Why would they?

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Why would Apple develop an entirely new product, the Rackmount, with a PowerPC G4 chip, unless they intend the G4 to be around a long time. I guess I can state the obvious: we're either going to have the G4 for a while, or we're not.



Integrating a new processor isn't as easy as pop out, pop in.



Hmm...



jrbd

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 14
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Just out of curiosity, where did you read that it will have a G4?



    I'm pretty sure it will (no inside info, though), but I'm curious.
  • Reply 2 of 14
    dartblazerdartblazer Posts: 149member
    pop out G3 on the B&W and pop in G4.



    But you do bring up a good point. If a company buys large quantities of the PowerRack and then in 6 months apple released newer PowerRacks with Hypertransport RapidIO 3GIO G5 or what have you there's going to be some angry people out there.



    And what about upgrades? Company's are expected to buy completely new machines? (or am i totally off on this point :confused: )



    To me i dont think apple is going to be able to make it as a server company unless they "think different" about how they introduce new hardware.
  • Reply 3 of 14
    slackerslacker Posts: 127member
    What's wrong with having a G4, it's very effective in clusters.



    I see no problem with them releasing a new product/form factor and not worrying about the chip that goes in it. If they have to upgrade it to G5 6 months from now it will not be difficult to re-engineer and it will drive even more sales.
  • Reply 4 of 14
    bodhibodhi Posts: 1,424member
    There is nothing wrong with a G4 in a cluster or a Rackmount. Who's to say that it isn't a new version of the G4 that supports DDR?
  • Reply 5 of 14
    wmfwmf Posts: 1,164member
    Servers generally aren't any more upgradable than desktop machines, so I don't see any problems when Apple introduces a non-upgradable rackmount server.
  • Reply 6 of 14
    stepsonstepson Posts: 95member
    There is plenty wrong with a G4 in a rackmount. An x86 chip is cheaper. Probably a lot cheaper. Witness very expensive (and profitable) G4 towers. Don't feed me any altivec bullshit. Is apache optimized for the G4?



    Servers aren't as upgradeable as desktop machines? Which is to say ... they are? All of the servers i administrate, even the very thin 1U boxes are upgradeable. You could add memory, upgrade the P3 processors to faster versions, switch from IDE to scsi (although in the 1U case, you are limited internally, but some of the longer ones can fit quite a few disks inside).
  • Reply 7 of 14
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    I believe Jobs did say that the server was going to be released with a new version of Mac OS X Server. If so, it could easily (well...) be a 64bit version, or just a version heavily optimized for Altivec and the G4.
  • Reply 8 of 14
    stepsonstepson Posts: 95member
    Or it could be 10.1.5 ....



    Sorry, i'm just pessimistic lately
  • Reply 9 of 14
    posterboyposterboy Posts: 147member
    The rackmount could be on a chip completely different than the existing PPC chips. Considering that you aim this type of product at Enterprise and Coprorate markets, maybe it will feature some new IBM PPC Chip, or a newer G4 that has a faster BUS and DDR ram.

    Anything is possible really, we will just have to wait and see. Either way, it is probably going to be at least a little different than your standard Mac.



    --PB
  • Reply 10 of 14
    junkyard dawgjunkyard dawg Posts: 2,801member
    Rackmounts need to be reliable, so companies wouldn't be interested in an untested CPU/muthaboard combination like the G5 with rapidIO and DDR RAM.



    But I agree, no G5 at MWNY. It's too close and we've heard too few rumors at this point. MWSF is looking like the safer bet. Unfortunately, by the time Apple gets a 1.4 GHz G5 out the door, even Celerons will be whomping Apple's ass.
  • Reply 11 of 14
    jlljll Posts: 2,709member
    [quote]Originally posted by stepson:

    <strong>There is plenty wrong with a G4 in a rackmount. An x86 chip is cheaper. Probably a lot cheaper. Witness very expensive (and profitable) G4 towers. Don't feed me any altivec bullshit. Is apache optimized for the G4?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    If a x86 is cheaper then why does a 1 GHz P3 Dell PowerEdge 1650 cost the same as a 2x1 GHz Power Mac G4 Server?



    [ 05-11-2002: Message edited by: JLL ]</p>
  • Reply 12 of 14
    stepsonstepson Posts: 95member
    I don't see Ghz P3s even being available for that server anymore ... .



    Doing a quick check at dell.com, I see a 1650, which comes in a 'much-thinner-than-powermac' 1U case (which lowers hosting costs, generally, since they usually charge by space). Dual 1.13 Ghz P3s, 512MB ram, an 18gig Ultra 160 SCSI disk (w/ controller obviously), dual ethernet NICs, ... all for $2800. So think you're talking out your ass... (not that its a very fair comparison, you can't get the powermacs without the super or combo drive for example, and I'm not sure how much use a superdrive is when its in locked datacenter)
  • Reply 13 of 14
    jlljll Posts: 2,709member
    [quote]Originally posted by stepson:

    <strong>I don't see Ghz P3s even being available for that server anymore ... .



    Doing a quick check at dell.com, I see a 1650, which comes in a 'much-thinner-than-powermac' 1U case (which lowers hosting costs, generally, since they usually charge by space). Dual 1.13 Ghz P3s, 512MB ram, an 18gig Ultra 160 SCSI disk (w/ controller obviously), dual ethernet NICs, ... all for $2800. So think you're talking out your ass... (not that its a very fair comparison, you can't get the powermacs without the super or combo drive for example, and I'm not sure how much use a superdrive is when its in locked datacenter)</strong><hr></blockquote>



    That configuration with Red Hat is $2,959 (with 4x128 MB RAM), and try and replace that harddrive with a 76 GB and the price is $3,709 - a single 1.13 GHz is $2,910 with rebate.



    A Dual 1 GHz Power Mac Server is $3,299 (I know that it only has a 80 GB IDE harddrive, but it is fast enough for our needs, and space is not a problem).



    Apple won the order on this!



    Btw. all three Power Mac Server configurations have a CD-RW, so who's talking out his ass?



    Edit: Prices adjusted - Red Hat chosen instead of Windows



    [ 05-12-2002: Message edited by: JLL ]</p>
  • Reply 14 of 14
    stepsonstepson Posts: 95member
    Well you're really wasting your money if you let dell install the OS for you. Save the dosh and just download the iso's from linuxiso.org, and install it yourself. I always re-install the OS anyway (paranoid bastard).



    Also, I was looking at the 'regular' powermacs, not the 'server' version, which seems to just be more expensive for dubious value. And again, what good is a CDRW in a server, when its sitting in a data center, blah blah blah.



    Also, if you're hosted in a place like exodus, where they charge by space, you'd be able to fit a lot more 1U servers (any manufacturer) than power mac towers (and thus save money)...



    Hopefully the apple rack mount will be much thinner.
Sign In or Register to comment.