or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple offers new Mac Pro Server configuration to replace Xserve
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple offers new Mac Pro Server configuration to replace Xserve - Page 5

post #161 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwatson View Post

Nobody has said they are - it's about a potential market, not the current state of affairs. And it's about not being respectful of your current customers, no matter how few.

As I posted above, it is disrespectful -- especially since it was handled badly. The reasons should have been explained and the supporters and customers should have been contacted, alerted. and "sold" on the idea.

If Apple were to license OS X Server to, say, IBM, it likely, would mitigate the problems and offer greater potential for customers, supporters, Apple, and IBM.

I hope that is what we will see!


I am trying to step back and think if there might better solution for Home and SMBs than the "server solution" we know today -- maybe a combination local and remote combination.

That may be where Apple sees the potential.

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #162 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

People keep saying that, but no one has been able to say how many 'many' is. Except Apple who says that 'Many' is not enough to justify the product line.

I wonder know knows the Xserve sales level better - Apple or these AI trolls?

Someone said about 300,000 units, and I'd be inclined to agree, or maybe 250,000 - sales since the product's inception have been 5,000-10,000 units per quarter. This is a guess.
post #163 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

As I posted above, it is disrespectful -- especially since it was handled badly. The reasons should have been explained and the supporters and customers should have been contacted, alerted. and "sold" on the idea.

If Apple were to license OS X Server to, say, IBM, it likely, would mitigate the problems and offer greater potential for customers, supporters, Apple, and IBM.

I hope that is what we will see!


I am trying to step back and think if there might better solution for Home and SMBs than the "server solution" we know today -- maybe a combination local and remote combination.

That may be where Apple sees the potential.

.

Yes, if Apple had simply said that along with EOLing the Xserve, OS X Server would be made available on some other (enterprise/DC) hardware, or virtualized, I don't think anyone would have been in the least surprised or upset - possibly even happy. But OS X Server is not virtualizable or operable on anything but OS X on Apple hardware, so we're screwed. Maybe Apple will surprise us, but enterprise customers HATE surprises, and the damage has been largely done.
post #164 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

It's funny that you think people will still make applications for OS X or use it at all if they don't have servers to run their business or computers to test them on.

It's cute that you think those developers were buying servers from Apple to begin with.
post #165 of 199
$3000USD for a $1000 PC with a shiny aluminum enclosure and an OS nobody would ever use in enterprise?

I'll take 5.

These are going to sell like hotcakes.
post #166 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

From the reading I've done, the XServe still consumes power when it is off -- so that is the equivalent of any Mac (including the Mini) running in sleep state.

I think it is similar to sleep, but not the same. The motherboard, graphics card, fans etc are all off. You are right about the remote control power strip: It will achieve true power on/off control.
post #167 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

.




I know that discontinuing the XServe is a "big deal" to existing users -- but they don't appear to be a notable player in the bigger scheme of things.

.

Hmmm... The entire server market is in a lot worse shape than I thought and I knew it was pretty bad. The server market looks like a sinking ship and the margins must be horrible. It's no wonder that IBM, HP, Dell, and Sun are looking to software, storage, networking, and other services to prop up their enterprise business. The Mac market alone ($22 billion in sales in fiscal '10) is more than half of the entire server market.
post #168 of 199
.

Does anyone have any sources they can cite that discuss what XServes are being used for?

XAMPP? ColdFusion?

MS SQL Server is out! Sybase? Oracle?

Java?

Its been a while but I played around with
-- OS X Server
-- Apache,
-- various DBs: MySQL, Derby, SyBase, FileMaker, MS-Access,..
-- PHP, Perl, ColdFusion, and Java
-- JRun, load-balancing / fail-over.

I have done a lot of this on an iPod and a gen 1 AppleTV.


Any of today's Macs should be able to handle a reasonable volume of Web/LAN traffic on a single machine. As traffic increases, though, you begin to separate the functions to separate machines -- web, application, db, file, streaming servers.

At some point, when you have servers dedicated to a single function, I suspect that XServe becomes less competitive and more niche.

What I'd like to know:

1) What does an XServe do better than the competition?

2) What does OS X Server do better than the competition?

3) Does one require the other -- can OS X Server succeed without XServe?

4) If Apple were to offer an XServe follow-on, but could start from scratch -- what would it target?

5) Is there an opportunity that Apple sees, but we are missing?

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #169 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwatson View Post

z3ro above linked to a petition - there are a number of very cogent comments from pro and DC users there. For anyone who really wants to understand the impact of the cancellation, take a read:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/applepros/signatures

273 signatures so far... yup... some impact...
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #170 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

273 signatures so far... yup... some impact...

It would have had a lot more impact if those people had actually bought xserves.

A signature from someone who never bought an xserve and had no plans to do so is pretty meaningless.
"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 #171 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

273 signatures so far... yup... some impact...

Number of signatures means nothing since not everyone who might want to sign is aware of the petition.
post #172 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

273 signatures so far... yup... some impact...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

It would have had a lot more impact if those people had actually bought xserves.

A signature from someone who never bought an xserve and had no plans to do so is pretty meaningless.


Mmm... I'd be careful here.

You have some unhappy people, who, likely:
-- are professionals (as opposed to consumers)
-- are knowledgeable of the Apple products and competitors' products
-- are trained and employed in their area of expertise
-- have embraced and recommended Apple solutions
-- have a vested interest in the success of Apple withint their enterprises

We call these people "decision influencers". They are the "inside men" within a company, who, by their daily actions, choices, suggestions and recommendations influence those who do make the purchasing decision!.

As a vendor to enterprise, you "kill" to develop insider contacts in a company -- and you try to keep them happy (within moral, legal and ethical bounds). That's one of the ways "business gets done". *

It's different in the consumer sector where an individual will make a purchasing decision of a few computers or phones -- based [somewhat] on the recommendations of a few friends.

The "decision influencer" can influence the purchase of thousands or millions of dollars worth of equipment,

Take a business segment, any business segment -- say the Fortune 100. Likely, there only 100 people in these 100 companies that can make a purchasing decision over $1 million.

At the same time there 50-100 (or so) people in these same companies that influence that decision!

As Apple, or any other vendor -- I want these people on my side!

The way you get them on your side is to support them and help them to become successful!

* I spent 7 years working for large enterprises in Data Processing (the forerunner to IT). Later, 16 + years with IBM technical Marketing Support: "selling" into IT. Still later, 11+ years as an owner of some retail computer stores selling into SMBs and Fortune 500 companies, Government, Education and medical.

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #173 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

You (or anybody) can check my posts -- I have checked yours!

I stand on my record!

You?

.

The only posts of yours I am concerned with, are the ones with you making a claim that you refuse to back up. I don't care about which computer is better, which one has better power usage etc, I want you to back up your claim, so I am a bit confused why you are willing to stand by your record.

But why ask me about mine, I wasn't the one making the claim, I believe that was you. But in saying that, I stand by what I have posted, just because I might have different opinions to you doesn't change what I have posted.

Now in saying that, can you please back up your claim, how do you remotely connect to a powered off Mac Mini and turn it on?
post #174 of 199
I think Apple will license its OSX server for virtual machines and/or HP/Dell/IBM! machines.

I must be!
post #175 of 199
Apple missed out on the opportunity to buy Sun and turn them into "Apple Enterprise".

Perhaos the next best thing would be for Apple to partner with Oracle and get Mac OS X exclusively on their servers. The support channel would already be in place a long with sales. Apple would definitely be taken seriously on Oracle/Sun hardware.

The Sun Fire X4170 M2 Server would be a great Xserve replacement along with Sun Storage:
http://www.oracle.com/us/products/se...er-077278.html


Quote:
Originally Posted by rickertb View Post

I think Apple will license its OSX server for virtual machines and/or HP/Dell/IBM! machines.

I must be!
post #176 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Mmm... I'd be careful here.

You have some unhappy people, who, likely:
-- are professionals (as opposed to consumers)
-- are knowledgeable of the Apple products and competitors' products
-- are trained and employed in their area of expertise
-- have embraced and recommended Apple solutions
-- have a vested interest in the success of Apple withint their enterprises

We call these people "decision influencers". They are the "inside men" within a company, who, by their daily actions, choices, suggestions and recommendations influence those who do make the purchasing decision!.

Considering how few Xserves were sold, these 'decision influencers' obviously weren't very effective.

It's really very simple. Apple has a strategy and tactics to go with that strategy. They are smart enough to realize that you can't keep everyone happy and that their success depends on excelling in the areas where they choose to compete.

If a couple of whiners are unhappy, it won't hurt Apple in the end. If the numbers were large enough, then sales would have been higher.

You don't go around trying to make EVERYONE happy and continue to sell unsuccessful products just because a couple of people might be unhappy. That's a sure road to failure and mediocrity.

Apple gave people a couple of months' warning and is continuing to support existing ones. I just can't see how people can get worked up over it - especially considering how few people used the Xserve, anyway.

I liked the product. We bought one, but for our needs, the Mac Pro server would be even better. The same is undoubtedly true of many of the Xserve customers. Only a very, very tiny number even care.
"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 #177 of 199
I fear I'm just feeding the trolls here, but anyway....

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

You bad mouth Jobs and then you give us the crap below as a justification. Sadly it looks like you have more issues than Steve ever had.

You take my company's dissatisfaction with Steve Jobs' decision personally? Are you mad?
Quote:
So you suspected for 3 years this might happen and now you are angery!

Hindsight is always perfect, and dropping a product like this with three months notice is pretty extreme.
Quote:
Niether was the XServe for most businesses.

I agree, but that doesn't change the importance of the XServe to our and other business that do use it, or the large use of XServes in education.
Quote:
You have to be kidding you had an emergency meeting over this. That has to be the biggest joke that I've seen posted in these forums in years. Seriously the discontinued a model and gave you a whole quarters warning, this is not something that requires an emergency meeting. Not unless you make a habit of building moutains out of mole hills.

Have you ever had to make annual IT budgets in the hundreds or millions of dollars (euros) before? How do you think you should plan your budget based on being given three months notice?
Quote:
Are you ignorant or just trying to pull our legs. The Classic to OS/X transition had to happen because everybody was rejecting the old and brittle OS. Like wise with the transition to i86 which had to happen because of the lackluster development in PPC land. As to software what is wrong there, Apple has delivered a state of the art GUI to build any piece of software you could want. Further third party development is going very strong right now.

I think you're somewhat lost.
Quote:
I need to find out who you are so that I can write the board to detail your rash and unprofessional behavior. Seriously this type of thing has sunk companies. There is no bit of sound reasoning or justification for making a decision like this so fast.

While it's sort of funny at how upset you get at the mention of Microsoft and Windows, and you're more than welcome to write and accuse our board of being unprofessional, I don't think they would take kindly to be spammed by strange, threatening people from the internet.
Quote:
You sad - BS. It appears that you or someone at your place of work was just looking for a reason to get rid of all Apple hardware.

No, I personally am quite sad. While I've had my fair share of problems with OSX Server, it's a very easy to configure and manage system and I will genuinely miss it.
Quote:
OK Be aware that you are making a big mistake. Microsoft is just about the worst possible choice you could make.

and this one...
Quote:
You see what is pathetic here is that many people claim that one issue with Apple in the corporate world is that they don't communicate. Yet the minute they try to do the right thing and pre announce a change in the product line up they get crapped on by organizations like yours. You can't have it both ways.

In any event lots of luck with that Microsift based system! The grass isn't any greener on the other side of the fence. Plus we could have a very very long talk about failed Microsoft software initiatives. In the end I suspect you will find out that your very rash behavior will result in far more problems than simply addressing the server issue in a mature fashion.

We're quite aware of what we're doing, thanks, but we appreciate your professional advice on the history of Microsoft. Microsoft has lots of problems and issues, but we feel we can live with those better than we can with Apple's. Microsoft has good legacy support and genuine roadmaps. That means a lot to us.
Ja sam probam
Reply
Ja sam probam
Reply
post #178 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

.

Does anyone have any sources they can cite that discuss what XServes are being used for?

XAMPP? ColdFusion?

MS SQL Server is out! Sybase? Oracle?

Java?

Its been a while but I played around with
-- OS X Server
-- Apache,
-- various DBs: MySQL, Derby, SyBase, FileMaker, MS-Access,..
-- PHP, Perl, ColdFusion, and Java
-- JRun, load-balancing / fail-over.

I have done a lot of this on an iPod and a gen 1 AppleTV.


Any of today's Macs should be able to handle a reasonable volume of Web/LAN traffic on a single machine. As traffic increases, though, you begin to separate the functions to separate machines -- web, application, db, file, streaming servers.

At some point, when you have servers dedicated to a single function, I suspect that XServe becomes less competitive and more niche.

What I'd like to know:

1) What does an XServe do better than the competition?

2) What does OS X Server do better than the competition?

3) Does one require the other -- can OS X Server succeed without XServe?

4) If Apple were to offer an XServe follow-on, but could start from scratch -- what would it target?

5) Is there an opportunity that Apple sees, but we are missing?

.

I'm not sure if you're trolling, but I would dearly love to know how you got Java running on your ipod and your apple tv.

For all the things you mentioned, the XServe does nothing better than the competition.

However, the XServe:
- is the only 1u rack mountable server from Apple that includes redundant power supplies, Lights Out Management, from accessible hard drives and fibre channel al in one.
- Is used heavily for the "one click" functionality of web serving, wiki, calendaring, mail, directory services, chat, file serving, print sharing, centralised user and client management for educational and creative companies.
- is used heavily together with XSan and FCP Server in video production/post production houses.

- OSX Server could exist without the Xserve just fine and probably will in small businesses, but it needs proper servers to run on in data centers. Apple allowing OSX to be licensed by 3rd parties would change that.
Ja sam probam
Reply
Ja sam probam
Reply
post #179 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

.

Does anyone have any sources they can cite that discuss what XServes are being used for?

XAMPP? ColdFusion?

MS SQL Server is out! Sybase? Oracle?

Java?

Its been a while but I played around with
-- OS X Server
-- Apache,
-- various DBs: MySQL, Derby, SyBase, FileMaker, MS-Access,..
-- PHP, Perl, ColdFusion, and Java
-- JRun, load-balancing / fail-over.

I have done a lot of this on an iPod and a gen 1 AppleTV.


Any of today's Macs should be able to handle a reasonable volume of Web/LAN traffic on a single machine. As traffic increases, though, you begin to separate the functions to separate machines -- web, application, db, file, streaming servers.

At some point, when you have servers dedicated to a single function, I suspect that XServe becomes less competitive and more niche.

What I'd like to know:

1) What does an XServe do better than the competition?

2) What does OS X Server do better than the competition?

3) Does one require the other -- can OS X Server succeed without XServe?

4) If Apple were to offer an XServe follow-on, but could start from scratch -- what would it target?

5) Is there an opportunity that Apple sees, but we are missing?

.

1,2) For us, an Xserve is used for it's versatile scripting language, AppleScript. Combines with file services, web services, and our DAM backbone software, we use AS to modify documents, add custom metadata to InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. files, create multiple versions of files added to the server from clients (image and video files), sorting and moving documents based on metadata (job numbers), file type, and more. And much much more. We have elaborate automated workflows based on AS, file system events, folder actions, and cron jobs that run scripts. Much of this can't be done on other platforms. At least not with a lot of work. Some platforms, like Linux/Unix, will NOT be able to do any of this because Adobe and Microsoft apps are not available for them.

It leaves us in a bad spot. We can work through this eventually, but it will be time consuming and any work we put into the current set up will not be able to be reused.

Xserve is necessary because it's redundant systems are critical for business continuity. that mean we need to minimize down time as much as possible. Xserves have been rock solid. I've only had to swap out 2 bad PSUs in my 8 years of running Xserve, and both times were done uninterrupted. Same with drive failures.

3) Yes. See above about a redundant capable system that can run Mac OS X Server.

4) I think 2 server solution would be best. One based on the mini. Except use a non-unibody case. Make it deeper. Add another Ethernet port and get rid of the HDMI port in favor of a dual channel fiber port(s). Put a USB and Firewire up front. Make the top easy to open so you can easily swap out one of the two 2.5" drives. 4 SO-DIMM slots. Option to upgrade to quad core CPU. Since this is a mini server, Use Intel's chipset with it's mediocre, but adequate GPU. This machine would be the low end server option that would be the ideal MDC option for future Xsan deployments.

Second server would be a joint venture with Oracle where you can pre order a Sun Fire with OS X preinstalled.

5) Corps that need to deploy and manage iPhones and iPad with the iPhone enterprise mobile device management would like a MacOS X server running in their server rooms. Now this could be accomplished running it in VM but you need to run a MacOS X vm server on an Apple based system to begin with. As i mentioned before, Xsan is pretty crippled nor with out a solid enterprise level solution for md/j management.
post #180 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post


It's not just you, it's a lot of posts in these various Xserve threads, that seem to be saying that the Xserve was never that great, had ludicrously underbaked support, and didn't do anything that can't be done much better by commodity hardware, but that killing it is some kind of insult to Apple's users and a grim harbinger of a trivial future, all because they were "supposed" to make it better, at some point.

Sorry for the long delay, but yes, in a nutshell this is the point I was eluding to. It's not disappointing that Apple discontinued the XServe; it's disappointing that they didn't step up their support of it. The hardware was blah, in my opinion, I'd rather they had come out and said,
" We are discontinuing the mediocre XServe for our new XBlade enclosure, along with standard 3-year, 24x7 4-hour response. You'll be happy to know Apple has your back, from the living room to the data center."

As you so aptly put, they decided to "cut bait" instead of trying to be the best, which we all know they are capable of.
post #181 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

.

Does anyone have any sources they can cite that discuss what XServes are being used for?

XAMPP? ColdFusion?

MS SQL Server is out! Sybase? Oracle?

Java?

Its been a while but I played around with
-- OS X Server
-- Apache,
-- various DBs: MySQL, Derby, SyBase, FileMaker, MS-Access,..
-- PHP, Perl, ColdFusion, and Java
-- JRun, load-balancing / fail-over.

I have done a lot of this on an iPod and a gen 1 AppleTV.


Any of today's Macs should be able to handle a reasonable volume of Web/LAN traffic on a single machine. As traffic increases, though, you begin to separate the functions to separate machines -- web, application, db, file, streaming servers.

At some point, when you have servers dedicated to a single function, I suspect that XServe becomes less competitive and more niche.

What I'd like to know:

1) What does an XServe do better than the competition?

2) What does OS X Server do better than the competition?

3) Does one require the other -- can OS X Server succeed without XServe?

4) If Apple were to offer an XServe follow-on, but could start from scratch -- what would it target?

5) Is there an opportunity that Apple sees, but we are missing?

.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theolein View Post

I'm not sure if you're trolling, but I would dearly love to know how you got Java running on your ipod and your apple tv.

For all the things you mentioned, the XServe does nothing better than the competition.

However, the XServe:
- is the only 1u rack mountable server from Apple that includes redundant power supplies, Lights Out Management, from accessible hard drives and fibre channel al in one.
- Is used heavily for the "one click" functionality of web serving, wiki, calendaring, mail, directory services, chat, file serving, print sharing, centralised user and client management for educational and creative companies.
- is used heavily together with XSan and FCP Server in video production/post production houses.

- OSX Server could exist without the Xserve just fine and probably will in small businesses, but it needs proper servers to run on in data centers. Apple allowing OSX to be licensed by 3rd parties would change that.

No, I am not trolling! I don't do that.

This is an Apple-related site. I am an Apple user since 1978, Was an Apple reseller 1978-1989 (Owned Computer stores), Was a vendor to apple 1980s, and worked on joint projects with Apple 1980s. I am retired now but I still dabble in Apple - I use FCS, have 7 Macs have about 30 TB of HDD storage, I am an iOS developer with lots of iPhones, iPods and iPads. I have a significant part of my portfolio in AAPL stock.

Our Computer stores targeted SMB, business, enterprise, education, medical... when nobody else was doing it. We were were a systems integrator: packaging Apple and non-Apple products (LANs, databases, Application software, etc. into a customer solution. This was before server farms.

Our clients included IBM, Apple, Xerox, US Army, Stanford, Daimler-Benz, Fairchild-Schlaumberger, EMI-Thorne... you get the drill!

I do understand the implications and nuances of selling into enterprise and SMB.

I am interested in Apple products, what Apple does as a company-- and Apple being successful!

I did get Apache web server and PHP running on an iPhone/iPod, but no Java (I said: "I have done a lot of this on an iPod and a gen 1 AppleTV.").


Back to the XServe:

Based on your answers, and others I've read -- The XServe:

-- is not best in breed
-- is not least expensive
-- is not most reliable
-- is not easiest to to buy 24/7/4 support
-- is not heavily used by server farms

-- with OS X Server, XServe is a solid multi-purpose solution for SMBs and Small departments within the enterprise (Graphics, A/V, etc).

Apparently. The OS X Server / XServe combination is robust, solid, reliable, easy to setup and maintain, easy to administer -- making it the "best" solution for groups that don't want or need a lot of full-time dedicated "server" personnel.

Aside: I have played with OS X Server and have considered getting an XServe for our home -- the big negatives: need for a rack mount; heat; noise; space (with a mini rack).

You and others have said that an OS X Server / Brand X Hardware server combo would fill that need:

"OSX Server could exist without the Xserve just fine and probably will in small businesses, but it needs proper servers to run on in data centers. Apple allowing OSX to be licensed by 3rd parties would change that."


Whew!

But you and others have not been able to provide answers to the last 2 questions in my original post:

4) If Apple were to offer an XServe follow-on, but could start from scratch -- what would it target?

5) Is there an opportunity that Apple sees, but we are missing?


Let me set the stage, again!

On the mid 80's, before Jobs left Apple, I had a conversation with Apple Evangelist Guy Kawasaki-- discussing that Apple didn't understand "how business works" or really understand how to sell into SMB or the enterprise. We agreed in principal, and Guy said it wasn't likely to happen, because Apple was consumer oriented and no one inside Apple was championing the "business" market.

When Jobs founded NeXT it was a sea-change. NeXT was totally targeted to SMB, education, enterprise. He/They learned by doing and adapting.

I believe that, today, Steve Jobs and Apple have a deep understanding "how business works" and really understand what it takes to sell into enterprise.


Given: Apple pooped the birdie in the way the handled the XServe announcement


I suspect that will be mitigated by changing the Licensing on OS X Server and alliances with iIntegrators such as Unisys.

I do not think that Apple wants to get out of the server business!

Rather, I think Apple wants to change and improve their offering (and the server business) so Apple can be best in breed!

Apple success in the server market was limited because they were playing by other people's rules -- meeting other people's specs.

Apple likes to offer a solution that is so compelling that people will play by Apple's rules to get it.

What if Apple could offer server hardware where the whole damn thing was redundant and hot-swappable?

What if Apple could offer server hardware that required a fraction of the power, and created a fraction of the noise and heat?

What if Apple created server that conformed to 1U and other rack standards, but did not require these?

What if Apple could offer server hardware with equal (or better specs) at a fraction of the cost of current offerings?

*
*
*

Again:

4) If Apple were to offer an XServe follow-on, but could start from scratch -- what would it target?

5) Is there an opportunity that Apple sees, but we are missing?

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #182 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

1,2) For us, an Xserve is used for it's versatile scripting language, AppleScript. Combines with file services, web services, and our DAM backbone software, we use AS to modify documents, add custom metadata to InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. files, create multiple versions of files added to the server from clients (image and video files), sorting and moving documents based on metadata (job numbers), file type, and more. And much much more. We have elaborate automated workflows based on AS, file system events, folder actions, and cron jobs that run scripts. Much of this can't be done on other platforms. At least not with a lot of work. Some platforms, like Linux/Unix, will NOT be able to do any of this because Adobe and Microsoft apps are not available for them.

Isn't what you describe above a function of running [Mac] OS X Server software on a server -- rather than running it on Apple's XServe hardware? I do realize that the XServe is the only hardware currently supported.

Do you actually run InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. on the "server" or just manipulate the files?

Quote:
It leaves us in a bad spot. We can work through this eventually, but it will be time consuming and any work we put into the current set up will not be able to be reused.

Xserve is necessary because it's redundant systems are critical for business continuity. that mean we need to minimize down time as much as possible. Xserves have been rock solid. I've only had to swap out 2 bad PSUs in my 8 years of running Xserve, and both times were done uninterrupted. Same with drive failures.

3) Yes. See above about a redundant capable system that can run Mac OS X Server.

What If OS X Server software were licensed to run on other redundant/hot-swapple hardware -- would that be acceptable?
Quote:
4) I think 2 server solution would be best. One based on the mini. Except use a non-unibody case. Make it deeper. Add another Ethernet port and get rid of the HDMI port in favor of a dual channel fiber port(s). Put a USB and Firewire up front. Make the top easy to open so you can easily swap out one of the two 2.5" drives. 4 SO-DIMM slots. Option to upgrade to quad core CPU. Since this is a mini server, Use Intel's chipset with it's mediocre, but adequate GPU. This machine would be the low end server option that would be the ideal MDC option for future Xsan deployments.

Second server would be a joint venture with Oracle where you can pre order a Sun Fire with OS X preinstalled.

Mmm... Interesting!
Quote:
5) Corps that need to deploy and manage iPhones and iPad with the iPhone enterprise mobile device management would like a MacOS X server running in their server rooms. Now this could be accomplished running it in VM but you need to run a MacOS X vm server on an Apple based system to begin with. As i mentioned before, Xsan is pretty crippled nor with out a solid enterprise level solution for md/j management.

That is a very interesting point -- managing the iPhones, iPod Touches and iPads in enterprise mobile device management (I included the iPod touch, because it makes an excellent, inexpensive solution for some applications (point of sale terminal, etc.).

AFAICT, most server farms, and small server departments, buy hardware from several vendors -- servers, disk arrays, racks, UPS....

If I understand you correctly -- It doesn't need to be an Apple-only hardware solution. What is most important is to have Mac OS X server software. Correct?

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #183 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit View Post

Sorry for the long delay, but yes, in a nutshell this is the point I was eluding to. It's not disappointing that Apple discontinued the XServe; it's disappointing that they didn't step up their support of it. The hardware was blah, in my opinion, I'd rather they had come out and said,
" We are discontinuing the mediocre XServe for our new XBlade enclosure, along with standard 3-year, 24x7 4-hour response. You'll be happy to know Apple has your back, from the living room to the data center."

As you so aptly put, they decided to "cut bait" instead of trying to be the best, which we all know they are capable of.

I am a bit more optimistic!

If Apple were getting out of the "server" business, they would have EOLed OS X Server software, too.

They didn't! Why?

I think we need a little time to see how this plays out...

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #184 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

A current Mac in sleep mode is LOM startable (waken up) by sending a wake up ethernet sequence.

I think you're confusing WOL with LOM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

For many -- that will be good enough!

No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

If that's not good enough, you can buy a LOM power strip. that can be similarly controlled, and set the Mac to reboot after power off.

Only if the Mac has been turned off in a way that triggers the "Start up Automatically after Power Failure" feature.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #185 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Isn't what you describe above a function of running [Mac] OS X Server software on a server -- rather than running it on Apple's XServe hardware? I do realize that the XServe is the only hardware currently supported.

Do you actually run InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. on the "server" or just manipulate the files?

Yes, we run those apps so Applescript can control them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

What If OS X Server software were licensed to run on other redundant/hot-swapple hardware -- would that be acceptable?

Of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

If I understand you correctly -- It doesn't need to be an Apple-only hardware solution. What is most important is to have Mac OS X server software. Correct?

.

Correct.
post #186 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

Isn't what you describe above a function of running [Mac] OS X Server software on a server -- rather than running it on Apple's XServe hardware? I do realize that the XServe is the only hardware currently supported.

Do you actually run InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. on the "server" or just manipulate the files?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

Yes, we run those apps so Applescript can control them.

Do you actually have a seat for each of these applications on every XServe, or are they limited to a single XServe?

Because of your creative use of AppleScript you, have a built-in dependency on Mac OS X -- that's not necessarily a good or bad thing. In fact, it may be the only cost-effective way of doing what you are doing, e;g;, there isn't any app for that, anywhere!

I think it's kinda' cool!

What I am trying to understand, is if you need to run it (AppleScript and the Apps) on all (or multiple) servers -- or if a single server with The Mac OS X / AppleScript / Applications combo will suffice for your needs.

If the latter, you could move forward with a single MacPro running OS X Server and maybe a redundant second MacPro -- if Apple doesn't license OS X Server to others.

Not the best solution -- but, likely, a workable one! No?


Also, i searched around (I no longer use G or the G-Word, and it appears there is some capability to run OS X Server virtualized on whatever server hardware.

This could offer another alternative to use "real" servers in place of the discontinued XServe "real" server.

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #187 of 199
Can anyone with new i3/i7 iMac boot in verbose mode. Just read they switched againg from standard TI (Texas Instruments), 1394 to the cheaper one with only one controller.

Audio devices as well as editing dint like non Texas instruments plus if you connect you av interface at 400 and lucky enough to get it to work, your external hd's will run at 400 even if 800 speed. Shame there is no esata or two fw controllers at .50 cents. I knew there had to be a catch somewhere as they can run just as fast as 2009 mac pro. But of course apple makes it so many musicians will have trouble (note the huge refurbished iMacs), and yet apple could have done it right and sold so
many. Think I'll hold into my express slot mbp so I can boot to esata and get a mac pro when the new o es come out. It was just to good to be true but TI is the standard. They tried to Di thatvwith the mbp once and it lasted a month. Not sure what they use now but can tell you the 17" for sure has TI.

Geeesh.
post #188 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avidfcp View Post

Can anyone with new i3/i7 iMac boot in verbose mode. Just read they switched againg from standard TI (Texas Instruments), 1394 to the cheaper one with only one controller.

Audio devices as well as editing dint like non Texas instruments plus if you connect you av interface at 400 and lucky enough to get it to work, your external hd's will run at 400 even if 800 speed. Shame there is no esata or two fw controllers at .50 cents. I knew there had to be a catch somewhere as they can run just as fast as 2009 mac pro. But of course apple makes it so many musicians will have trouble (note the huge refurbished iMacs), and yet apple could have done it right and sold so
many. Think I'll hold into my express slot mbp so I can boot to esata and get a mac pro when the new o es come out. It was just to good to be true but TI is the standard. They tried to Di thatvwith the mbp once and it lasted a month. Not sure what they use now but can tell you the 17" for sure has TI.

Geeesh.

I think my brain exploded trying to figure out what you are trying to say.
post #189 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

I think my brain exploded trying to figure out what you are trying to say.

Sorry about that. I have an old iPhone 3G and it was notorius for running slow in certain forums with the click turned on and while I am a great speller, sometimes di instead of do comes out. With the click off, you can't hear if you hit an extra letter or 2, and I try to type to fast. So that doesn't help.

All I was asking was if anyone out there with an i3~i7 iMac could confirm or deny that the FireWire is Texas Instuments or not. In the audio field, most fw controllers like the TI much better. Anything else and you run in to all kinds of problems. On a few if the music boards it's starring to gain steam, that the iMac is problematic with FireWire audio devices and for some reason, even today, fw 400 is the norm for a device but due to the iMac having just one controller, all the external hard drives are running at 400 speeds. It will be intersting to see if Appe offers USB 3.0 on the next update as 3.0 is very fast. Add that to an iMac and external FX coming in 3.0 and you will have one very fast machine. However today, even though the CPU is fast, audio people and editing are complaint about the 400 speeds or problems with the chipset that's in the machine. Maybe some can chime in in if theirs are working fine or not. Read that the Maudii lines are having lots of problems.


Here is a classic example. Note it not even Maudio.
He has No Problems on his MacBook pro (Texas Instruments fire chipset) but when he trys to get it to work on his new i7, he can't get it to work. Haven't read the whole thing but hope he got it solved. It's just a shame that by not using Texas Instruments you basically keep the iMac as a glorious consumer device. No Semi Pro audio or video can be done. Hope they switch the chip back. As I said in my original post, Apple switched to the cheaper fw chipset in 07 but it lasted only a month, they went back to TI.

You also have to wonder, why get rid of the express slot? With it you could buy fancy plugins for audio/video and eSata and the CPU is so strong, you might not need a mac pro so was this by design? If so, I'm not sure how they will get around USB 3 as audio/video devices are coming.

Peace all. Just trying to get to the truth.


Oh the link might help. ..
http://discussions.apple.com/thread....6057&#11496057
post #190 of 199
.

...Slaps forehead with palm of hand *

Apple is going to build a blade server based on the A4 ARM chip....

Yes... An Apple A4 ARM Blade Server -- I like the sound of that (and the potential)!
  • Proven
  • Reliable
  • Small size package
  • Entirely Solid State - no moving parts
  • High Performance Power Per Watt
  • Low heat
  • Green
  • Inexpensive
  • Expendable
  • Runs OS X


The first link shows a web page served from an ARM Server.

The last link shows an Atom Netbook compared to an ARM prototype


Enjoy!


* Oh... I think I hurt myself...



http://www.linux-arm.org/Main/LinuxArmOrg

http://news.techworld.com/green-it/3...lysts/?olo=rss

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-n...-blade-servers

http://blogs.pcmag.com/miller/2010/0...rvers_more.php

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/1...To-ARM-Servers

http://gigaom.com/2010/05/11/watch-o...-server-chips/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11...ver/page2.html

http://www.greenm3.com/2010/04/are-a...is-trying.html

http://www.greenm3.com/2009/09/arm-p...e-designs.html

http://closedsrc.org/2010/11/a-new-l...rm-processors/

http://www.youtube.com/v/W4W6lVQl3QA&

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #191 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Also, i searched around (I no longer use G or the G-Word, and it appears there is some capability to run OS X Server virtualized on whatever server hardware.

This could offer another alternative to use "real" servers in place of the discontinued XServe "real" server.

.

No, there is no capability to run OS X, Server or not, on any hardware that is not an Apple. First, Apple's license prohibits it, and second, an enterprise will NOT run a hacintosh.

That's the crux of the discontent here.
post #192 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

.

...Slaps forehead with palm of hand *

Apple is going to build a blade server based on the A4 ARM chip....

Yes... An Apple A4 ARM Blade Server -- I like the sound of that (and the potential)!
  • Proven
  • Reliable
  • Small size package
  • Entirely Solid State - no moving parts
  • High Performance Power Per Watt
  • Low heat
  • Green
  • Inexpensive
  • Expendable
  • Runs OS X


The first link shows a web page served from an ARM Server.

The last link shows an Atom Netbook compared to an ARM prototype


Enjoy!


* Oh... I think I hurt myself...



http://www.linux-arm.org/Main/LinuxArmOrg

http://news.techworld.com/green-it/3...lysts/?olo=rss

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-n...-blade-servers

http://blogs.pcmag.com/miller/2010/0...rvers_more.php

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/1...To-ARM-Servers

http://gigaom.com/2010/05/11/watch-o...-server-chips/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11...ver/page2.html

http://www.greenm3.com/2010/04/are-a...is-trying.html

http://www.greenm3.com/2009/09/arm-p...e-designs.html

http://closedsrc.org/2010/11/a-new-l...rm-processors/

http://www.youtube.com/v/W4W6lVQl3QA&

.

Good for Apple. I'm image processing thousands of 150,000 x 50,000 PIXEL (and larger) images, hundreds of gigabytes in size, and I sometimes need to do it in seconds. I can't wait for Apple's ARM solution... I'm glad Apple knows best.
post #193 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwatson View Post

Good for Apple. I'm image processing thousands of 150,000 x 50,000 PIXEL (and larger) images, hundreds of gigabytes in size, and I sometimes need to do it in seconds. I can't wait for Apple's ARM solution... I'm glad Apple knows best.


What software do you run?

How many XServes do you run it on?

I suspect that you have a rather specialized situation. You, likely, need some powerful hardware to perform those tasks.

But I doubt that you would use the same hardware (or similarly equip other hardware) to serve, calendars, webpages, etc.


Edit:

I do think Apple should license OS X Server to say, IBM, or Oracle/Sun. They need to do this carefully, though -- they don't want to be competing against their own server OS.


I saw somewhere recently, some software benchmark using GPUs vs CPUs -- for some tasks and parallelization, the GPUs ran circles around the CPUs. This could offer a potential solution to your needs.

AFAIK, OpenCL does not, yet, run on A4/iOS -- but it wouldn't surprise me if it is added in future versions.



.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #194 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

What software do you run?

How many XServes do you run it on?

I suspect that you have a rather specialized situation. You, likely, need some powerful hardware to perform those tasks.

But I doubt that you would use the same hardware (or similarly equip other hardware) to serve, calendars, webpages, etc.


Edit:

I do think Apple should license OS X Server to say, IBM, or Oracle/Sun. They need to do this carefully, though -- they don't want to be competing against their own server OS.


I saw somewhere recently, some software benchmark using GPUs vs CPUs -- for some tasks and parallelization, the GPUs ran circles around the CPUs. This could offer a potential solution to your needs.

AFAIK, OpenCL does not, yet, run on A4/iOS -- but it wouldn't surprise me if it is added in future versions.



.

We run a mix of Xserves+OSX, FreeBSD, Solaris, and Windows. Can't say what runs on what, but the Xserves (or rather OS X Server on DC-class rackmount servers) are critical. With this announcement, and no alternative, we will move off Apple; it will be painful, but it can and must be done.

Thanks for the tip - we do already use GPUs for some tasks, though not on OpenCL.
post #195 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwatson View Post

We run a mix of Xserves+OSX, FreeBSD, Solaris, and Windows. Can't say what runs on what, but the Xserves (or rather OS X Server on DC-class rackmount servers) are critical. With this announcement, and no alternative, we will move off Apple; it will be painful, but it can and must be done.

Thanks for the tip - we do already use GPUs for some tasks, though not on OpenCL.


As an AAPL shareholder and former IT vendor and user I am sad to see that you'll move from Apple.

Maybe Apple should appoint a SVP of IT or get someone on the Board who understands IT.

Hate to say it but, this sounds like a job for Ross... (you gotta' take the bad with the good).

Edit:

Come to think of it. Apple should get Ellison back on the board...

... Steve, Larry and Ross -- boy that room would get small, quickly

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #196 of 199
post #197 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by z3r0 View Post

Official xserve petition here
http://www.xserve-petition.com/

Great Macworld write up:
http://www.macworld.com/article/1555...11/xserve.html

Oh, goody! An Internet petition! That'll show them! Apple will be sure to bring it back now!

You've heard of bleeding sarcasm? I nearly died of internal hemorrhaging. This. Will. Never. Work.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #198 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The Mac Pro Server comes with one 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon "Nehalem" processor, 8GB of RAM, and two 1TB hard drives. It also has Mac OS X Server unlimited with a client license, and an ATI HD 5770 graphics card with 1GB of GDDR5 memory.

Wow. Just wow. Now you take the beast and try to replace its dead power supply.

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply
post #199 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01 View Post

Wow. Just wow. Now you take the beast and try to replace its dead power supply.

It's honestly not that hard to do, but can you imagine taking down a server offline to replace the power supply on it? Jeez.

The Mac Pro needs to be BTO'd with something like this: http://www.powermax.com/parts/show/bf8651 (they make higher watt versions)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple offers new Mac Pro Server configuration to replace Xserve