or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple to discontinue Xserve after Jan. 31, 2011
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple to discontinue Xserve after Jan. 31, 2011 - Page 4

post #121 of 333
Quote:

Maybe I'm a bit thickheaded here, but I don't get the links' pertinence to the discussion, or to what I said in particular.
post #122 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by mario View Post

if the firewall is forwarding the port to the server (as it should otherwise the service on the server will not be available to the outside world) then it does not matter that there is a firewall in between. Same goes for load balancer.

n.a.t.
post #123 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by roehlstation View Post

You can Rack mount a Mac Pro, it's the same case they used at Virginia Tech before the Xserve even existed.

The Mac Pro has available 12 CPU cores and support for 64 GB of RAM now, I'd rather run it on that anyway.

Sigh..
post #124 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by stottm View Post

The latest tech is Virtual Machines. This means you setup a bunch of high-end blades and big SAN's and run something like VMWare VSphere. You can even virtualize switches and routers. What do you think Apple is going to put in that huge NC data center? If you said, XServes, you would be wrong.

Mac OS X Server can be run in a Virtual Machine with little to no difficulty.

Virtualizing data centers results in huge power and space savings. Why have a bunch of XServes where they are only utilizing 20-30% usage on each one while sucking immense amounts of power and expelling even more heat? Why not take a big rack of high-powered servers and push it to 98% utilization by filling it with hundreds of virtual servers. Two big racks running VSphere could replace 2-3 rows of single purpose server racks!

Virtual environments can dynamically allocate additional CPU's and more RAM. You pay to have say 4 CPU's for a hosted app but if you need 12 CPU's for month end processing, the system can automatically provide extra CPU's as you need them on the fly. You can also shutdown blades you are not using. When you need the extra processing power, you can wake those extra blades from sleep mode and engage them.

That said, I bought a 6-Core MacPro recently, so I could run VMWare Fusion and use it like a virtual lab. I can run multiple instances of Microsoft Server 2008 R2 and several Win7 VM's all at the same time and test out many endless scenarios. I can also throw Ubuntu and Solaris into the mix. Certainly beats needing to buy 5-6 PC's and virtual management of the VM's is so much faster and easier. Booting from an ISO loading off an SSD is crazy fast to load a new OS into a VM! Install time for unattended Win7 is like 15min!

This makes no sense whatsoever. What will the virtual machines run on?
post #125 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Maybe I'm a bit thickheaded here, but I don't get the links' pertinence to the discussion, or to what I said in particular.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-..._b_598539.html
iMac 24" (Late 07), iMac 17" G5, Mac mini (Early 09), MacBook (Mid 07), iPad WiFi 32, iPhone 4, iBook G4 1.2, HP Compaq 610 Laptop, eMachine W5233, (1) Xserve G5 and (1) Xserve G5 Cluster node with...
Reply
iMac 24" (Late 07), iMac 17" G5, Mac mini (Early 09), MacBook (Mid 07), iPad WiFi 32, iPhone 4, iBook G4 1.2, HP Compaq 610 Laptop, eMachine W5233, (1) Xserve G5 and (1) Xserve G5 Cluster node with...
Reply
post #126 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by OllieWallieWhiskers View Post

xserve doesn't have fibre channel connections...

Nope but cards can add it to them... Same as MacPros

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-J View Post

Apple knows what it is doing. Their recent success proves that.

There is MUCH more money in the consumer market. The server market is all about specs. The consumer market is where the magic is, and that is what Apple is best at.

We still use old Xerve G5 in places? Why - not because the specs - but because of the space they occupy!

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

They just did, it's called the Mac Pro, you get 30% more performance from the highest end configuration, all solid state drives, uses less power, and is half the price. Mac pro maxes out at $18,000, the Xserve at $37,000. That's twice the price, for less performance....you figure it out....it's not hard.

Rack mount waaaa rack mount waaa.

Servers is all about space / performance and reliablity

A MacPro does not have redundant power supplies

2 MacPros make up the same space as 12 Xserves!!!

Please - can only people who know what they are talking about post in this thread?
post #127 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwatson View Post

This makes no sense whatsoever. What will the virtual machines run on?

Its Virtual Machines all the way down
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #128 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-J View Post

New enterprise push? I must have missed that.

What other things have happened which show that Apple had a new enterprise push? I thought that they announced at some public presentation that they had little interest in the enterprise.

What new enterprise push?

This new enterprise push >

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...t_clients.html

"Apple partners with Unisys to reach enterprise, government clients

Apple has contracted with Unisys Corp to help it sell the Mac, iPhone and iPad to corporations and US government agencies outside of the company's core markets in education and consumers.

According to a new report by Bloomberg, Unisys will "provide maintenance and other services to companies and government agencies that purchase Apple devices."


I wonder if Stevie bothered to mention this to them?
post #129 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwatson View Post

Apple has never really tried to have an enterprise presence - they go in, try a little, then pull out without warning and shaft everyone.

So they go in, make an effort, try to convince people they've got the greatest thing since sliced bread...and then screw everyone that partnered with them by changing course or pulling out.

Remind you of any other company? MS perhaps?

Perhaps that have a plan in place. A partnership with Sun or Unysis. But then why would you announce the discontinuation of the Xserve before you were ready to unveil those plans? All that would do is piss people off and get them looking at and buying into other options. It seems illogical to announce the end of the Xserve without telling folks of the new options.
post #130 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Maybe I'm a bit thickheaded here, but I don't get the links' pertinence to the discussion, or to what I said in particular.

Yes, I will now spell my point out.

You said "What is the desktop? It's no longer "the desktop". It's now smartphones and tablets. Both of them are having a far greater sales growth than are "computers"

That simply is not a true statement. Anyone in their right mind who believes that PC's are going to be replaced by iPhones, iPad, and other iToys need to get their hand out of Jobs' punch bowl.

I like my iPhone, I like my iPad, put please, don't try to compare these toys to an XServe or a Mac. They do exactly what Jobs said they did, "we can enjoy our photographs" (Not a technically correct statement, but you get the idea), music, surf the web, listen to music, and check email. Thats what they are good at. Yes I know, there is iWork for the iPad and iPhone. It's ok for lightly touching up a spreadsheet, but I (or any other pro) who needs to get real work done will always turn towards my Mac..

The Mac's not going anywhere, neither are servers, and neither are trucks.
iMac 24" (Late 07), iMac 17" G5, Mac mini (Early 09), MacBook (Mid 07), iPad WiFi 32, iPhone 4, iBook G4 1.2, HP Compaq 610 Laptop, eMachine W5233, (1) Xserve G5 and (1) Xserve G5 Cluster node with...
Reply
iMac 24" (Late 07), iMac 17" G5, Mac mini (Early 09), MacBook (Mid 07), iPad WiFi 32, iPhone 4, iBook G4 1.2, HP Compaq 610 Laptop, eMachine W5233, (1) Xserve G5 and (1) Xserve G5 Cluster node with...
Reply
post #131 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

So they go in, make an effort, try to convince people they've got the greatest thing since sliced bread...and then screw everyone that partnered with them by changing course or pulling out.

Remind you of any other company? MS perhaps?

Perhaps that have a plan in place. A partnership with Sun or Unysis. But then why would you announce the discontinuation of the Xserve before you were ready to unveil those plans? All that would do is piss people off and get them looking at and buying into other options. It seems illogical to announce the end of the Xserve without telling folks of the new options.

Partnership with Unisys? They just did ... announced last week.
post #132 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwatson View Post

I am constantly amazed at the number of folks here who not only don't get enterprise-level gear, but don't get that they don't get it... we really should have a 'pro' forum.

I, and I'm not alone, would easily pay $1000 extra for a server that simply has a power plug that won't pull out, as opposed to one that could. That's just one feature that differentiates a real server from a Mac Mini, f'rinstance. MagSafe my butt...

Waaah, I want my rackmount!

Then there are those of us who DO understand the server market and aren't too upset with this decision. It's a simple market segmentation thing.

What's the value of an xserve server? Not the hardware - you can buy comparable hardware from HP or IBM (or, you can buy cheaper stuff from a bunch of people). In fact, with HP's business model, you're going to get the newer technologies SOONER than with Apple. The value that Apple brings to the table is OS X.

What's the value proposition for OS X? Ease of use, consistency, and security. (It's also very reliable and efficient, but it would be hard to prove a significant edge in reliability compared to something like Solaris).

Now, very simplistically, let's break the server market down into enterprise server (characterized by rack after rack of rack-mounted servers) and departmental server (standalone servers used by small businesses, departments in larger businesses, etc).

Enterprise market: These are run by geeks who couldn't care less about the ease of use. They're buying on the basis of performance per dollar because they can admin ANY server in their sleep. Apple is going to struggle to compete on that basis - even if they can do it upon the launch of a new system, their slow refresh cycle means that they're not going to have an edge for long. So, the admin isn't going to save much money (if any) in the grand scheme of things, but they have to increase their skill set to add a new OS to their repertoire. Not much of an incentive for them to buy from Apple.

Departmental market: These servers are often run by non-geeks, often people with other responsibilities (marketing, engineering, R&D, finance). For them, the server is nothing more than a pain in the rear. The less energy they have to spend on the server, the better. If the company has to spend a couple of dollars more, it's irrelevant if it saves them time (although most companies won't be spending much, if any, more because of the high cost of Windows unlimited licenses). For those people, a rackmounted server is a waste - and vaguely threatening. The success of the Mini seems to support this - for this market, it's not about performance per dollar. It's about getting the job done in the EASIEST way.

I wish it were otherwise. I'd like for Apple to compete everywhere from cell phones to big iron. But the market isn't interested in what they offer for big server rooms, so Apple was wise enough to walk away.

And, for the past 10 years, they've demonstrated an incredible ability to understand the markets, so anyone claiming they're wrong better have a LOT of evidence on their side.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #133 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It's much easier to move into the secretary pool and upper management offices than into the server room, and I imagine that Apple is aware of this after years of trying in their halfhearted way.

Right. But Apple no longer has a solution for the server room. OS X Server may be viable for folks using Mac minis, or Pros as servers. And maybe that market is large enough to keep OS X Server around. But the rack-mount crowd is SOL. They'll have to use Macs as clients only. That seems like a poor move if Apple is claiming to have a new enterprise push.

I guess Apple is saying: "We're a consumer oriented company. If you want to use our products in the enterprise, go talk to Unisys, et al."

It may make perfect business sense, but it's sad to see. A "serious" computer company should have rack-mount servers. With this, Apple moves more toward being a "consumer electronics" company and away from being a "computer" company. I miss Apple Computer.

- Jasen.
post #134 of 333
Apple needs to OEM their Server OS so 3rd party hardware vendors can take the torch. This news is no surprise.
post #135 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary54 View Post

Partnership with Unisys? They just did ... announced last week.

But do we know the details? At first people thought it would include integrating Xserves. But maybe it's just a way to get more iPhones and iPads into corporate IT. Unisys can help the IT shops get set up to support those devices. If that's all it is, it has nothing to do with this topic.

But does it include more than iPhones and iPads? Will it include virualizing OS X Server on other hardware??
post #136 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwatson View Post

ZFS is a truly killer multiuser nonclustered filesystem. I won't delve into detail, but it has many, many features that put it far ahead of HFS+, NTFS, ext3, etc in terms of flexibility and robustness. Shame Apple didn't adopt it, it's ported to FreeBSD, and should have been a shoe-in to OS X. Political.

Apple included a trial ZFS implementation in a prior OS X. I played with it a bit across several Macs and external HDDs.

I think Apple abandoned it for several reasons:

-- it was overkill for the requirements of most Mac users
-- Apple couldn't figure out how to simplify the complexity with a GUI to make it usable to any but the most technical Mac users

I am surprised/disappointed it is not part of OS X Server.


There is a point, fast approaching, where the typical household with several computers, lots of AV content, iPods, iPads and smart phones..

There is a need for a simple, inexpensive content server/sync/backup solution. Likey, part will be in the home and the bulk in the cloud.

The aim is to offload all the difficult, messy, time-consuming, necessary (and often skipped) tasks to the cloud where they can be handled efficiently.

Here's what we want to be able to do on any of our computers, iPods, iPhones, iPads.

1) notify the cloud that we have ownership (or subscription rights) to any content that can be purchased digitally or hard copy. This includes any CDs, DVDs, books we have purchased. This is [mostly] already available in the cloud, so there is no need for us to rip, upload, backup. etc.

2) upload personal content: home movies, AV compositions, photos, etc. to our private cloud.

3) Automatically, incrementally, backup our computers and incidental content to our private cloud.

4) be able to download/synch/stream the above to any of our devices, anytime -- anywhere.

For convenience, the option to have a local, automatic, incremental backup of critical info (co-ordinated with the cloud). This is a big enough time capsule solution so that we can get up and running, quickly, after a system failure,


That's the home/office/cloud solution that I hope Apple will offer--- and soon!

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker."
-auxio-
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker."
-auxio-
Reply
post #137 of 333
Apple should replace the XServe with the iServe.
A rack mountable Mac identical in width and appearance to todays XServe but only 8" deep.
Todays XServe is 30" deep and is only appropriate for use in enterprise environments.
A smaller iServe could be used in a data centers as well as in smaller AV racks and small closets, etc.

The mac mini server is Apple's most popular server, this should tell them something.
post #138 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwatson View Post

n.a.t.

http://nmap.org/book/nping-man-echo-mode.html

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply
post #139 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

Apple should replace the XServe with the iServe.
A rack mountable Mac identical in width and appearance to todays XServe but only 8" deep.
Todays XServe is 30" deep and is only appropriate for use in enterprise environments.
A smaller iServe could be used in a data centers as well as in smaller AV racks and small closets, etc.

The mac mini server is Apple's most popular server, this should tell them something.

Because it´s cheep - this has nothing to do with the requirements for Enterprise.

Where is LOM and redundant power in a MMS for example?
post #140 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwatson View Post

This makes no sense whatsoever. What will the virtual machines run on?

Thin air don't ya know...
post #141 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by wooster101 View Post

Because it´s cheep - this has nothing to do with the requirements for Enterprise.

Where is LOM and redundant power in a MMS for example?

This is one case where I would be all for licensing OS X Lion server . If Apple would put the resources into tightening the Kernel and maybe going with a ZFS or other modern file system. In this case, Apple is more than competitive in price for the software with unlimited users. They could strip out most of the multimedia features to make the OS fairly usless on a PC.

As mentioned, the mini or Mac Pro are not realistic alternatives for the XServe. It is obviously, Apple doesn't understand the enterprise hardware market (Beautiful, thin, elegant, and sexy don't really send a tingle up the legs of IT professionals). To chase the UNIX Enterprise software market would seem like a good deal at this time.
iMac 24" (Late 07), iMac 17" G5, Mac mini (Early 09), MacBook (Mid 07), iPad WiFi 32, iPhone 4, iBook G4 1.2, HP Compaq 610 Laptop, eMachine W5233, (1) Xserve G5 and (1) Xserve G5 Cluster node with...
Reply
iMac 24" (Late 07), iMac 17" G5, Mac mini (Early 09), MacBook (Mid 07), iPad WiFi 32, iPhone 4, iBook G4 1.2, HP Compaq 610 Laptop, eMachine W5233, (1) Xserve G5 and (1) Xserve G5 Cluster node with...
Reply
post #142 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bibbler View Post

This is one case where I would be all for licensing OS X Lion server . If Apple would put the resources into tightening the Kernel and maybe going with a ZFS or other modern file system. In this case, Apple is more than competitive in price for the software with unlimited users. They could strip out most of the multimedia features to make the OS fairly usless on a PC.

As mentioned, the mini or Mac Pro are not realistic alternatives for the XServe. It is obviously, Apple doesn't understand the enterprise hardware market (Beautiful, thin, elegant, and sexy don't really send a tingle up the legs of IT professionals). To chase the UNIX Enterprise software market would seem like a good deal at this time.

Exactly

I have no need for an Apple logo on the server - BUT I need rack mounted hardware to run Mac OS X Server on. Apples or somebody elses...
post #143 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

could this be a prelude to a deal between steve and larry? Maybe an apple / sun deal may be coming ... Just a thought.

bingo!
jgb
Reply
jgb
Reply
post #144 of 333
Maybe Apple will release an XServe replacement with Light Peak in January.

- Jasen.[/QUOTE]

That's what I was thinking.
post #145 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bibbler View Post

Yes, I will now spell my point out.

You said "What is the desktop? It's no longer "the desktop". It's now smartphones and tablets. Both of them are having a far greater sales growth than are "computers"

That simply is not a true statement. Anyone in their right mind who believes that PC's are going to be replaced by iPhones, iPad, and other iToys need to get their hand out of Jobs' punch bowl.

I like my iPhone, I like my iPad, put please, don't try to compare these toys to an XServe or a Mac. They do exactly what Jobs said they did, "we can enjoy our photographs" (Not a technically correct statement, but you get the idea), music, surf the web, listen to music, and check email. Thats what they are good at. Yes I know, there is iWork for the iPad and iPhone. It's ok for lightly touching up a spreadsheet, but I (or any other pro) who needs to get real work done will always turn towards my Mac..

The Mac's not going anywhere, neither are servers, and neither are trucks.

I totally disagree!

Within 5 years the solutions being sold to enterprise will consist of:

1) Back office servers storing the bulk content and running the apps that do the heavy lifting.

2) front office iPads at central drops -- the registrar/receptionist/secretary desks, the nurses station, lunch/meeting/board rooms.

3) The iPad will be a combination of some standalone computing/content and network-accessed computing/content


You walk in, grab an iPad, you automatically finger/voice/eye scan via NFC to identify yourself to the iPad. Within seconds the iPad customizes itsellf to your needs, apps, content and access privileges.

When you leave (or the iPad is out of your NFC range) it self wipes. You can drop/leave it anywhere or take it with you.

The iPad will be inexpensive, ubiquitous and expendable,

Desktops? DESKTOPS? We don't need no stinkin' desktops!

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker."
-auxio-
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker."
-auxio-
Reply
post #146 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Then there are those of us who DO understand the server market and aren't too upset with this decision. It's a simple market segmentation thing.

What's the value of an xserve server? Not the hardware - you can buy comparable hardware from HP or IBM (or, you can buy cheaper stuff from a bunch of people). In fact, with HP's business model, you're going to get the newer technologies SOONER than with Apple. The value that Apple brings to the table is OS X.

What's the value proposition for OS X? Ease of use, consistency, and security. (It's also very reliable and efficient, but it would be hard to prove a significant edge in reliability compared to something like Solaris).

Now, very simplistically, let's break the server market down into enterprise server (characterized by rack after rack of rack-mounted servers) and departmental server (standalone servers used by small businesses, departments in larger businesses, etc).

Enterprise market: These are run by geeks who couldn't care less about the ease of use. They're buying on the basis of performance per dollar because they can admin ANY server in their sleep. Apple is going to struggle to compete on that basis - even if they can do it upon the launch of a new system, their slow refresh cycle means that they're not going to have an edge for long. So, the admin isn't going to save much money (if any) in the grand scheme of things, but they have to increase their skill set to add a new OS to their repertoire. Not much of an incentive for them to buy from Apple.

Departmental market: These servers are often run by non-geeks, often people with other responsibilities (marketing, engineering, R&D, finance). For them, the server is nothing more than a pain in the rear. The less energy they have to spend on the server, the better. If the company has to spend a couple of dollars more, it's irrelevant if it saves them time (although most companies won't be spending much, if any, more because of the high cost of Windows unlimited licenses). For those people, a rackmounted server is a waste - and vaguely threatening. The success of the Mini seems to support this - for this market, it's not about performance per dollar. It's about getting the job done in the EASIEST way.

I wish it were otherwise. I'd like for Apple to compete everywhere from cell phones to big iron. But the market isn't interested in what they offer for big server rooms, so Apple was wise enough to walk away.

And, for the past 10 years, they've demonstrated an incredible ability to understand the markets, so anyone claiming they're wrong better have a LOT of evidence on their side.

I agree with all except the last bit. And I will take my upset back once I hear Apple will allow OS X Server on someone else's hardware. Even if so, there may be a lot of compatibility restrictions as Apple's closed systems approach means a paucity of drivers.

Re incredible ability to understand the markets, that certainly applies to consumer markets, but I would posit that Apple has likewise showed an incredible _dis_ability to understand the enterprise market.
post #147 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by c-ray View Post

The real issue is, do you really want to run Apple kit in your server room, or do you only need to run OS X Server ?

I fully expect OS X Server to be available under virtualization (on non-Apple hardware). That actually reduces the number of rack units you need in the server room.

Bingo. If XServe doesn't support a hypervisor on its bare metal, it's an irrelevant piece of hardware in a server closet these days.
post #148 of 333
Many people and companies are using the mac mini's as servers. There are companies that have hundreds of them on racks connected together. The mini probably was stealing the X-serve's business. You can get almost three mini's configured to be servers for the price of an x-serve. Further, there is software that let's you hook them up to work as a single unit.
post #149 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I totally disagree!

Within 5 years the solutions being sold to enterprise will consist of:

1) Back office servers storing the content and running the apps that do the heavy lifting.

2) front office iPad at central drops -- the registrar/receptionist/secretary desks, the nurses station, lunch/meeting/board rooms.

3) The iPad will be a combination of some standalone computing/content and network-accessed computing/content


You walk in, grab an iPad, you automatically finger/voice/eye scan via NFC to identify yourself to the iPad. Within seconds the iPad customizes itsellf to your needs, apps, content and access privileges.

When you leave (or the iPad is out of your NFC range) it self wipes. You can drop/leave it anywhere or take it with you.

The iPad will be inexpensive, ubiquitous and expendable,

Desktops? DESKTOPS? We don't need no stinkin' desktops!

.

You're not totally disagreeing. You're also saying servers will be needed. Apple's dropping their only serious server. Apple will not be able to supply a turnkey enterprise solution. Unless Apple has something more up their sleeve, they get an enterprise fail from me...

Hmm, Apple drops Xserve, stock may go down. Apple announces OS X Server licensing on vendor X or on virtualization, stock goes up. Makes sense not to announce the two together perhaps.
post #150 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwatson View Post

You're not totally disagreeing. You're also saying servers will be needed. Apple's dropping their only serious server. Apple will not be able to supply a turnkey enterprise solution. Unless Apple has something more up their sleeve, they get a fail...

Hmm, Apple drops Xserve, stock may go down. Apple announces OS X Server licensing on vendor X, stock goes up. Makes sense not to announce the two together perhaps.

I agree... servers are definitely part of the picture.

I just don't see desktop computers at the workstation -- why tether productivity?

FWIW, AAPL has been trading even to down, $0.50 -- so the "bad news" hasn't hurt.

Apple could announce licensing of OS X Server -- or just do it!

I don't think that it will affect AAPL price much.

If they do license OS X Server then they potentially have 3rd party reps that can build Apple solutions from the back office out, and the front office in.

Apple could increase sales and enterprise penetration by taking advantage of the expertise and established "inside" relationships of companies such as Unisys.

,
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker."
-auxio-
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker."
-auxio-
Reply
post #151 of 333
I hope they have a plan to run OS X Server on some other hardware that can be rack mounted.

Xsan: How are we to run an Xsan now? Waste 12U on 2 metadata controllers?? Fuck that. When one of our Xserves MDC die, what are we to do?

iPhone enterprise management. What major enterprises are going to run this service on a mini? it has zero redundancy on the hardware. No dual ethernet, no dual PSU, no LOM. Only 8GB of RAM.

Our current DAM system uses 2 servers (8 cores and 32GB RAM), taking up 2U, not including the Xsan space. When the time comes to replace the hardware, we also have to account for migrating to Windows Server. I hope they have a Linux solution in 2 years fleshed out. I'm sure they are working on it now.

Apple better have a plan similar to the plan they had with the Xserve RAID (migrating to Promise hardware). Only this time it'll involve running Mac OS X Server on Dell or HP or IBM hardware, even if it's only a select few systems.
post #152 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

...
Apple could announce licensing of OS X Server -- or just do it!

I don't think that it will affect AAPL price much.

If they do license OS X Server then they potentially have 3rd party reps that can build Apple solutions from the back office out, and the front office in.

Apple could increase sales and enterprise penetration by taking advantage of the expertise and established "inside" relationships of companies such as Unisys.

I certainly hope so. This would actually be even better than what they currently offer. For MDCs all I need are 1U servers, but for doing some of our other services, we need lots of RAM, many cores, and internally RAID'd storage with several PCIe cards. It's not uncommon to need 4 ethernet ports. 2 bonded (2Gb) for AFP/SMB traffic, 2 bonded (1Gb fail over) for the Xsan private network.
post #153 of 333
The X-Serve was a competitive product for small businesses, not so much for enterprise. For Enterprise... I start to think about an acquisition of Unisys. Just having a 1U server doesn't create a great offering. You need at least a 2U and a blade as well. Just so happens that Unisys makes blades and 2U servers...

Unfortunately, that doesn't do much to address the SMB market, nor does replacing your server rack with metro shelves to go with MacPro's. The mini, even in failover configurations fails to address the gap as well, at least without a big bump in design, kind of like a cube...
post #154 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

By getting out of the server hardware business -- Apple is able to get into the server business.

This might be a very good thing!

.

That is wonderful.

By inserting the adjective "hardware", we can make "getting out of" and "getting into" mean the same thing.

So, for example, by getting out of the workstation hardware business, Apple could be able to get into the workstation business. I like it!
post #155 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Many people and companies are using the mac mini's as servers. There are companies that have hundreds of them on racks connected together. The mini probably was stealing the X-serve's business. You can get almost three mini's configured to be servers for the price of an x-serve. Further, there is software that let's you hook them up to work as a single unit.

Oh really. Where is this software? Or are you just talking out of your ass? What you are talking about is distributed computing and it's nothing like "hooking them up to work as a single unit". How many do I have to hook up to get a fiber connection?
post #156 of 333
Seriously, this is crazy. If you are going to admit finical defeat, in the realms of server-side platforms, then OPEN UP OS X Server to HP or Dell servers.

I can understand dropping the hardware. It's overpriced (for what you get), it's TCO is crazy (in comparison to what you're getting and what other options are). But the software... the software is money.

Open it up to HP or Dell.
post #157 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by roehlstation View Post

You can Rack mount a Mac Pro, it's the same case they used at Virginia Tech before the Xserve even existed.

The Mac Pro has available 12 CPU cores and support for 64 GB of RAM now, I'd rather run it on that anyway.



Is this what Apple will run in its server farm?


post #158 of 333
Quote:

Ok, that's what I've been saying. You are allowed to write in your posts you know. We'd like to read your own words as well.
post #159 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post

Watch the desktop line disappear in a 5 - 10 years.

It is entirely reasonable for Apple to get out of the lines where they have lost, and get more heavily into lines where they make gobs of money.

I think that 5 years is too long.
post #160 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel View Post

Apple needs to OEM their Server OS so 3rd party hardware vendors can take the torch. This news is no surprise.

Mac OS X Server + Sun/Oracle hardware?
They would seem like the natural fit.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple to discontinue Xserve after Jan. 31, 2011