Hi All,

I have a client who is upgrading a FM5.5 app to FM7 runnng on Advanced
server.

I am unsure which path to follow: windows or mac. As they do NOT
currently run a domain or AD, I am kind of loathe to get itno the whole
windows server thing.

Can anyone point me to any online references to performance testing
with FM7 on Windows and Mac boxes?

I am trying to compare a 3Ghz P4 PC with 1Gb RAM and a 10,000 rpm SATA
hard disk running windows server 2003 to a Powermac G5 with a single
1.8 Ghz CPU, 1 Gb RAM, normal hard disk.

I would prefer to go with a Powermac or a Mac server as I think in the
long run it will be simpler.

Any thoughts?

Thanks.

I don't really have the proper competency to give you a definite answer,
so it's just my 2 cents worth.
I know pretty well FMS55 on a Win2K Pro PC, and all I can say is that a
dedicated PC is very simple to take care of. I installed it in 1 hour,
and in a 3 years period, with a client working 24/7 with almost no
maintenance, I had zero (absolute zero !) stop or failure, or
corruption, or need to go to a backup.
I understood that the burden of work is somewhat shared between an FMS55
machine and its clients, while it is said very clearly that now, with
FMS7, most of the burden, if not all, is done at the server level.
Thus, the raw power of the server is key, and then a good modern PC
would be more powerful than a G5. It maybe also less expensive with Win
XP, unless you go to a Windows Server.
So my advice would be to go and get a PC.
Again, I am not 100% qualified, but that is my clear opinion.
I hope not to raise an other platform war, but you have to make a
choice.
Remi-Noel

<ninereeds (AT) gmail (DOT) com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1119182971.299946.4800 (AT) g47g2000...oglegroups.com...

In article <1119182971.299946.4800 (AT) g47g2000cwa (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
ninereeds (AT) gmail (DOT) com says...
You actually need "advanced" or are you just buying it because "advanced
must be better than regular" ?

Good plan. If they don't have windows servers, no good reason I can
think of to add one.

Doesn't seem to exist. I've asked myself a number of times in a number
of places.

That P4 should edge out that Mac in performance (gut feeling, no hard
benchmarks). Whether anyone will notice in 'real world' usage is even
more debatable.

Are they running Mac or Windows clients? If they're running Macs its a
no-brainer to stay with Macs. If they are running windows its down to
TCO estimates and available expertise.

On the flipside, if you don't actually need server 7 *advanced*, server
7 will run just fine on XP Pro.

Find out if you really need "Advanced". You only need advanced for
serving to the web or for server support of ODBC. If you aren't doing
that, if you are just hosting to FM7 clients, don't bother with
advanced. Server 7 and S7Advanced are exactly equal at just hosting
databases to FM Pro 7 clients.

In article <42b5b85d$0$9925$626a14ce (AT) news (DOT) free.fr>, rnmenegaux (AT) free (DOT) fr
says...
With server 7 advanced you must use a Windows Server OS.

Overall I agree... unless its already a mac shop, and then dumping a
windows box into it makes little sense, even for a minor performance
boost.

Your comments about a win2k server being troublefree for years on end is
accurate enough, but then, I've had an OS 9 Filemaker server running the
last 5 years with zero downtime too. And OS 9 isn't exactly a steller
OS. The point is the server can be reliable on either platform. And OS X
is orders of magnitude better than OS9 for stability (in general).

OK, 42, but the question said in the title that they are "20 windows
clients".
Thanks for other useful precisions and comments.
Remi-Noel

"42" <nospam (AT) nospam (DOT) com> a écrit dans le message de news:
MPG.1d1ff987304035e0989b8c (AT) shawnews (DOT) ..

In article <42b66b61$0$14724$626a14ce (AT) news (DOT) free.fr>, rnmenegaux (AT) free (DOT) fr
says...
Thanks. And to the OP, in future, please don't put critical information
only in the subject

20 windows clients? Yeah, I'd probably go with windows unless the
clients had mac expertise and preferred one.

I'd still want to verify you actually need advanced. If its just 20
windows clients you have NO REASON to purchase advanced.

Hi,

<grin> I work mostly with PC's so I kind of lean that way. In the end,
the difference between a dual CPU G5 and a 3Ghz Xeon system with
Windows Server was about $1200 (not US). The mac being more expensive.

We ended up going for the Mac because it was simpler - less work to set
up and maintain - IMHO!

Thanks,

Hi,

We need to provide web access, therefore we need Server Advanced.

<grin> Me neither, amd I am a windows guru!

I couldn't find anything. I hope someone does some one day.

My thoughts too. I believe that the disks or NIC will be a bottle neck
before the CPU will.

WIndows XP. I think the TCO will be on the Mac's side even though the
upfront cost is about 25% higher.

No, we do. We want to do the web access thing.

THanks,

Hi,

Not accordign to the system requirements on their website.

Agreed.

But I'm going to put my money on a G5 with OS X over windows server -
Occam's Razor.

Thanks,

Hi,

True, but we want the features of Server Advanced.

Thanks,