Thanks for pointing this out.
Make sure to post it via Filemaker's official channel as well:
"Report Documentation Issues"
I'm assuming their cost note is about hardware as well as software. A lot of people are still using mac pros in lieu of xserves, and I am leery running any mission critical apps off of a mac mini.
There are still good best practice tips in that article, I'm curious as to why you received this article from Filemaker though, was it a random email, or were they responding to an inquiry?
I reported the issue to FM.
The email was "FileMaker eNews September 2013"
Depending on your interpretation of this article I think it is OK as it is written. But with that said I can help with / do these changes to this article.
Let's start with the OS Server part. The "issue" here is the presumed cost of OS Server. Yes, I believe the assumption here referred to hardware and software and when you factor in the hardware it can add up. The message this is really trying to convey is that ideally you should use OS Server but if you cannot then a "regular" version of Mac OS will be just fine. So how about...
"However, it is recognized that Mac OS X Server may not be feasible for everyone in all cases, and in these cases Mac OS X will work just fine."
And as far as the FileVault portion of the article, I believe the "issue" here is the word "home" in that previous (original) versions of FileVault just encrypted your Home Directory while more resent versions of FileVault encrypt your who;e drive. So to cover the "old" version and the "new" version we could do something like...
"FileVault is a feature that performs on the fly encryption and decryption of data on your hard drive."
Other than this...I believe the article and it's contents are sound.
It always worries me when "best practices" information seems to have technical flaws. There's nothing wrong with having old documents online, but it seems unwise in this case to be promoting a rather dated document without first giving it a thorough update first.
Apple no longer sells any "server" hardware, so really it's all about price of the OS, which is currently $20. The difference between OS X and OS X server, in terms of software and FM performance has been, and still is, minimal. I agree that there's no reason to get OS X server as it won't really affect FM Server performance. But the price motivation is not really relevant.
FileVault 2, on a sufficiently powerful machine (core-i5 or i7 chip w/ SSD), is nearly transparent, so recommending against FV2 use based on the performance issues in FV1 (which were substantial) seems to be again using out-dated info. There may be other reasons to recommend against FV2, but a big performance hit is no longer one of them.