[SOLVED] Scratching my head over Zimbra Pricing...

[mono]

I hope it's apparent, I'm not trying to sway people away from Zimbra, I'd personally prefer to migrate to Zimbra, I was just taken aback that the cost to do so was more than Exchange in our environment.

[Bill Brock]

MS quotes 50 user Exchange 2007 server at $3900. And I don't believe that includes some of the extras you are quoting. Add another 25 cal's, hardware and Windows Server and there is no way it can come in at the price you quoted.

I hope you got it in writing. And if so, post it here so we all can see it.

[mono]

Who pays MSRP prices for anything ever? The prices I quoted were literally cut/pasted from a quote after emailing our Dell Small Biz rep and having them email an authorized quote. I'm not going to post the whole thing here, but believe me, if you cold-call a Dell sales rep and ask for the licenses I quoted, you're cost should be nearly identical, as we're not a volume purchaser and get minimal discounts.

Also, if you've read any of the thread, you'll see that hardware is not included, and pretty much irrelevant as there's minimal cost difference in hardware for a Win 2008/Exchange 2007 server vs a Zimbra server. Regardless, we already have hardware capable of supporting either platform.

EDIT: Let me also just add, that my Zimbra pricing is based on a quote request directly from Zimbra. I have already been PM'd by a Zimbra VAR who suggests they can offer more competitive pricing, and I see online that there are other Zimbra VAR's who offer licensing cheaper then buying directly from Zimbra. It's entirely possible that the Zimbra cost could get as low as the MS stuff from Dell.

[p24t]

Personally, I'd rather have Zimbra than Exchange, even if it costs more... because I can do more with it. I've automated user creation and resource sharing, integrated it with our internal website, and I can script it, monitor it, fold, spindle, and mutilate it any which way I want. And to top it off, it's not Exchange. (which was a big selling point to my boss)

In the end, that may not be enough to excuse additional cost for your company, but my users love Zimbra, and what I've done with it. They particularly like (now that they're finding out how to) that they can get the exact same client at home as at work, with all their address book/calendar/etc.

[In_The_Ville]

Originally Posted by mono

and pretty much irrelevant as there's minimal cost difference in hardware for a Win 2008/Exchange 2007 server vs a Zimbra server.

Sorry to keep bickering, but I have to disagree again. Exchange 2k7 is 64 bit only, so the hardware requirements are steeper than Zimbra.

[mono]

Yeah, 64 bit prices are so steep.

Edit: I'm sorry if that came across as antagonistic. However, you'd have to work pretty hard to get a non-64 bit system these days. For over 2 years, AMD & Intel 64-bit CPU's have been the default on all servers and user PC's. Dell's cheapest $1000 server is 64-bit. I don't think you can even buy a new 32bit server from most vendors.

[Jbrabander]

I'll admit, I'm not super impressed with Zimbra. I consider it an "OK" product. I think it'll get better over time, but I don't consider it an "Exchange killer" yet.

A few things to keep in mind (IMHO)...

Exchange is GUI based for many things. Zimbra requires tinkering in Linux files.

Blacklists and whitelists are not easy to add in Zimbra. (from what I've read in the Wiki)

No container for spam messages, so you can't pull out "good" messages that were marked as "bad".

Client machines need Outlook 2003 or better or you lose functionality with Zimbra. (there's no Zimbra connector for Outlook 2K)

I'm not sure what you're running for email now, but you'll have to make time to touch each machine to run the Zimbra connector for Outlook. (I'm assuming your users don't have admin rights to install programs)

[dwmtractor]

Say what? I don't think Zimbra is everything I want it to be yet, but. . .

Originally Posted by Jbrabander

Exchange is GUI based for many things. Zimbra requires tinkering in Linux files.

Such as what? Once I did the main setup, which is done at the command line, I administer everything from the GUI. I do wish the spam configuration I did at setup were GUI-accessible, but now I just copy one backed-up file into new installs and my installation is complete. I don't go to the command line except to patch Linux. . .

Originally Posted by Jbrabander

Blacklists and whitelists are not easy to add in Zimbra. (from what I've read in the Wiki)

True. I wish they'd get that fixed; it isn't yet.

Originally Posted by Jbrabander

No container for spam messages, so you can't pull out "good" messages that were marked as "bad".

Huh? What do you call the "junk" folders that every user has?

I freely grant that for those who are wedded to the LookOut environment for clients, anything non-Micro$oft starts at a disadvantage, and this includes, to a certain extent, Zimbra. But when you consider the parts of the system people actually USE, it frequently is the case that users who try either the Zimbra web client and/or Zimbra Desktop on one hand, or an IMAP client such as Thunderbird through Zimbra on the other, find they like it a lot better and without the administration headaches for Exchange. And there are plenty of users who are quite happy with the Zimbra NE/Outlook environment as well.

There will always be some admins who dislike Zimbra simply because "it's not Exchange." Well and good. There are plenty of others for whom that's a feature!

[In_The_Ville]

Originally Posted by Jbrabander

Exchange is GUI based for many things. Zimbra requires tinkering in Linux files.

Personally, I would much rather type commands all day long than hunt through endless wizards and menus, but I'm not an MCSE anymore, so..................

[Jbrabander]

Well, the logs aren't available in GUI so far as I'm aware.

Junk folders are fine, so long as they work, and ours currently don't work right. (but that's another issue) I'm talking about things that hit the "spam" target number, not just the junk one.

As for Zimbra/Outlook, yes, it works well if you're on 2003 or better. We've got a lot of users on Office 2K though, which loses a lot of features, like the GAL. In fact, the GAL isn't even available in the Zimbra desktop program and isn't scheduled to be in version 1 either! Also, the Outlook connector leaves something to be desired as well. It has to be run under each user of a machine, which is time consuming. And I'd bet that most companies users don't have permissions to install programs. Technically, you're suppose to update your connector with each server update. We haven't and have had no problems yet. On the other hand, an Exchange update requires no touching of client machines.

I'm not saying Exchange is perfect...Lord knows it's not. And I do feel that Zimbra will get better with time. I just feel it's missing a few things to make it more of an "equal".