Worst and best Server version?

Discussion in 'Mac OS X Server, Xserve, and Networking' started by KoolAid-Drink, Sep 28, 2013.

  1. KoolAid-Drink, Sep 28, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2013

    KoolAid-Drink macrumors 65816

    Sep 18, 2013
    I was wondering which version of Mac OS X Server was the worst and best out of all? I heard personally that the best in terms of flexibility, bug-free, and speed was Tiger and Snow Leopard, and the worst (buggiest, inflexible, problem-prone) was Leopard and Lion. Or maybe it was reversed and Lion/Leopard was one of the best? Curious for your input and why :)

    1.0 (Original Server)
    10.0 (Cheetah Server)
    10.1 (Puma Server)
    10.2 (Jauger Server)
    10.3 (Panther Server)
    10.4 (Tiger Server)
    10.5 (Leopard Server)
    10.6 (Snow Leopard Server)
    10.7 (Lion Server)
    10.8 (Mountain Lion Server)
  2. mvmanolov macrumors 6502a

    Aug 27, 2013
    i'm running SL right now. and it's been great. However i only use it for a few things so i cannot testify for anything aside of VPN/FS/DNS

    these services run smoothly and without glitches.

    Good luck :D
  3. benwiggy macrumors 68020

    Jun 15, 2012
  4. rlkarren macrumors newbie

    Jan 25, 2013
    SL server has been the best so far, IMO.

    As the last of the real "enterprise-level" Mac OS X server solutions, it has been by far better than it's predecessor's. And since the newer versions are not really enterprise level, I prefer SL server over any other.
  5. neier macrumors member

    Apr 23, 2003
    Snow Leopard

    Agreed that Snow Leopard server was the last enterprise-level release.

    You can pick up a new DVD (unlimited client version) from Amazon for around $60. But, be sure to check the minimum OS requirements for any hardware you plan to install it on. The last MacMini which will boot 10.6 was the model released in June 2010. Not sure about the MacPro.
  6. chrfr macrumors 604

    Jul 11, 2009
    You can also apparently just call the online Apple store and get it for $19.99.
  7. neier macrumors member

    Apr 23, 2003
    For 10.6 Server? I think that's what they charge for just the replacement basic OS.
  8. chrfr macrumors 604

    Jul 11, 2009
    There's a thread here that discusses installing 10.6 in Parallels, and it also discusses that you can buy 10.6 Server for the same price as the non-server version.
  9. awair macrumors regular

    Sep 6, 2011
    10.6 Server version from Apple (telephone order only), $19.99 plus tax.

    Bought two in the last 6 months, one for a VM to run 10.6 desktop apps, the other for a real server (not very keen on Lion).
  10. Alrescha macrumors 68020

    Jan 1, 2008
    I agree, with the caveat that you install all the updates before you touch anything. SNS out of the box was <mostly> fine, but some of the early updates caused problems with user attributes stored in Open Directory. Subsequent updates fixed the cause, but not the damaged records.

  11. alexrmc92 macrumors regular

    Feb 7, 2013
    I run a large XSan system on SL server and wont go to anything newer. Although i do virtualize ML to get profile manager.
  12. freejazz-man macrumors regular

    May 12, 2010
    Curious as to what it is about SLS that people like/seem to think is 'enterprise' ready. I'm not a fan of the new server app, but having never used SLS - I'm wondering what the hubbub is about
  13. MacsRgr8 macrumors 604


    Sep 8, 2002
    The Netherlands
    My $ 0.02:

    Snow Leopard (10.6) Server was the most complete version, and looks and feels most "server-ish".

    But, I must say that Mountain Lion Server, even with its reduced possibilities, is very good. Pretty well done that Apple has made such an unbelievably easy interface for configuring a Server. Even changing the IP address and / or DNS name is absolutely easy on Mountain Lion Server.
    The Profile Manager of 10.7 and 10.8 Server is nice, but a bit "iffy"...

    The most "fun", IMHO, was the Rhapsody-release, i.e. Sever 1.x.
    Such a new thing when all we had on the client-side was Mac OS 8.5!
    The first experience of NetBooting, "Classic" and the UNIX of Mac OS X.

    10.3 (Panther) Server was probably the first completely usable server for managing Macs based on LDAP (Open Directory).
  14. ratsg macrumors 6502

    Dec 6, 2010
    Mac OS X Server 1.2v3

    For the interface alone!
  15. MacsRgr8 macrumors 604


    Sep 8, 2002
    The Netherlands
    Yep! The "Rhapsody" interface.

    Check these out... I always have a VM of Rhapsody just for ol' time's sake... :eek:

    Attached Files:

    • 1.jpg
      File size:
      89.2 KB
    • 2.jpg
      File size:
      128 KB
    • 3.jpg
      File size:
      821.9 KB
  16. mmomega macrumors demi-god


    Dec 30, 2009
    DFW, TX
    SL server was the last great full release server.

    Lion Server I wasn't much a fan of.

    ML Server was a move in the right direction.
    I use it as:
    Time Machine Server
    iTunes Server
    CrashPlan+ Server
    Wiki Site
    NetInstall Server
    Caching Server
    VPN Server

    I just recently jumped to Mavs DP9 Server (I didn't try previous server builds) and it has been rock stable so far. I likey.
  17. KoolAid-Drink thread starter macrumors 65816

    Sep 18, 2013
    Whoa, what program are you using to virtualize Rhapsody? I was struggling to make it work in Parallels. Can you PM me with the instructions of how you got it to work? Got the CD still, just want to make it finally work!

  18. Nicholas Savage macrumors newbie

    Oct 19, 2013
    Southern Wisconsin
    Huh. Mac OS X Server 1.0 was interesting to deploy back in the day. I never was a fan of the early aqua interface, so having the os8 interface sitting on top of unix was a treat; even if it wasn't exactly a feature rich release. As for general deployment; 10.4 was about the time when I was getting my clients to switch from their crappy Services for Macintosh equipped windows servers n' deploy a mac server in their departments.

    I liked 10.6 Server. 10.7-8 and this bizarre soho emphasis is beyond annoying. Apple really botched their server product; just in time for decent NAS offerings to pick up the slack on smaller rollouts.
  19. Abacab macrumors member


    Jul 4, 2008

    I think Snow Leopard was great as far as stability but the later versions although less "Server like" were very functional especially with the mobile device integration. My 2 biggest gripes with Apple pertaining to enterprise was EMAIL, And an industrial cost efficient backup solution.
    We used a combination of Time Machine, Carbon Copy Cloner & Rsync with great success.
  20. MacsRgr8 macrumors 604


    Sep 8, 2002
    The Netherlands
    I use VMware Fusion.

    See this link.

    Have fun!
  21. KoolAid-Drink thread starter macrumors 65816

    Sep 18, 2013
    Thanks! Does this work with the latest version of VMware Fusion (6)? I tried it using the instructions in the link below, but it kept failing.

  22. tomsdongle macrumors newbie


    Aug 28, 2011
    Having used ML in a production environment for quite some time now, I can safely say whilst it was a massive improvement over Lion, it still isn't that good - I continue to experienced random lock ups, that effectively cripple the system, without anything ever being reported in its logs.

    Im running both 10.6 server and 10.8 server in a Windows / OS X environment - namely file sharing over afp/smb, web sharing, vpn, OD and virtualisation. The SL server just works.

    SL is by far my favourite, I quite often take for granted it firewall and DNS manager.
  23. spencers macrumors 68020


    Sep 20, 2004
    I like 10.6 for sharing printers across the network.
    10.8 for File Sharing
    10.9 for Caching Server
  24. ChristianVirtual, Nov 4, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2013

    ChristianVirtual macrumors 601


    May 10, 2010
    I moved from Linux to SL and liked it; with Lion too much got removed/replaced and I moved back to Linux/FreeBSD. :apple: don't really like server product anymore, hardware and software don't get enough love. And that's fine for me. If they don't want there are enough alternatives. They should focus on what they see as their core business.

    I'm happy now with FreeBSD/pfSense as firewal/IPsec VPN, and FreeBSD with ZFS as NAS and a number of other dedicated virtual machines running under ESXi. And keep :apple: for desktop and mobile devices perfectly being able to communicate with my other servers.
  25. Alrescha macrumors 68020

    Jan 1, 2008
    Exactly this. With SLS my shop started a move toward using OS X Server. With the arrival of Lion Server that project was put on hold and then cancelled with Mountain Lion. We are now using FreeBSD again.


Share This Page