Hoping for a $1999 Xserve

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Apple



Please oh please bring out an Xserve mini for $1999. I don't need the handsome aluminum case but just the basics.



1U Rack Optimized

5 Client Tiger Server

G5 2.3Ghz

1GB RAM

Dual GB on mobo and integrated video.

1 PCI-X slots

160GB hd

Combo Drive





The current Xserve would move to



1U Rack Optimized

Unlimited Tiger Server

G5 2.7Ghz Dual Procs

1GB RAM

Dual GB on mobo and Integrated video

2 PCI-X slots

250GB

Combo



$2999



Apple needs a Server at a little less than $3000. I know they don't need CALS but still for Small Biz it might make more sense to come in a bit lower and grow from the bottom up as needs expand. Get Tiger Server out there!

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 13
    dhagan4755dhagan4755 Posts: 2,150member
    OS X Server could run on any Apple hardware, including notebooks (although they are not supported configurations). Does it have to be rack mountable? I was thinking that Apple should just sell a low-end SP G5 tower with the Xserve's throughput and OS X Server for $1,999. I bet that would sell like hot cakes.
  • Reply 2 of 13
    the cool gutthe cool gut Posts: 1,714member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by DHagan4755

    I bet that would sell like hot cakes.





    Why is it that hot cakes sell so particularly well?
  • Reply 3 of 13
    chagichagi Posts: 284member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by the cool gut

    Why is it that hot cakes sell so particularly well?



    Because they are so yummy!
  • Reply 4 of 13
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chagi

    Because they are so yummy!



    Like cinibuns. MMmmmm........
  • Reply 5 of 13
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,259member
    LOL you guys have Attention Deficit. Soon as food enters the conversation all hell breaks loose :P



    I don't mind OSX Server on Powermacs but I don't think this is the ideal situation for many companies. They needs something space efficient that doesn't cost 3 grand to get into. Hey I love the clusters and all but Xserves aren't really selling that much into standard biz environments. Well to suite my liking that is.



    Let's say you're starting a business with some friends. It's a 4 person outfit. Sure you could run Server on a Powermac but wouldn't it be nice if you could start building your network right from the beginning? It shouldn't cost 3 grand to get into rack optimized servers for OSX. Xserves are cute but we simply need a basic unit.
  • Reply 6 of 13
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,242member
    As my grandmother would say privately, ``Wish in one hand and shit in the other. See which one fills up first.''
  • Reply 7 of 13
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,242member
    But seriously, who wants integrated video? If I want to swap out video options on a server, so be it.



    They need 4 Fiber channel raid ports, on board, before you'll see big deployments say in the telcos. A friend of mine had to eliminate Apple from the bidding process at T-mobile for this fact.
  • Reply 8 of 13
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,259member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by mdriftmeyer

    As my grandmother would say privately, ``Wish in one hand and shit in the other. See which one fills up first.''



    ewwwwwwwwwwww



    Quote:

    \tBut seriously, who wants integrated video? If I want to swap out video options on a server, so be it.



    The current Xserves don't have video so integrated would allow you to hook up a monitor easily. Only needs to be like 8MB or less even. Basic stuff.



    Quote:

    They need 4 Fiber channel raid ports, on board, before you'll see big deployments say in the telcos. A friend of mine had to eliminate Apple from the bidding process at T-mobile for this fact.



    Yup...and it's not just the Telcos who are eliminating the Xserves. They don't have enough open PCI slots because stuff that should on the motherboard requires slots. Any midlevel to high end Tape Library does NOT come with Firewire. Thus if you use up the slots with other stuff...oops how to I back this thing up?



    Solution:



    New motherboard correctly aimed at the Server markets and a lower end unit for people who want rack optimized without going freakin' broke. Besides isn't distributed processing becoming big? Sounds to me like Apple needs low cost high density servers that are cheaper than their current nodes.
  • Reply 9 of 13
    jlljll Posts: 2,709member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    The current Xserves don't have video so integrated would allow you to hook up a monitor easily. Only needs to be like 8MB or less even. Basic stuff.



    You don't really need to hook it up to a monitor.



    Didn't you say in another thread that Apple shouldn't make low end Power Macs, but you want them to make even more low end servers than Xserve?



    I would rather see Apple launching 2U and 3U servers for a higher end market.





    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    Yup...and it's not just the Telcos who are eliminating the Xserves. They don't have enough open PCI slots because stuff that should on the motherboard requires slots. Any midlevel to high end Tape Library does NOT come with Firewire. Thus if you use up the slots with other stuff...oops how to I back this thing up?



    What kind of servers need tons of PCI cards? A Fibre Channel card is what's needed in most cases (a GPU is absolutely not necessary - this is not Windows), and your tape library would probably be connected to the Fibre Channel switch too.
  • Reply 10 of 13
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,259member
    I'd love to see 2U servers as well. There are a lot of uses for a 2U server. They would be more akin to a racked Powermac.



    Well unfortunately we do have people that need the video card which eats up a slot and then they'll have a Small Tree multiport Gigabit card in the other slot. I think Apple just made a mistake developing a server that doesn't have 4-8MB of video memory. The price would have be inconsequential but now they are getting dropped from consideration because companies need that one extra slot Xserves cannot provide.



    I mean think about it..the Xserves claim to fame is VT and COLSA clusters that doen't even use OS X so basically any real traction claimed for Xserves is a fallacy for now.
  • Reply 11 of 13
    jlljll Posts: 2,709member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    I'd love to see 2U servers as well. There are a lot of uses for a 2U server. They would be more akin to a racked Powermac.



    Well unfortunately we do have people that need the video card which eats up a slot and then they'll have a Small Tree multiport Gigabit card in the other slot. I think Apple just made a mistake developing a server that doesn't have 4-8MB of video memory. The price would have be inconsequential but now they are getting dropped from consideration because companies need that one extra slot Xserves cannot provide.



    I mean think about it..the Xserves claim to fame is VT and COLSA clusters that doen't even use OS X so basically any real traction claimed for Xserves is a fallacy for now.




    There will always be customers that need something else than Apple can provide, and perhaps an integrated GPU would help those, but it will make the server more expensive to customers that don't need it.



    VT use Mac OS X btw.



    Apple's own setup is pretty big too



  • Reply 12 of 13
    cubistcubist Posts: 954member
    I agree with you guys. 1U vs. 2U is not that big of a thing since the cluster server is available.



    In the telecom world we really prefer to have redundant hot-swappable power supplies, too. And there should be a DC (-48V) option.



    As for Murchison's low-end server, why not reintroduce a dual-G4 model? It could use 7447s and much simpler cooling systems. I don't know if there's a lot of opportunity for reducing cost by a whole $1000, but I agree that someone at Apple ought to look into it.
  • Reply 13 of 13
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,242member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by cubist

    I agree with you guys. 1U vs. 2U is not that big of a thing since the cluster server is available.



    In the telecom world we really prefer to have redundant hot-swappable power supplies, too. And there should be a DC (-48V) option.



    As for Murchison's low-end server, why not reintroduce a dual-G4 model? It could use 7447s and much simpler cooling systems. I don't know if there's a lot of opportunity for reducing cost by a whole $1000, but I agree that someone at Apple ought to look into it.




    The redundant hot swappable power supplies was another issue T-Mobile insiders mentioned; even though the technical lead pointed out that design is flawed and a waste of funds he was overruled by the status quo as that is how they do things in the Telco industry. He provided them with a design that would save them millions and they ignored it.



    You give those with the money solutions they will wastefully and gladly toss money at far sooner than showing them the lowest TCO solution, overall.



    Why? Such allocation of funds and resources have already been pre-determined higher up by technically incompetent management, more often than not. Microsoft thrives on such management decisions.
Sign In or Register to comment.