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.
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.
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]
Well, you have to start somewhere! I note that the Xserve started selling at a trickle, and all the non-Apple writeups about the Xserve described individual Xserves being set up for evaluation. Hardly anyone dropped them right into production, because you just don't do that.
Quote:
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?
They can now. The current Xserve is mature and proven at this point. If the Xserve is updated six months or so after the 970 PowerMac, server customers should be basically content that the bugs have been shaken out of Apple's 970-based boards and OS. The first revision will still get bought in small quantities for evaluation, but it might be a bit less cautiously received than the original, out-of-the-clear-blue-sky Xserve.
You don't have to be IBM to sell servers (although it certainly helps!). You just have to be conservative, insofar as it's possible to be.
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.
Apple is crawling out of its skin to get this thing in a Power Mac before or at the same time as an Xserve. Why not the Xserve first? Monitors. Apple wants to sell all kinds of Power Macs and MONITORS to ad agencies, etc with the new processor. PLUS, if they were to release it in an Xserve first talk about KILLING Power Mac sales. Wow that would be ugly.
Apple is crawling out of its skin to get this thing in a Power Mac before or at the same time as an Xserve.
Boy, is that an image! I can just imagine Steve down in the Cupertino skunkworks, whipping the PowerMac engineers. "The Xserve team has the companion chip talking to the Northbridge! Where are you guys?!"
Comments
Originally posted by Big Mac
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.
Hear, hear.
Originally posted by Amorph
Xserve is probably the worst product in which to debut the 970 (well, OK, there's the iPod...
Don't say that. A 64 bit 1.6 ghz iPod would definitely ROCK !!!
Screed
Originally posted by Big Mac
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.
Agreed!
D
Originally posted by Thai Moof
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]
Well, you have to start somewhere! I note that the Xserve started selling at a trickle, and all the non-Apple writeups about the Xserve described individual Xserves being set up for evaluation. Hardly anyone dropped them right into production, because you just don't do that.
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?
They can now. The current Xserve is mature and proven at this point. If the Xserve is updated six months or so after the 970 PowerMac, server customers should be basically content that the bugs have been shaken out of Apple's 970-based boards and OS. The first revision will still get bought in small quantities for evaluation, but it might be a bit less cautiously received than the original, out-of-the-clear-blue-sky Xserve.
You don't have to be IBM to sell servers (although it certainly helps!). You just have to be conservative, insofar as it's possible to be.
Originally posted by Amorph
Xserve is probably the worst product in which to debut the 970 (well, OK, there's the iPod...
Oooh. A 970 iPod.
Sign me up.
Originally posted by msantti
Oooh. A 970 iPod.
Sign me up.
IBM 440GX iPod would be enough for me.
Originally posted by Big Mac
...the only thing delivered was ill-conceived speculation.
GASP!!!
Not on a RUMOR SITE!!
WTF is this world coming to?
Originally posted by Bodhi
Apple is crawling out of its skin to get this thing in a Power Mac before or at the same time as an Xserve.
Boy, is that an image! I can just imagine Steve down in the Cupertino skunkworks, whipping the PowerMac engineers. "The Xserve team has the companion chip talking to the Northbridge! Where are you guys?!"