970's limited to Xserve for now

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
am i the only one here who thinks that the only reasonable way to have the 970 roll out





is to have the 970's limited to Xserve for now





?
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 31
    bodhibodhi Posts: 1,424member
    No. Apple needs to sell Power Macs BAD.
  • Reply 2 of 31
    stoostoo Posts: 1,490member
    Any reasons that cause you to think the 970 will be XServe only on introduction?
  • Reply 3 of 31
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Xserve is probably the worst product in which to debut the 970 (well, OK, there's the iPod... ). The server market wants mature, proven platforms, and the 970 would be absolutely new. Apple would hardly sell any of them, regardless of the performance benchmarks, until it had been revved at least once.
  • Reply 4 of 31
    alex_kacalex_kac Posts: 58member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    Xserve is probably the worst product in which to debut the 970 (well, OK, there's the iPod... ). The server market wants mature, proven platforms, and the 970 would be absolutely new. Apple would hardly sell any of them, regardless of the performance benchmarks, until it had been revved at least once.



    Not 100% true. IBM sells brand new processors in their high end server products. And they sell.
  • Reply 5 of 31
    willoughbywilloughby Posts: 1,457member
    If they debuted in the xserve the Power Mac sales would tank. They probably wouldn't even sell one more Power Mac until they had a 970 in it. Bad idea.
  • Reply 6 of 31
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,145member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by alex_kac

    Not 100% true. IBM sells brand new processors in their high end server products. And they sell.



    Yes but at a much higher cost than Xserves and IBM has much more experience than Apple in the Server Market.



    It's "reasonable" but unlikely Common Sense dictates that if the Xserve was ready for the PPC 970 then so would the Powermac.
  • Reply 7 of 31
    lemon bon bonlemon bon bon Posts: 2,383member
    Quote:

    No. Apple needs to sell Power Macs BAD.



    Something like that.



    Understatement.



    Lemon Bon Bon
  • Reply 8 of 31
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by alex_kac

    Not 100% true. IBM sells brand new processors in their high end server products. And they sell.



    There's a major difference in the support contracts Apple and IBM supply.
  • Reply 9 of 31
    3.14163.1416 Posts: 120member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bluesigns

    am i the only one here who thinks that the only reasonable way to have the 970 roll out is to have the 970's limited to Xserve for now





    Yes.
  • Reply 10 of 31
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    For most servers, robustness and reliability is more critical than speed. Its generally desktop users who are itching for the latest and greatest speed-demon. Administrators and IT staff are usually the last people to upgrade their OS and hardware.



    Granted, there are definite and numerous exceptions to these inclination generalizations. Yet, if you go look under the hood of machines run by highly paid veterans, they are almost always running on an ?outdated? OS and on a previous generation chip. It is seldom that server OSes or hardware upgrades actually provide employees with additional functionality. The most significant upgrades involve software running on top of the OS, like databases, middle-ware, and server-based user-applications. This software must be bullet-proof and generally isn?t certified on new OSes or hardware for at least a few months.



    I?ve seen ?upgrades? wreck havoc, resulting in hundreds of people milling around before being sent home for lack of something to do. I also witnessed an Oracle transition go horribly wrong, with thousands of reports showing erroneous data, taking months to track down? this was at Carnegie Mellon University. Paychecks were messed-up and grant-application deadlines were missed resulting in hundreds of thousands of lost dollars.



    Maybe IBM can get away with selling a server package based upon an untested platform and OS? I?d be interested in hearing about which platform they introduced without testing.



    IMHO, it would be a disservice to consumers for Apple to release the 970 in xserves prior to powermacs. Trigger-happy admins are dangerous, able to accidentally bring entire companies to their knees for days.
  • Reply 11 of 31
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    I think your all alone. I would however buy an Xserve/PowerMac 1, or 2U if it had all the same things in it as a PowerMac without Mac OS Server. I think the Xserve looks cool as h3ll, and I could use the desk space, but there is no other way I would get one. Unless it was to cluster a few with a PowerMac as a 3D render machine.



    I don't even know why I reply to this crud anymore.
  • Reply 12 of 31
    jcgjcg Posts: 777member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bluesigns

    am i the only one here who thinks that the only reasonable way to have the 970 roll out





    is to have the 970's limited to Xserve for now





    ?




    Personally, I think that it is reasonable for Apple to do an across the board 970 introduction...ok maybe keep the eMac at G4 or drop it, and the iBook at G3 or move it to G4. Apple computers have fallen behind the curve as far as integrating new technology into their systems, where they used to be the leader. They are still using PC100 memory, USB 1, FW1, Gforce 2's...all old tech that could have been updated at little cost to Apples bottom line. Yet for all of this they are charging a premium. This isnt inovating their way out of the current economic conditions, and only tarnishes Apples image as an industry leader in technology. Apple needs to move beyond the limitations of the G4 as soon as they can.
  • Reply 13 of 31
    nevynnevyn Posts: 360member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Telomar

    There's a major difference in the support contracts Apple and IBM supply.



    I'd like to nominate this for "Biggest Understatement EVAR."
  • Reply 14 of 31
    ensign pulverensign pulver Posts: 1,193member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bluesigns

    Am I the only one here who thinks that the only reasonable way to have the 970 roll out is to have the 970's limited to Xserve for now?



    Yes.
  • Reply 15 of 31
    rhumgodrhumgod Posts: 1,289member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bluesigns

    am i the only one here who thinks that the only reasonable way to have the 970 roll out





    is to have the 970's limited to Xserve for now





    ?




    Why do you think that? Define reasonable. If I were Apple, reasonable would be every last box I sell would be 970-based. Drop G4s altogether, drop 970s in their place, where appropriate, and pop in Gobi G3s in everything else.



    Bye, bye Moto.
  • Reply 16 of 31
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    Xserve is probably the worst product in which to debut the 970 (well, OK, there's the iPod... ). The server market wants mature, proven platforms, and the 970 would be absolutely new. Apple would hardly sell any of them, regardless of the performance benchmarks, until it had been revved at least once.



    ehhh...

    [devil's advocate]

    And how 'proven' was the XServe platform when it appeared? Everything except the processor was new - this is when they first intro'd the DDR system (among everything else). Why can't/wont they do that again with the 970?

    [/devil's advocate]



    I certainly agree that the PowerMac needs the 970 more than the XServe, but I don't agree with your arguement. While servers generally are based on 'mature, proven platform', Apple can't really do that now, can they? After all, these really are Apple's first servers (well...sort of), so by definition they are unproven. I do agree that the performance is not as important, so I believe that they will fix the Powermacs first, then portables (maybe coincident), then the rest of the line. They wont upgrade the XServe first simply because they don't need to...yet.
  • Reply 17 of 31
    pbpb Posts: 4,231member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dfiler

    For most servers, robustness and reliability is more critical than speed.



    True. Take for example this situation
  • Reply 18 of 31
    ensign pulverensign pulver Posts: 1,193member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by PB

    True. Take for example this situation



    Awesome, truly awesome.
  • Reply 19 of 31
    big macbig mac Posts: 480member
    I hate to sound holier-than-thou here, but I really wish individuals would refrain from posting inane, irresponsible threads with misleading subject lines. The thread's author erroneously implied that there was a new revelation concerning the 970 machines, but the only thing delivered was ill-conceived speculation.
  • Reply 20 of 31
    netromacnetromac Posts: 863member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Thai Moof

    After all, these really are Apple's first servers (well...sort of), so by definition they are unproven.



    And that is why you won't see someone using them for any heavy work just now. They try it out, sit on the fence and let other people do the testing.



    Even if the xServe was brand new and unproven, most of the technology in it has been used for years, and so is proven. Apple hasn't really trown in any new or unproven stuff.



    One more thing Apple has to be sure of, is to have enough chips ready for production. I guess the new powermacs will be really popular when first released, and Apple will probably sell as many as they can make. So the main priority will be to "saturate" powermac production with the 970. When IBM has ramped up production, they can start to introduce it in other lines, and the xServe will probably be one of the first of the "other" macs to get it. Only time will show.
Sign In or Register to comment.