Existing users, 
 ExtremeZ-IP - 3.2AppleShareIP server for Windows NT |
|
||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
Feedback Summary:
| Version 3.2: | |||||
| Overall Rating: |   (3.0) |
Features: | (3.0) |
Support: | (3.0) |
| Ease of Use: | (3.0) |
Quality / Stability: | (2.0) |
Price: | (1.0) |
Key to Types of Feedback:
Reviews 
Troubleshooting 
Usage Tips 
Developer Notes 
Commentary 
Featured Reviews
Great Product for Small to Medium Sized Mac Studios - Version: 4.2, 11/11/2006 02:27PM PST
(1 of 2 users found this comment useful)
lizdescamps
I regularly deal with Mac Graphic Studios/Corporate Communications Departments that are an island of Mac users in a sea of PC's, generally sharing Server2000/2003 resources and for this type of client, that can't justify the expense of an XServe for 3-15 mac users, this product is great. I sometimes refer to ExtremeZ-IP as the poor man's XServe but that really doesn't do it justice. If you are in an environment that requires your Mac users to share space on a Win2000/2003 server this product is light years ahead of the SFM protocol in both speed and compatibility and their support department really stays on top of issues.
very good product...if you have very deep pockets... - Version: 4.2.2, 7/3/2006 10:23PM PST
(3 of 5 users found this comment useful)
poolmouse
...extremez-ip is simply too expensive, as others pointed out. before osx server bagan to mature (both software and hardware), extremez-ip was an essential service enhancement. it gives you afp version 3.x that supports all the advanced features of osx (auto reconnect, unicode, long filenames, etc.).
tiger server includes extended attributes and access control lists...two things that kept a lot of large companies from moving over to osx server. and as i recently found out, there's also a failover function so you can point one xserver to another and tell it to failover if the first one fails. that opened the door in a lot of large companies.
sorry group logic...you sell an excellent product, but it's way overpriced. oh, and please stop telling people that "in our test osx server fails miserably"...that's such complete nonesense. ;) stick to what you guys do best - selling an excellent product. don't water down your product with unsubstantiated attacks on apple products...seasoned admins, consultants and enterprize engineers know better.
don
don montalvo, nyc
curmudgeon at large
tiger server includes extended attributes and access control lists...two things that kept a lot of large companies from moving over to osx server. and as i recently found out, there's also a failover function so you can point one xserver to another and tell it to failover if the first one fails. that opened the door in a lot of large companies.
sorry group logic...you sell an excellent product, but it's way overpriced. oh, and please stop telling people that "in our test osx server fails miserably"...that's such complete nonesense. ;) stick to what you guys do best - selling an excellent product. don't water down your product with unsubstantiated attacks on apple products...seasoned admins, consultants and enterprize engineers know better.
don
don montalvo, nyc
curmudgeon at large
Most Recent Replies: View All 3 Replies
- cheap nike jordan shoes
Nice product, but the pricetag is to high - Version: 4.2.2, 6/16/2006 03:37PM PST
(1 of 1 users found this comment useful)
vemund
I used this product for a long time in my last job, and it's nice for sure, but the pricetag is way too high. And if you want some sort of decent support, the TCO-price is absurd. So if you're not rich or have special (MS/Win/ActiveD.-based?) needs, I'll go for a Mac OS X server instead.
The license price itself (for 100 users) can buy you a xserve with nice specs...
You also have to pay for #.X updates, and the upgrade-prices are not nice they either.
Conclusion: Good product, but way too expensive.
The license price itself (for 100 users) can buy you a xserve with nice specs...
You also have to pay for #.X updates, and the upgrade-prices are not nice they either.
Conclusion: Good product, but way too expensive.
