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

Originally Posted by Bibbler

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...cc120b3729ae36

Originally Posted by mario

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.

Originally Posted by roehlstation

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.

Originally Posted by stottm

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!

Originally Posted by melgross

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.

Originally Posted by OllieWallieWhiskers

xserve doesn't have fibre channel connections...

Originally Posted by Steve-J

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.

Originally Posted by pmz

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.

Originally Posted by kwatson

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

Originally Posted by Steve-J

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?

Originally Posted by kwatson

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

Originally Posted by melgross

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.

Originally Posted by Wiggin

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.

Originally Posted by kwatson

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!

Originally Posted by melgross

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.

Originally Posted by Gary54

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

Originally Posted by kwatson

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.

Originally Posted by kwatson

n.a.t.

Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella

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.

Originally Posted by kwatson

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

Originally Posted by wooster101

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?

Originally Posted by Bibbler

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.

Originally Posted by digitalclips

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

Originally Posted by Bibbler

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.

Originally Posted by jragosta

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.

Originally Posted by c-ray

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.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

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!

.

Originally Posted by kwatson

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.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

...
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.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

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

This might be a very good thing!

.

Originally Posted by TBell

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.

Originally Posted by roehlstation

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.

Originally Posted by Bibbler

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-..._b_598539.html

Originally Posted by Mario

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

Originally Posted by MacTel

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