Rackmounts needed

in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
I know we have discussed this before, but Apple really needs a rackmount solution for a number of reasons. Wired has a great article <a href="http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,50454,00.html"; target="_blank">here</a> about scientists wanting to go Mac, but being unable to. Obviously there is a server need, enterprise need, and scientific need for rackmount solutions. Oh, although the market is smaller, recording studios would love them too.


  • Reply 1 of 24
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Maybe they should talk to these guys: <a href="http://www.gvstore.com/gvs90apg4wor4.html"; target="_blank">http://www.gvstore.com/gvs90apg4wor4.html</a>;
  • Reply 2 of 24
    My first reaction to that story was "how hard can it be to pop the motherboard out and rack mount it?"
  • Reply 3 of 24
    If you want to rackmount your current G4, you can use this:

    <a href="http://www.marathoncomputer.com/"; target="_blank">http://www.marathoncomputer.com/</a>;

  • Reply 4 of 24
    [quote]Originally posted by noleli:

    <strong>If you want to rackmount your current G4, you can use this:

    <a href="http://www.marathoncomputer.com/"; target="_blank">http://www.marathoncomputer.com/</a>;


    Naw that's not what the people in the story want. Try to find space for 100 or 1000 of those. Then think about how much space you save by just mounting the motherboards.
  • Reply 5 of 24
    Besides, rackmounting a G4 sideways is not cost effeceint at all. You are paying for the enclosure that you don't need, a graphics card that is overpowered for a server, and an optical drive that isn't neccesarry. Not to mention the cost of the additional hardware, the extra space requirements, and the hassle of retrofitting your towers. This all cries out for a simple rackmount solution.

    [ 02-22-2002: Message edited by: blue2kdave ]

    [ 02-22-2002: Message edited by: blue2kdave ]</p>
  • Reply 6 of 24
    serranoserrano Posts: 1,806member
    you guys dont get it, it's about processors per sq. ft... read the article... it's about heat, power and space. just rackmounting current g4 towers is a waste of space, they want a board that will squeeze 10,20,40 g4's in a similar space. 500 dual ghz g4's will take up a hell of a lot of space (to maker their 1000 processor marks), not only that mounting a g4 sideways and putting more on top and on bottom doesn't adequately disipate heat... expensive solutions they have to implement to combat that such as air conditioners aren't cost effective... these are still universities, with budgets, albeit big budgets... just not that big. i liked the point the article made that the market is too small for microsoft to pay attention too, but just right for apple... i dont know if i agree, apple tried this foothold thing before and today theres a million companies with art/design departments full of macs and pcs everywhere else... catering to niche markets is what got them the market share they have... however this may be a way to claw themselves back up, 1 department at a time... if a university has macs in the art labs, and macs in the science labs that's a much larger commitment to apple. + universites love their science departments, it's what brings nobel prizes and cash (at least in the UC system, and this article talkes about UCSC). if the science department wants a platform switch it will be much weightier than simply the art department
  • Reply 7 of 24
    Not to mention that the marathon g-rack its 6U!!

    For recording studios, thats not such a huge deal, but if you plan to colocate one.. ouch!

    And $250 for a pair of rails is also steep, considering you can get an ATX rackmount kit itself for $150 thats 4U.

  • Reply 8 of 24
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Did you guys even READ my post? They have 2U rackmount cases... and they do all the work of mounting it in the case for you. And they have BTO!
  • Reply 9 of 24
    oh.. right..

    But I actually use all my PCI slots..

    That 2U only supports 2 i believe.

  • Reply 10 of 24
    It doesn't matter what rackmount solutions a third party offers. That's not what these people want. As was posted before, read the article...
  • Reply 11 of 24
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Apple can't afford to cater to everybody right now. When a behemoth like HP can't even compete with rackmounts and server-type hardware, what makes you think Apple can?

    It would be nice, but that's not where the most important customers are...and that's not an area that's particularly good for publicity outside of the /. crowd.
  • Reply 12 of 24
    I went to Outsider's link and GV's enclosures are impressive. They are charging $500 over the base G4 dual 1GHZ Powermac ($3499). They aren't listed as an Apple VAR or reseller so I wonder how warranty issues are resolved.

    Apple should work with these guys on bids for projects like this. This would be a great way to judge the size of the market. If the market is big enough, Apple could come out with their own systems.
  • Reply 13 of 24
    Here's your rack mount system. Dual GHz G4s with Gig of RAM OS X and YDL all for $3,839.00. Not bad.

    <a href="http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/products/gvs9000/"; target="_blank">http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/products/gvs9000/</a>;

    [quote] * CPUs: dual 1 GHz PowerPC G4 w/AltiVec.

    * Memory: 1 GB PC-133 SDRAM - 2 DIMMs.

    * Storage: 80 GB IDE drive.

    * Removable: DVD-RW Super Drive.

    * Communications: Gigabit, FireWire, USB.

    * Video Card: ATI Radeon 7500 dual (YDL currently supports terminal only)

    * Expansion: single 64/66 PCI slot.

    * Chassis: GVS 9000 2U Rack System.

    * Keyboard & Mouse: Apple USB.

    * Operating System: YDL & Mac OS X pre-installed; complete box sets.

    * Warranty Service Plan: GVS One year - Hardware.

    * Weight: 50 lbs.

    * Just $3,839.00 + Shipping

  • Reply 14 of 24
    gamblorgamblor Posts: 446member
    THIS looks like a job for... the return of the NeXT Slab. For anybody who's never seen one, it was a computer that was kinda like a Mac LC, but a bit bigger. If Apple were to introduce a machine with similar dimensions, they could have a machine with an AGP slot, 1 (maybe 2) PCI slots, all the built in goodies, and one or two processors. Apple could contract with one of the above companies to make rack mounts for 'em. That way, they kill two birds with one stone-- scientists get machines that they get a nice proc per square foot ratio out of, and all the guys who lamented the death of the Cube get a (hopefully) cheap machine that fill's the gap left by the Cube.

    What do ya think?
  • Reply 15 of 24
    [quote] It would be nice, but that's not where the most important customers are...and that's not an area that's particularly good for publicity outside of the /. crowd.


    Not true. If science depts at universities migrate to the Mac platform, then the rest of the university will fall in line. Science departments are the crown jewels of most Universities, and if they want Macs, they get them.

    As more universities switch (back) to Macs, then more students are exposed to OS X. And these students will fan out into the workforce with that OS X experience.

    This is a case where catering to a niche market could have incredible bonuses to Apple. It is too bad that Apple doesn't see that.
  • Reply 16 of 24
    I can't agree with that. Where I am the campus runs on big time Suns. Always has. The science people used to run on big SGI iron but I think they all moved to Linux these days.
  • Reply 17 of 24
    Almost $4000 is WAY too much for a cluster unit. This option is only for the people who have to have it. What I was saying is that if universities and the science community and the 3d artists are going to switch, they need a cost-competive rack mount unit from Apple. This is NOT a niche market, and must be taken care of if Apple has any hope of breaking out of their current markets.
  • Reply 18 of 24
    [quote]Originally posted by Gamblor:

    <strong>THIS looks like a job for... the return of the NeXT Slab.


    What do ya think?</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Mmmmm...pizza box...mmmmm
  • Reply 19 of 24
    [quote]Originally posted by blue2kdave:

    <strong>Almost $4000 is WAY too much for a cluster unit. ...</strong><hr></blockquote>

    How much would and x86 based system cost? Dual Athlon with those specs?
  • Reply 20 of 24
    stimulistimuli Posts: 564member
    Is that a rhetorical question, or are you genuinely curious?
Sign In or Register to comment.