Also ich kenne Fälle, wo es nicht egal ist.
Halte nicht soviel von dem Artikel aber trotzdem mal...
"Client Access Licenses
Another problem for Exchange relates to Microsoft's business plan: across its server product line, Microsoft charges for the server, the client, and the right for a client to talk to the server, called a Client Access License.
For Exchange, Microsoft’s customers have to pay for Exchange Server, Outlook clients, and matching Client Access Licenses. The cost of implementing Exchange sneaks up quickly. As new users are added, additional CALs have to be purchased. When trying to upgrade to a new version, users face upgrade fees for all three items.
Similarly, even for basic file sharing companies have to buy Windows Server, Windows clients, and Client Access Licenses for each user. Microsoft's database servers and other products are priced similarly.
With Mac OS X Server, Apple offers unlimited client use so there are no additional fees for every user added to the system. The savings adds up rapidly.
As comparison below shows, while Dell servers are comparably priced with Apple’s, the expense of Windows Server and Exchange licensing, along with CALs for 100 users, makes a basic Microsoft email server over three times as much as an Xserve, which includes unlimited use of Mac OS X Server: $17,200 vs $5500!
The cost of licensing Microsoft software dwarfs the cost of server hardware, something pundits have long ignored in their Dell vs. Apple pricing shootouts."
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/685B09D3-950B-4B23-8B1F-A56D448F7208.html#
Beim SBS muss nur alle Software auf einem Server sein. Eine 8 Core-Server verwaltet locker 200 oder mehr User.
Ein Dual-Core sollte es bei der Anzahl der User auch tun...