7 Replies Latest reply on Aug 28, 2009 11:03 PM by danpixley

    LANDesk vs. SCCM

    Rookie

      My company is looking into switching from LANDesk to Microsoft System Center Configuration Manager. I have 5+ years experience with LANDesk and absolutely none with SCCM. I will be getting some training here shortly on SCCM but what i am looking for are the differences between the two. What does LANDesk have that SCCM does not... Does LD do something exceedingly better then SCCM? On the other hand is there something that SCCM does well that LD does not in comparison?

       

      Any help would be great...

       

      Thanks in advance

      RS

        • 1. Re: LANDesk vs. SCCM
          zman Master

          Contact your LANDesk rep, there are numerous documents they have that will help you out. If you need additional help send me an email. The main reason I hear is that SCCM is included in my EA and my boss tells me it SCCM is free. This is not true. There are a lot of things that LANDesk does better than SCCM, too many to cover here, and this may help. This sounds more like a political decision than a technical one. LANDesk can help with the technical reasons but your are one your own with the political ones.

          1 of 1 people found this helpful
          • 2. Re: LANDesk vs. SCCM
            Rookie

            Thanks, I'll check.

            That's precisely the reason I was given. SCCM is included in our EA and it is free...  Not true?!

             

            R

            • 3. Re: LANDesk vs. SCCM
              zman Master

              So my understanding is that SCCM is in the EA and if you push Microsoft hard enough - I mean really hard, it can be removed and your EA price will be reduced. Granted you have to have a large shop or very good negotiators to do this.

               

              The other costs are softer costs - lost productivity (your learning curve and you employees), conversion costs, usually more hardware, loss of efficiencies (things LANDesk can do that SCCM can't or not as well - e.g., Third party patch management - LDMGA), OS support (MACs, Linux, etc...)

              • 4. Re: LANDesk vs. SCCM
                Apprentice

                SCCM is being looked at by management at my work too.  We had a phone conference with a Microsoft sales guy, which I missed.  From what I heard, the "demonstration" went horribly.  This was only a presentation of some sort, but I haven't heard anything yet from the management to start looking at it.  LANDesk is running fairly well for us, with a few hickups here and there.  Overall I think the return is high enough on the investment that we won't be looking to change any time soon.

                • 5. Re: LANDesk vs. SCCM
                  Rookie

                  Hi,

                   

                  do you have any new experiences with SCCM in comparison with LDMS?

                   

                  I took a deeper look on Remote Consoles of both systems:

                   

                  SCCM in comparison to LDMS:

                   

                  -                     no automated scrolling of the Remote Viewer if screen resolution is greater on client than on the viewer machine

                  -                     less possibility to customize (with or without user prompt, optimization for Modem, …)

                  -                     no clipboard synchronisation

                  -                     not possible to take remote control on logged out or logged down machines

                   

                   

                  RDP ist not useable, because the user cannot see what helpdesk is doing.

                  Remote Assistance also not useable, because local rights on the machine are needed

                   

                  Anyone else such experiences?

                  • 6. Re: LANDesk vs. SCCM
                    egarlepp Employee

                    I can tell you it is not true that SCCM is free.  I just did an exercise about this along with including casper and found a few interesting things.  Basically, without giving exact costs, here is what you pay for.  We were shocked as well to see that it is not FREE...

                     

                    • To manage servers with SCCM, there is a server ML(CAL) that you have to pay for.
                    • the Workstation CAL is included in the sharepoint/SQL/Exchange/F&P CAL.  It is all together, so that is basically free because you have to pay for it anyways.
                    • You pay for SCCM servers Primary/Secondary running the software
                    • You pay for SCCM servers Primary/Secondary running the server software with SQL.  It is reduced but you still have to pay.  If you want to use SQL enterprise, then you have to pay for a ENT license separately
                    • Then you have the SA for eachof the licenses which will occur when you resign up for your agreement
                    • And if you want to manage Macs, you need casper which adds a whole other cost structure...

                     

                     

                    Hope that helps

                    • 7. Re: LANDesk vs. SCCM
                      Apprentice

                      You also have to pay for their Config Man tool, which you can't live without if you are going SCCM.

                       

                      As an off topic reply, we were at first looking at SteadyState as a replacement for Deep Freeze.  We have a difficult time managing Deep Freeze's "maintenance" time so that Group Policy is deployed correctly.  Deep Freeze also makes LANDesk's inventory scans more difficult to manage.  We went into our meeting with the MS rep thinking that SteadyState could replace Deep Freeze, and we got suckered into a sales pitch for SCCM!  It turned out that SteadyState has no central management Console, and definitely doesn't have the plug-ins to LANDesk that Deep Freeze has.  Not only that, but SteadyState has no idea about Group Policy, and would have the same problems with SCCM's inventory service.  Oh well.