damnit, what are they thinking? xserve hardware though often a step behind mac pro hardware is far better suited to the comms room than mac pros - I'll have to get a whole new cage when I next upgrade just to house the new machines!
You know how it is with Steve. If a product doesn't interest him, he'll kill it. I'm surprised the AppleTV's lasted this long.
Solaris uses, as its base, FreeBSD, just as OS X does, and has other simularities. A merger of the two would have brought the OS X GUI, ZFS, and other merged technologies such as the ownership of Java. It would also have brought the enterprise staff of Sun to Apple, as well as high end hardware.
Solaris forked from BSD in 1981 - 30 million years ago in computer time - there's almost no commonality with OS X. I totally agree Apple should have bought Sun, would have been a far better merger than Sun-Oracle, and we would have ZFS.
Who is going to buy an Xserve with today's offerings?
Can't rack mount? Perhaps there are other ways.*
Even Microsoft seems to be able to cope.?
Quote:
Then Apple give us a special gift. :-) You'd be probably be very surprised at the cost of running all these machines. There's the obvious electricity costs, but also cooling costs and even the physical space costs. Additionally, our system scales, not with CPU horsepower, but with quantity of machines. Most of the tests we run don't run significantly faster on a dual G5 vs. a single G4. So when Apple announced the Mac mini it wasn't minutes before we were considering how to use it for our automation system. The Mac mini has all the perfect qualifications:
They already use Linux and Solaris. Mac OS X is just not up to the task (and I'm not joking here). Real servers need way better I/O than what Mac OS X has. It's kernel is too slow and its file system is ancient.
You're kidding right??? You have never seen the actual server farm that iTunes runs one have you? I wish the trolls would stay out of this and only ACSA, ACTC, people that actually work with these could comment here...
Apple is set to dominate consumer tech this decade. Easily.
What are talking about?? Apple never really had an enterprise presence. Why start now? What's the point, when their consumer divisions alone are changing the face of tech almost monthly.
Because, as is well known, consumers are fickle, unlike business and government. While it takes a lot to get those two groups to change, consumers change at the slightest notice. Look at the iPhone vs Android. Almost every article and review says the same thing, that Android phones, while good, aren't as polished or as smooth as iPhones. They also say that the Google Marketplace isn't nearly as good, and that the apps aren't as good. But, Android phones now outsell the iPhone. Why? To a large part, advertising. Consumers, despite what we all like to think about ourselves, are very subject to advertising.
Business and governments are not so easily swayed. The evidence is that Apple is again moving back into enterprise and government. Two years ago, the Mac was about a 2.5% presence in enterprise. As of last year, that number was about 5.5%. That's a doubling in just two years. In addition, Apple is making great efforts to get the iPhone in those markets, and is succeeding very well. Then we have the iPad. One reason given for its success is that it's doing very well in business, with several companies buying thousands of them already, and Gardner recently saying that business should quickly adopt them.
There's no doubt that Apple has an interest, finally, in going back to the enterprise and government. About 50% of all computer sales are there, and more than half of the profits.
Now that Apple has both the mass and credibility as a large enterprise themselves which won't be going away anytime soon (one reason why companies and government dropped them in the mid, late '90's), those groups are looking at Apple more seriously. Lastly, as more students entering college are doing so with Macs, those people will move into business expecting to continue using them. As business have recently become much more open to using what devices their employees are using, and supporting them as well, we'll continue to see more demand for Apple related gear. Then, it turns out that the top people in many companies are using Macs as their own personal computers, as well as using iPads and iPhones.
None of this is being lost on Apple, which is why the deal with systems integrator Unisys, and others earlier.
Don't forget that as Apple continues to embrace standards, they become easier to support. And as their MS integration continues, some of it with the help of MS themselves recently (finally Outlook, and Visual Basic support, even if it isn't yet complete), Apple becomes easier to integrate there as well.
It will cost Apple almost nothing to do this, as so far, except on the software level, they aren't doing anything that really costs them anything, or requires them to change direction. But if they do show that they are succeeding even more there, we may see them do something that would make them even more viable.
This is written on my iPad, which I find easy to type on, except for the position of the keyboard put away key, and the fact that the number keys are too big, and could be made smaller so we could get three more keys, and perhaps several more characters on the main keyboard, such as the "%, $, and @"; keys. Oh yeah, a universal spellchack as in OS X would help as I make typo's these days.
Would you buy a server from a cell phone company? Exactly.
Next will be Mac Pros. Because Apple sold so many cell phones they now think desktop computers should be like cell phones (when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail).
Watch the desktop line disappear in a 5 - 10 years.
I think that everybody's desktop lines will disappear in 5-10 years.
Sure, there will be existing installations! But the new solutions being marketed will not place a desktop (or floortop) at every workstation.
Do you pay attention to the news? Perhaps you missed the news about Unisys? That was just the latest.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall at Unisys. Did they know about this discontinuation before they entered into the deal with Apple.
Apple: "Hey, we're not so good at the enterprise thing would you guys like to partner with us to service that market segment."
Unisys: "Sure!"
Apple: "Oh, BTW, we're discontinuing our only viable server hardware people in that market would want to buy."
Unisys: "Bloody Hell!"
I can't imagine Apple partnering with HP, Dell or any other manufacturer on server-class hardware. That just seems antithetical to their corporate identity.
Maybe Apple will release an XServe replacement with Light Peak in January.
What the heck are talking about? You just went on just to hear yourself rant some ant-apple hate.
Fail +10.
Apple helped pioneer the f****** pc industry little boy. They make their own world class OS and they design their own godd**** hardware.
You better thank god Apple is pulling out and not really putting their full force behind servers.Why? Don't you know? Your job security!!!!
Toy maker? Ha ha ha ha!
Actually, I've been using, and loving, Apple products for longer than you have perhaps been alive. I (still) have a Lisa, a NeXT pizza box, an old iMac, a new iMac, an eMac, a Cube, several new Mac Minis, and, more to the point, a whole slew of Xserves. My Xserves manage and run a datacenter that contains equipment costing a quarter of a million of my hard earned dollars. I am justifiably pissed about this move by Apple, as I see them caring less and less about my business.
Apple has never really tried to have an enterprise presence - they go in, try a little, then pull out without warning and shaft everyone. Consistency is key to enterprise, and Apple's little hissy fits and 'surprise announcements' just don't work.
Why start now? Uh, because they have a little cash in pocket, and could, if they could take off their gadget-goggles, change enterprise computing the same way they're changing consumer devices. But no.
Fail.
That's not true. In the late eighties, through the mid nineties, Apple had a very large presence in large tech companies. I had a friend who was in charge of small computer purchasing back then for Boeing. In 1995, right before the Michael Spindler debacle started, Boeing had about 34,000 Macs, and less than 1,000 PC's. Motorola, which was one of the largest, and most respected tech companies, had a similiar ratio.
But after the Christmas 1995 massacre, Macs were dropped rapidly as the pundits were predicting Apple's demise. That was why they went to clones. The idea was that more than manufacturer was needed for business to feel comfortable, but it didn't work out that well.
Times have changed, and it isn't thought like that Apple will be going out of business, so companies feel more comfortable in buying their stuff.
Apple has always been very careful of "what businesses they are in";
Who would have run the AGS Conglomerate?
Would AGS or any of the other of the existing staid companies have had the stones to enter the CE business?
Would Android still look like the original BlackBerry ripoff?
.
Apple was the bigger of the three, so it's likely that Jobs would have remained CEO, while Schmitt would have become Chairman. Remember the recent article that shows that Google tried to persuade Jobs to become their CEO, and that Google's founders respect Jobs. As for Sun, I don't think that would have been a problem as Apple could have bought their stock with cash.
And Android, what is that? It would never have become a product.
Do they really think I can put MacPro´s in server halls and in larger companies? Bye bye Apple in enterprise...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
.
My first reaction... Hey, Apple -- look at my sig!
OK!
I have heard/read where the XServe was a pretty good piece of hardware.
I have also heard/read that Apple never had the desire, commitment or infrastructure to sell into and support this business -- Apple is just not driven that way!
Likely, with the way they approached the market, it was a money-losing or marginally profitable business.
Apple does not like that, and it is not good at that,
So what to do?
Discontinue the product, do the best damage control you can -- then move on!
As a shareholder, I applaud the decision.
Now, what to do to satisfy Apple's ever-expanding need for servers?
AFAICT, the big server suppliers are Dell, HP, IBM, Sun.
Now here's the interesting part.
What if Apple cuts a deal with one or more of these companies to supply Apple with servers?
What if part of that deal requires the server provided to run OS X Server Software -- AFAICT, the OS X Server software still lives and is capable of running on any of the above servers.
What if further deals are cut to allow these server manufacturers to license OS X Server and market it into enterprise along with their own server solutions.
Unless I am mistaken, this would offer existing XServe customers a long term solution.
This could also open up new potential for OS X Server in enterprises where Apple is not able to compete (for the reasons better known to others than me).
What would be the incentive, say, for IBM to sell an OSX Server solution? For Apple to promote an OS X Server IBM solution?
Hmmm...
.
I never understood while Mac OS X Server wasn't available to IBM and HP for corporate installs... Perhaps now, it will be...
Solaris forked from BSD in 1981 - 30 million years ago in computer time - there's almost no commonality with OS X. I totally agree Apple should have bought Sun, would have been a far better merger than Sun-Oracle, and we would have ZFS.
I didn't realise it was that far back. I thought it was in the early nineties.
Actually, I've been using, and loving, Apple products for longer than you have perhaps been alive. I (still) have a Lisa, a NeXT pizza box, an old iMac, a new iMac, an eMac, a Cube, several new Mac Minis, and, more to the point, a whole slew of Xserves. My Xserves manage and run a datacenter that contains equipment costing a quarter of a million of my hard earned dollars. I am justifiably pissed about this move by Apple, as I see them caring less and less about my business.
Has Apple been able to provide adequate service, maintenance, support for those XServes?
Do you do that yourself or contract it out?
I don't know, but I suspect that service, maintenance and support are areas where Apple is unable to compete.
Would it sweeten the deal, if the next time you had to replace or add a new server -- that it ran OS X Server software?
Would it be attractive to you if the server manufacturer, or his agent, assumed some of the responsibility of service. maintenance, repair and replacement?
In other words: Would an Apple Software / Brand X hardware / Brand Y service offer a better, same, or worse solution?
- The new Mac Mini with Leopard Server is close to the same specs for 1/3rd the price.
- You don't really need the faster processors in a server.
- You can get external raid storage if you need it (Mac Mini has FireWire 800)
And mostly.. Apple is pushing "going green"
- Mac Mini's use 10W of power when idling. (max of 80W) XServe does max of 750W??
I make my living as a Mac consultant working with small businesses. I know how to work with the Mac OS. I'll have to bring in another consultant to run the server on a different platform which means that I may become redundant.
There is no hardware monitoring in a Mac Mini like an XServe. No hardware monitoring means no notifications via text or email when there is a hardware issue.
The Mini currently uses 2.5" drives which are slower and more prone to failure.
No redundancy of Ethernet or power supplies.
No slot if you want to add a fiber or SATA card.
Minis don't rack mount leaving these awkward boxes in the cabinet that needs a shelf.
The power cord is prone to coming out by accident if you're working around it.
The XServe has locking clips for the power cords.
Towers don't fit in cabinets or racks very well and you can't easily swap a failed drive like an XServe.
Apple doesn't have the clout to reinvent the 19" rack. They're walking away from a multi-billion dollar market, when all they have to do is hire a couple of IBM/HP/Dell and mostly unhappy Sun execs, and keep Steve off their backs for a couple of years. Wait... I think I've spotted the problem...
Spot on mate, I was thinking the same thing exactly
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwatson
'xactly. They have tons of cash to address the corporate market seriously for a change, and they shrink away.
BTW, for those of you who think a Mac Pro or Mac Mini can work as a server, get out of your living room and come visit a server farm. Not even close.
This goes hand-in-hand with Apple's DC - if they won't use their own servers in it, they sure as hell won't sell any to enterprises.
I said 'fail' last post.. I'm upgrading to 'Epic F...ing Fail' too!
Could not agree with you more, the MacPro belongs under a desk and not in a server hall.
We ( the company I work for ) recently installed 250 Xserves for a mission critical project in the Oil Sands of Alberta; we could not be happier with the results.
Security of the OS is second to non right now, and the labour cost was cut 77% after replacing Windows Server and our systems have been on an unprecedented 100% up time from where we were before.
I sure hope that Apple will licence out OS X Server after this fiasco is over with.
You're not a server guy/gal, are you? Let's see, no redundant power supplies, a dicky little magnetic power connector, no LOM, no RAS, no RAID 10, no accessible and hot-swap drive bays, one (and a half) Ethernet ports, no I/O slots for Infiniband, FC, external SAS, or other interconnects,...no 19" rackmount.
FireWire 800 for external storage? Wow. I just don't know what to say to that. Think that will hook up to my 48TB array?
And don't say I don't need faster processors in a server, you don't know what I do. Maybe _you_ don't need them.
As someone else said above, no sane admin would consider a Mac Mini in a serious server role.
Everything in this post is completely wrong. Just wrong. Sorry. You're not correct. The bold is an opinion, and a ridiculous one as well.
Comments
damnit, what are they thinking? xserve hardware though often a step behind mac pro hardware is far better suited to the comms room than mac pros - I'll have to get a whole new cage when I next upgrade just to house the new machines!
You know how it is with Steve. If a product doesn't interest him, he'll kill it. I'm surprised the AppleTV's lasted this long.
Solaris uses, as its base, FreeBSD, just as OS X does, and has other simularities. A merger of the two would have brought the OS X GUI, ZFS, and other merged technologies such as the ownership of Java. It would also have brought the enterprise staff of Sun to Apple, as well as high end hardware.
Solaris forked from BSD in 1981 - 30 million years ago in computer time - there's almost no commonality with OS X. I totally agree Apple should have bought Sun, would have been a far better merger than Sun-Oracle, and we would have ZFS.
Can't rack mount? Perhaps there are other ways.*
Even Microsoft seems to be able to cope.?* http://www.macminicloud.net/colo.php
?http://davidweiss.blogspot.com/2006/...s-mac-lab.html
As the saying goes, "Every saint has a past every sinner has a future." That is evolution. So get over it and move on.
They already use Linux and Solaris. Mac OS X is just not up to the task (and I'm not joking here). Real servers need way better I/O than what Mac OS X has. It's kernel is too slow and its file system is ancient.
You're kidding right??? You have never seen the actual server farm that iTunes runs one have you?
Watch the desktop line disappear in a 5 - 10 years.
It won't disappear. It will change. Apple is driving innovation in the consumer sector.
Macs, iPads, iOS.
The first real stroke is the new Air.
Don't you get it?
Apple is set to dominate consumer tech this decade. Easily.
What are talking about?? Apple never really had an enterprise presence. Why start now? What's the point, when their consumer divisions alone are changing the face of tech almost monthly.
Because, as is well known, consumers are fickle, unlike business and government. While it takes a lot to get those two groups to change, consumers change at the slightest notice. Look at the iPhone vs Android. Almost every article and review says the same thing, that Android phones, while good, aren't as polished or as smooth as iPhones. They also say that the Google Marketplace isn't nearly as good, and that the apps aren't as good. But, Android phones now outsell the iPhone. Why? To a large part, advertising. Consumers, despite what we all like to think about ourselves, are very subject to advertising.
Business and governments are not so easily swayed. The evidence is that Apple is again moving back into enterprise and government. Two years ago, the Mac was about a 2.5% presence in enterprise. As of last year, that number was about 5.5%. That's a doubling in just two years. In addition, Apple is making great efforts to get the iPhone in those markets, and is succeeding very well. Then we have the iPad. One reason given for its success is that it's doing very well in business, with several companies buying thousands of them already, and Gardner recently saying that business should quickly adopt them.
There's no doubt that Apple has an interest, finally, in going back to the enterprise and government. About 50% of all computer sales are there, and more than half of the profits.
Now that Apple has both the mass and credibility as a large enterprise themselves which won't be going away anytime soon (one reason why companies and government dropped them in the mid, late '90's), those groups are looking at Apple more seriously. Lastly, as more students entering college are doing so with Macs, those people will move into business expecting to continue using them. As business have recently become much more open to using what devices their employees are using, and supporting them as well, we'll continue to see more demand for Apple related gear. Then, it turns out that the top people in many companies are using Macs as their own personal computers, as well as using iPads and iPhones.
None of this is being lost on Apple, which is why the deal with systems integrator Unisys, and others earlier.
Don't forget that as Apple continues to embrace standards, they become easier to support. And as their MS integration continues, some of it with the help of MS themselves recently (finally Outlook, and Visual Basic support, even if it isn't yet complete), Apple becomes easier to integrate there as well.
It will cost Apple almost nothing to do this, as so far, except on the software level, they aren't doing anything that really costs them anything, or requires them to change direction. But if they do show that they are succeeding even more there, we may see them do something that would make them even more viable.
This is written on my iPad, which I find easy to type on, except for the position of the keyboard put away key, and the fact that the number keys are too big, and could be made smaller so we could get three more keys, and perhaps several more characters on the main keyboard, such as the "%, $, and @"; keys. Oh yeah, a universal spellchack as in OS X would help as I make typo's these days.
xserve doesn't have fibre channel connections...
Not true. They've had fiber boards for as long as I can remember.
Not true. They've had fiber boards for as long as I can remember.
Completely agree, that's what XSan uses to communicate and it's been around for over 6 years now. Good to see a competent individual speaking here!
Would you buy a server from a cell phone company? Exactly.
Next will be Mac Pros. Because Apple sold so many cell phones they now think desktop computers should be like cell phones (when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail).
Watch the desktop line disappear in a 5 - 10 years.
I think that everybody's desktop lines will disappear in 5-10 years.
Sure, there will be existing installations! But the new solutions being marketed will not place a desktop (or floortop) at every workstation.
.
Do you pay attention to the news? Perhaps you missed the news about Unisys? That was just the latest.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall at Unisys. Did they know about this discontinuation before they entered into the deal with Apple.
Apple: "Hey, we're not so good at the enterprise thing would you guys like to partner with us to service that market segment."
Unisys: "Sure!"
Apple: "Oh, BTW, we're discontinuing our only viable server hardware people in that market would want to buy."
Unisys: "Bloody Hell!"
I can't imagine Apple partnering with HP, Dell or any other manufacturer on server-class hardware. That just seems antithetical to their corporate identity.
Maybe Apple will release an XServe replacement with Light Peak in January.
- Jasen.
What the heck are talking about? You just went on just to hear yourself rant some ant-apple hate.
Fail +10.
Apple helped pioneer the f****** pc industry little boy. They make their own world class OS and they design their own godd**** hardware.
You better thank god Apple is pulling out and not really putting their full force behind servers.Why? Don't you know? Your job security!!!!
Toy maker? Ha ha ha ha!
Actually, I've been using, and loving, Apple products for longer than you have perhaps been alive. I (still) have a Lisa, a NeXT pizza box, an old iMac, a new iMac, an eMac, a Cube, several new Mac Minis, and, more to the point, a whole slew of Xserves. My Xserves manage and run a datacenter that contains equipment costing a quarter of a million of my hard earned dollars. I am justifiably pissed about this move by Apple, as I see them caring less and less about my business.
Apple has never really tried to have an enterprise presence - they go in, try a little, then pull out without warning and shaft everyone. Consistency is key to enterprise, and Apple's little hissy fits and 'surprise announcements' just don't work.
Why start now? Uh, because they have a little cash in pocket, and could, if they could take off their gadget-goggles, change enterprise computing the same way they're changing consumer devices. But no.
Fail.
That's not true. In the late eighties, through the mid nineties, Apple had a very large presence in large tech companies. I had a friend who was in charge of small computer purchasing back then for Boeing. In 1995, right before the Michael Spindler debacle started, Boeing had about 34,000 Macs, and less than 1,000 PC's. Motorola, which was one of the largest, and most respected tech companies, had a similiar ratio.
But after the Christmas 1995 massacre, Macs were dropped rapidly as the pundits were predicting Apple's demise. That was why they went to clones. The idea was that more than manufacturer was needed for business to feel comfortable, but it didn't work out that well.
Times have changed, and it isn't thought like that Apple will be going out of business, so companies feel more comfortable in buying their stuff.
Actually, maybe not!
Apple has always been very careful of "what businesses they are in";
Who would have run the AGS Conglomerate?
Would AGS or any of the other of the existing staid companies have had the stones to enter the CE business?
Would Android still look like the original BlackBerry ripoff?
.
Apple was the bigger of the three, so it's likely that Jobs would have remained CEO, while Schmitt would have become Chairman. Remember the recent article that shows that Google tried to persuade Jobs to become their CEO, and that Google's founders respect Jobs. As for Sun, I don't think that would have been a problem as Apple could have bought their stock with cash.
And Android, what is that? It would never have become a product.
.
What rill they use in Apple server farms?
.
A disgrace!
A joke!
Do they really think I can put MacPro´s in server halls and in larger companies? Bye bye Apple in enterprise...
.
My first reaction... Hey, Apple -- look at my sig!
OK!
I have heard/read where the XServe was a pretty good piece of hardware.
I have also heard/read that Apple never had the desire, commitment or infrastructure to sell into and support this business -- Apple is just not driven that way!
Likely, with the way they approached the market, it was a money-losing or marginally profitable business.
Apple does not like that, and it is not good at that,
So what to do?
Discontinue the product, do the best damage control you can -- then move on!
As a shareholder, I applaud the decision.
Now, what to do to satisfy Apple's ever-expanding need for servers?
AFAICT, the big server suppliers are Dell, HP, IBM, Sun.
Now here's the interesting part.
What if Apple cuts a deal with one or more of these companies to supply Apple with servers?
What if part of that deal requires the server provided to run OS X Server Software -- AFAICT, the OS X Server software still lives and is capable of running on any of the above servers.
What if further deals are cut to allow these server manufacturers to license OS X Server and market it into enterprise along with their own server solutions.
Unless I am mistaken, this would offer existing XServe customers a long term solution.
This could also open up new potential for OS X Server in enterprises where Apple is not able to compete (for the reasons better known to others than me).
What would be the incentive, say, for IBM to sell an OSX Server solution? For Apple to promote an OS X Server IBM solution?
Hmmm...
.
I never understood while Mac OS X Server wasn't available to IBM and HP for corporate installs... Perhaps now, it will be...
Solaris forked from BSD in 1981 - 30 million years ago in computer time - there's almost no commonality with OS X. I totally agree Apple should have bought Sun, would have been a far better merger than Sun-Oracle, and we would have ZFS.
I didn't realise it was that far back. I thought it was in the early nineties.
Actually, I've been using, and loving, Apple products for longer than you have perhaps been alive. I (still) have a Lisa, a NeXT pizza box, an old iMac, a new iMac, an eMac, a Cube, several new Mac Minis, and, more to the point, a whole slew of Xserves. My Xserves manage and run a datacenter that contains equipment costing a quarter of a million of my hard earned dollars. I am justifiably pissed about this move by Apple, as I see them caring less and less about my business.
Has Apple been able to provide adequate service, maintenance, support for those XServes?
Do you do that yourself or contract it out?
I don't know, but I suspect that service, maintenance and support are areas where Apple is unable to compete.
Would it sweeten the deal, if the next time you had to replace or add a new server -- that it ran OS X Server software?
Would it be attractive to you if the server manufacturer, or his agent, assumed some of the responsibility of service. maintenance, repair and replacement?
In other words: Would an Apple Software / Brand X hardware / Brand Y service offer a better, same, or worse solution?
Why?
.
I don't know why everyone is freaking out...
- The new Mac Mini with Leopard Server is close to the same specs for 1/3rd the price.
- You don't really need the faster processors in a server.
- You can get external raid storage if you need it (Mac Mini has FireWire 800)
And mostly.. Apple is pushing "going green"
- Mac Mini's use 10W of power when idling. (max of 80W) XServe does max of 750W??
I make my living as a Mac consultant working with small businesses. I know how to work with the Mac OS. I'll have to bring in another consultant to run the server on a different platform which means that I may become redundant.
There is no hardware monitoring in a Mac Mini like an XServe. No hardware monitoring means no notifications via text or email when there is a hardware issue.
The Mini currently uses 2.5" drives which are slower and more prone to failure.
No redundancy of Ethernet or power supplies.
No slot if you want to add a fiber or SATA card.
Minis don't rack mount leaving these awkward boxes in the cabinet that needs a shelf.
The power cord is prone to coming out by accident if you're working around it.
The XServe has locking clips for the power cords.
Towers don't fit in cabinets or racks very well and you can't easily swap a failed drive like an XServe.
No real server relegates Macs to being toys.
Nope, it's just you... (no offense
Apple doesn't have the clout to reinvent the 19" rack. They're walking away from a multi-billion dollar market, when all they have to do is hire a couple of IBM/HP/Dell and mostly unhappy Sun execs, and keep Steve off their backs for a couple of years. Wait... I think I've spotted the problem...
Spot on mate, I was thinking the same thing exactly
'xactly. They have tons of cash to address the corporate market seriously for a change, and they shrink away.
BTW, for those of you who think a Mac Pro or Mac Mini can work as a server, get out of your living room and come visit a server farm. Not even close.
This goes hand-in-hand with Apple's DC - if they won't use their own servers in it, they sure as hell won't sell any to enterprises.
I said 'fail' last post.. I'm upgrading to 'Epic F...ing Fail' too!
Could not agree with you more, the MacPro belongs under a desk and not in a server hall.
We ( the company I work for ) recently installed 250 Xserves for a mission critical project in the Oil Sands of Alberta; we could not be happier with the results.
Security of the OS is second to non right now, and the labour cost was cut 77% after replacing Windows Server and our systems have been on an unprecedented 100% up time from where we were before.
I sure hope that Apple will licence out OS X Server after this fiasco is over with.
You're not a server guy/gal, are you? Let's see, no redundant power supplies, a dicky little magnetic power connector, no LOM, no RAS, no RAID 10, no accessible and hot-swap drive bays, one (and a half) Ethernet ports, no I/O slots for Infiniband, FC, external SAS, or other interconnects,...no 19" rackmount.
FireWire 800 for external storage? Wow. I just don't know what to say to that. Think that will hook up to my 48TB array?
And don't say I don't need faster processors in a server, you don't know what I do. Maybe _you_ don't need them.
As someone else said above, no sane admin would consider a Mac Mini in a serious server role.
Everything in this post is completely wrong. Just wrong. Sorry. You're not correct. The bold is an opinion, and a ridiculous one as well.