Jul 25, 2012 - Along with Wednesday's release of OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion, Apple released Mountain Lion Server as a $19.99 upgrade on the Mac App Store.
Along with Wednesday's release of OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion, Apple released Mountain Lion Server as a $19.99 upgrade on the Mac App Store, while Xcode 4.4 was also provided to developers, and Apple Remote Desktop also received an update. Mountain Lion Server OS X Server version 2.0 is for download on the Mac App Store. It's an application that users can add to Mountain Lion, quickly turning a Mac into a server that can be used for home offices, businesses, schools, and hobbyists. OS X Server 2.0 is a 134-megabyte download from the Mac App Store that requires OS X 10.8 or later. Assistant editor tracks caller or callee for the current selection. New localization workflow can share a single base.xib file for multiple locales on OS X. Source control can commit individually selected changes.
ARC migration tool converts both retain/release and garbage collected code. Fixes an issue where code completion could fail, requiring the user to delete derived data. Additional bug fixes and stability improvements. Apple Remote Desktop Finally, Apple Remote Desktop was to version 3.6 on Wednesday. The 10.3-megabyte download costs $79.99, and requires OS X 10.7 Lion or later, meaning Snow Leopard users will not be able to upgrade. Version 3.6 of Apple Remote Desktop addresses several issues related to overall reliability, usability and compatibility, according to Apple.
It is also said to provide new attributes in the System Overview Report, and support for IPv6. Originally Posted by malax Was it always just $20? OS X Server looks like a great deal now, even if you just use it for the Time Machine feature. My kids and I have 4 Macs in active use and two of them aren't backed up regularly. I can just pay $20 for this, turn on the Time Machine server option, point the other three Macs to the one acting as the server and I'm covered. That's a lot cheaper than buying some networked backup appliance.
Am I missing something? No, you are correct, that will work just fine. Xcode 4.4 is excellent. Xcode is becoming a great IDE. Server is a weak spot for Apple. I've supported Server for quite a while, and it really is not that good a product.
About the only good thing it has going for itself, is its price. Originally Posted by SolipsismX So OS X Mountain Lion and OS X Server each cost $20 but the 10.3MB app for remote desktop costs $80? I know how prices work for a market and the size of an app isn't any indication of the effort to make it but that price disparity still seems way off. At least ARD finally supports IPv6. How is ARD different from the remote connect option that's already part of OS X? Is that what's needed to create new remote sessions rather than just hijacking the current session (which REALLY freaks my kids out). Was it always just $20?
OS X Server looks like a great deal now, even if you just use it for the Time Machine feature. My kids and I have 4 Macs in active use and two of them aren't backed up regularly. I can just pay $20 for this, turn on the Time Machine server option, point the other three Macs to the one acting as the server and I'm covered. That's a lot cheaper than buying some networked backup appliance. Am I missing something?
There's probably a price history for OS X Server somewhere on the fine Internet, I suggest you use your favorite search engine to find it. That said, $20 is by far the cheapest that OS X Server has been.
It used to be priced in the hundreds of dollars as recently as a few years ago. I bought the Mac mini server in mid-2010 and it was basically priced as a souped-up Mac mini (with second hard drive, both running at a faster 7200rpm) and a copy of OS X Server thrown in for free. As a workgroup server, it's a pretty impressive bargain, especially when you compare it to similar offerings from a certain company in Redmond. For family use, the Time Machine function and maybe the calendaring and contact/address book functions are probably the most useful. Originally Posted by charlituna You aren't paying for the size of the app you are paying for the function it has. Not so sure about that. Xcode is free and has many functions.
I think like any product they figure out how much the development, R&D and support are costing to produce a title and then estimate how many copies they are going sell to establish the price. In many cases the product is free because it leads to hardware sales and mind share, but often the price/feature ratio is not even the top consideration. Many times a software title is categorized as a professional application and end users are willing to pay a premium since they will be passing the cost on to their customers and writing off the expense.
Originally Posted by mstone Not so sure about that. Xcode is free and has many functions.
I think like any product they figure out how much the development, R&D and support are costing to produce a title and then estimate how many copies they are going sell to establish the price. In many cases the product is free because it leads to hardware sales and mind share, but often the price/feature ratio is not even the top consideration. Many times a software title is categorized as a professional application and end users are willing to pay a premium since they will be passing the cost on to their customers and writing off the expense. Right, but Charlituna was just saying that download size isn't part of the pricing equation. And your post supports that: XCode is huge and it's free.
Originally Posted by malax Right, but Charlituna was just saying that download size isn't part of the pricing equation. And your post supports that: XCode is huge and it's free. Perhaps, however I was disregarding the size part altogether because that would never be a factor. I was only addressing the relationship of software function/feature with software price. Again, it might be a minor consideration if there was a competitive product but in the case of these Apple exclusive software titles it is hardly a factor. My comments were also related to Soli's question about the seemingly high price for ARD since a lite version of the product is already included in iCloud as Back to My Mac, why is it so expensive. I think because it is a professional product with a limited market.
There's probably a price history for OS X Server somewhere on the fine Internet, At one time it was $499 for unlimited clients. Later, it dropped to $50 for unlimited clients. $20 is definitely the lowest it has ever been.
Compare to Windows server with unlimited licensing if you want to get a laugh. Heck, you may be able to buy a Mac AND the server license for less than the Windows license alone. ETA: Originally, Jaguar server was $999. It was later reduced to $499, then $50, then $20. All of those were for unlimited clients. Originally Posted by malax Was it always just $20? OS X Server looks like a great deal now, even if you just use it for the Time Machine feature.
My kids and I have 4 Macs in active use and two of them aren't backed up regularly. I can just pay $20 for this, turn on the Time Machine server option, point the other three Macs to the one acting as the server and I'm covered. That's a lot cheaper than buying some networked backup appliance. Am I missing something?
One problem with Time Machine on Server is that there are no quotas or way to manage them. Each user's TIme Machine will just grow bigger and bigger until there is no room left on your Server's hard drive(s). You have to manually delete each user's TM disk image and start backing up from scratch. (At least that's how it's been through 10.510.7. Don't know if 10.8 finally changes that behavior or not) Also, TM performance over a network has been terrible in previous version.
An Update On Mountain Lion Server For Mac
Even a cheap local USB 2 drive is way faster. Also, TM performance over a network has been terrible in previous version. Even a cheap local USB 2 drive is way faster. It comes down to convenience. I use my laptop most of the time and having to connect it to a USB drive regularly for Time Machine to work would be a pain. I use a Time Capsule as my TM backup, but if I didn't have that, I could use Server to handle it.
Your storage issue could be addressed by having a USB drive dedicated to each system's backup. If you already have a Mac running Server, that might be cheaper than Time Capsule. Performance isn't much of an issue for me. Other than the initial backup (which I do overnight), it doesn't seem to get in the way very much.
An Update On Mountain Lion Server For Mac Download
Sorry about the confusion David. I do not have server:8088 I have catfish.trojans.local which is the hostname hostname: catfish.trojans.local and the dig; DiG 9.8.3-P1 -x 10.101.2.22;; global options: +cmd;; Got answer:;; -HEADER. That's where you're getting tripped up. Many novice Mac OS X admins get tripped up by DNS. Mac OS X Server must must must must must have proper, working DNS resolution.local is not a valid DNS domain.
You can go with.private or.internal but fake TLDs are just not necessary. This is not Windows with the insistence on separate internal and external domains. You need to have something providing working forward & reverse DNS lookup for your server, it need not be the OS X Server itself. And your clients need to be provided with the DNS server providing that (DNS) resolution.
See and 'Using single label names or unregistered suffixes, such as.local, is not recommended.' And 'If you have Macintosh client computers that are running the Macintosh OS X version 10.2 operating system or later, and you are using the.local label for the full DNS name of your internal domain, then those client computers cannot discover other computers that are members of the network and that use the.local label.
Macintosh OS X version 10.2 uses the.local label for its Rendezvous service. To work around this, it is recommended that you do not use the.local label for the full DNS name of your internal domain.' Yes, with 10.7/10.8 one can 'make'.local work, but the proper way to go is to just avoid namespace collisions completely and get proper DNS setup and verified, confirmed working. DNS is working and all of the computers can get to catfish.trojans.local since they are all connected to profilemanager and that is downloading everything just fine.
The only thing that isn't working is Software Update. So I'm not sure how DNS could be wrong since Reverse and Forward DNS point to the apple server. We are a full windows environment with a few macs thrown in the mix so I was just trying to get a simple server setup for Updates and such. The snow leopard server was able to do Software Updates but ever since we switched to Mountain Lion I have not been able to get it to work. Thanks for your help, Matt.