing images for RIS and MSIs for deployment ... are you only going to stick MS Office on or something?

 

4 weeks planning the deployment (presuming you still have a system that you are running with and supporting) including consultation with staff. 1 week on the test server (1 DC, 1 member server running IIS if possible, 3 XP clients on different HALs). If you prebuild workstations with all required software on then 3 days per room for geting an image ready for RIS, if not and you have a standard build then 1 day per machine but 2 weeks for making MSIs of software ... and then you have the deployment phase.

 

You build the proper DC with FSMO roles ... you makes sure it is happy (2 days) ... you build the second server ... you make sure it is happy and you than promote it and make sure thing s are happy between servers ... (2 days) ... you then build in RIS ... you then start loading a few machines onto the domain .. you test deploy a few ... (2-3 days)

 

You then move the file server across, ensuring shares and perms are ok ... and then web, mail, print and so on ...

 

You then test deploy a full room ...

 

Then you sit back and check what you have done before pushing out to everywhere ....

 

Sounds like a lot of work? That is why some schools buy in a managed service or management software such as CC3 ...

 

Save tens of thousands of ££££ in money

Have a fast and clean network system

Move client OS when YOU choose to, not when the 3rd party managment software supports it and then get charged stupid money for an upgrade.

 

The 3rd party software is usually behind whilst they fix problems that occur due to the OS being changed from what it was meant to be like in documentation from the original provider ...

 

Even with WSUS and patch management I still opt for the 3 working day policy on applying patches ... I always wait to see what went wrog for others. This has save my skin time and time again ... there is something to be said for not rushing into changes and allowing others to make the mistakes.

 

If your a school with no tech and just teachers then CC3 would prob be a good move then, but if you have a REAL tech on site an industry standard system is the way i would go.

 

Now have a read of the above instructions for planning and deploying a domain ... that *is* an *industry standard* way of deploying and written up fr a company that was doing a major deployment of a large number of machines ... a mere 150. If a *real* tech is going to spend that long on it I think I would not be happy with a tech who was only going to spend a week on it.

 

And just so you remember ... we are *industry* ... the education industry!

 

rant over now ... back off to scream at SIMS and Assessment Manager.

[MkII]

(I won't mention TCO here ... because TCO is slike stats ... it can be made to say anything!)

I think cost is the whole point here tho'.

 

The only reason my school doesn't go with RM CCx is because the costs are so very high.

 

It's part of the downfall of our industry that poor descisions are made around costs. Too often schools pay far too little expecting everything in return.

 

So anyone looking at this option has to consider the sustainability. From your statements katem I would say you're no where near in a position to even consider such a large expenditure. Though my school has surprised me several times with what they can pull out of the bag when they want something.

 

Tickmike sits at the other end of the scale, spending practically zero.

 

Opinions on CC3: I find myself agreeing with a lot of what Quackers says. I can do everything webman states are the benefits of CC3 without that much effort really. All i've seen that impresses me about CC3 is the thorough GP permissions.

 

I'm sure there are many other options to simplify administration to consider. Ranger is another expensive front end for example.

 

Another option might be an outside contractor to take care of the bigger issues. I bought in support from a big company for an initial £1000 for 10 non time limited 'tickets'. As it hapens I haven't used them yet, although I did call upon them as expert opinion on the dust damage to our servers by building contractors this year.

 

So there are lots of ways to crack this nut. Finance is a major factor. If I were your school I'd like to know of the options.

[russdev]

what mark says in last sentence get your options and see what is besrt for your school as been said look at everything that need to find from workstations, server and to support..

 

dont think can school afford this do as tony calls it 'blue sky' thinking work out what you want from network if money wasnt an option but together some proposals.

 

Then look to see where you can cut back on things...

 

Russ

[Grommit]

Why is no-one mentioning the best of both worlds... Not Viglin, Not CC3.... but a vanilla Network with RANGER ?

 

Ranger does Printer Control, Deployment, GPO's (address bar lock) Work shutdown .. etc etc.

 

http://www.rangersuite.co.uk.

[robert.mabbutt]

Grommit, thats a good idea. We have that set-up and use AD and Ranger together to lock our system down and has proven to be successful. Teachers do moan now-and-then about but we're still getting to grips to W2k3 having moved from NT4 so with their help were ironing out the bugs. Quota enforcer is a good tool and flags up and annoying window that can't be moved or minimized by the user, forcing them to click the explore button and delete/move files. But this does not stop the user saving more data to their home drives so no work is lost.

 

Anyways my 2pence worth! lol

 

Robert!

(Skive hard play hard!)

[webman]

Erm... CC3 is just the same as vanilla+ranger. Eg. a bunch of tools that sit on top of Windows 2000/2003 on the server and XP on the clients.

[russdev]

lol ironey rm own ranager eeven through they are still seprate enterity for few years they just share code and information.

 

russ

[bossman]

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.

[plexer]

Windows CAL is a couple of quid.

 

Ben

[Quackers]

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.

[webman]

£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".

 

So about three years ago then. CC3 has changed and has lots of added features, and licenses are cheaper.

 

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?

 

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.

 

Our migrate from 2.4 to CC3 in December 2002 I think (was still a pupil at the time) went smoothly.

 

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.

 

Same.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

[Norphy]

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.

 

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.

 

The only thing that you've listed there that a vanilla Windows install doesn't have is printer credits.