Parallels Mac Management Extend Microsoft SCCM to Manage Mac Like You Manage PC

[deberry45]

To be honest I don't see the reason to use Parallels Mac Management Extend Microsoft SCCM if you already have the JSS in your environment, that being said, I would like to know the disadvantages of using Parallels Mac Management Extend Microsoft SCCM.

I am trying to state my case for not going down this SCCM route, because i know the problems that will be coming if you have Microsoft SCCM attempting to manage a Mac enterprise environment.

Thank you in advance.

[gabester]

Disclaimer - I haven't used it myself, I've only watched the demos, and read their support forum.

Pros: It's a serviceable extension to SCCM allowing Windows admins to comfortably manage Macs inside a pane of glass they're already familiar with.

It uses SCCM for all its underpinnings. SCCM has some great automation capabilities that can be leveraged via PowerShell, not unlike the JSS' API (which is easier to use, but obviously lacks the whole Microsoft ecosystem advantage.)

The imaging portion is really neat - somehow they've modified the built-in Windows Server WDS/PXE service to detect and serve as an OS X netboot server (this makes sense technically since both PXE and NetBoot are just TFTP - but prior implementations have been platform specific.) The advantage here is that, whether you're wanting to image a Mac or PC over the network, you only need one IP helper configured (or so I think) for a given subnet (which I don't think can be configured with MORE than one IP helper anyway...)

Cons: It's SCCM - I wouldn't exactly call it an interface that gets out of your way and lets you get your work done... It's fine if you're adding in one new application. But the number of steps... if you want to add 5 new applications, well, that's a lot of clicking. Theoretically some of it could be scripted but you've got to delve down into the guts pretty far and you'd likely want a test environment to play with before implementing on your production SCCM server. But enough about SCCM itself...

Every OS X file type requires a double-import - you have to first convert it into an SCCM-compatible format, then import it. Pkg converts to msi, boot images must be converted to WIMs - and this conversion takes TIME. And then you still have to go through the SCCM-style wizard to import and deploy your OS X content.

Similarly, Configuration Profiles have to be generated with a 3rd-party tool of your choice and then imported.

Which reminds me of Smart Groups. Casper's smart group configuration is almost brainless... in SCCM you're stuck doing collections, and for most of them you have to delve into the wizard to manually write your own WQL-style query. Yuck!

I've heard it's more expensive than Casper... at least, if you already have Casper, talk to your reps about competitive bidding.

The support forum are VERY limited - it's not the rich dialog of Jamf Nation (which I really value...) but at least you can view the content without having to log in, which is a huge complaint about the likes of some other MDM providers that shall remain nameless.

There are weird bugs that don't make sense that you'll have to contact support to get resolved... Wait, Jamf's got that flaw as well. ;-)

I get the sense that the Parallels Mac Management "developers" are 2 engineers surrounded by a much larger sales & marketing team. Don't get me wrong, if I had a predominantly Windows organization and a handful of Macs to support, PMM might make sense esp. if my management engineers didn't have a lot of Mac experience. But Parallels doesn't offer the same in-depth level of familiarity with Apple's platforms - they're there to support their product and won't go into detail on anything that may be more of an Apple-specific question than a Jamf Casper question. Jamf support just seems to like to show off how well they know their Macs and iPads!

Summary:
If I were Parallels I'd push the netboot integration as a separate product and price it to move volume; it's a no brainer that lots of organizations would go for since it lets them simplify their network booting paradigm. And it might just be a viable trojan horse to get orgs to switch as they continue to improve their product especially in heterogeneous environments that support both major desktop-class operating systems.

[calumhunter]

You can have multiple IP helpers. We have something like 4. It's no issue

The package that you create to make it into "SCCM" compatible format has a limit of 4GB. So no packaging Adobe or other large products...

[yaverkiev]

Disclamer: Parallels Program Manager here :)

Allow me to comment on the replies posted by @Sterritt and @calumhunter

I get the sense that the Parallels Mac Management "developers" are 2 engineers surrounded by a much larger sales & marketing team.

I wish we could develop such complicated product with 2 developers only. And hey, who needs QA team, right?! :) In fact the dev & QA teams are much larger than 2 engineers. But you got it right that the sales team is larger than the dev team.

The package that you create to make it into "SCCM" compatible format has a limit of 4GB. So no packaging Adobe or other large products...

Parallels Mac Management is not limited to 4GB apps. It was the case with previous versions but there is no such limitation in the latest version.

Every OS X file type requires a double-import - you have to first convert it into an SCCM-compatible format, then import it. Pkg converts to msi, boot images must be converted to WIMs - and this conversion takes TIME. And then you still have to go through the SCCM-style wizard to import and deploy your OS X content.

In case of SCCM Packages, no conversion is required, Parallels Mac Management can deploy a package without conversion. In case of SCCM Applications an installation file must be converted first. We plan to enhance that part by implementing a custom SCCM Application deployment type.

Converting a vanilla OS X image (10+GB) to .WIM format takes about 5 minutes. It's a minimal productivity penalty.

The support forum are VERY limited - it's not the rich dialog of Jamf Nation (which I really value...)

There is simple explanation for that: Parallels Mac Management is a younger product, it takes time to build a forum community.

I've heard it's more expensive than Casper...

That's not really the case...

But Parallels doesn't offer the same in-depth level of familiarity with Apple's platforms - they're there to support their product and won't go into detail on anything that may be more of an Apple-specific question than a Jamf Casper question

Our support lives and breathes Macs. Parallels as a company started with Macs and Parallels Desktop. With Parallels Mac Management being a plug-in for SCCM, our support often has to deal with SCCM related configuration issues that may prevent the product from functioning properly. In addition of becoming experts in Parallels Mac Management they had to become experts in SCCM and in a bunch of other products.