Apple to discontinue Xserve after Jan. 31, 2011

2456717

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 332
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Steve-J View Post


    It makes perfect sense. It is unlikely that they make much money from that product line.



    Next to be discontinued: High end Mac workstations.



    Yeah - like they have to downsize and keep control of their spendings like they had to 8 years ago when the intruduced the first Xserve.



    Death of Apple in enterprise



    EPIC F...ING FAIL!!!
  • Reply 22 of 332
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Steve-J View Post


    The big iron.



    With my background, "big iron" means mainframes with lots of compute power.



    As I see it, a server farm, needs lots of storage, I/O, caching, bandwidth, parallelism, redundancy.



    This is better provided by many, less-powerful, devices!



    What do you mean by "big iron"?





    And what brands?



    .
  • Reply 23 of 332
    ksecksec Posts: 1,568member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kwatson View Post


    Apple... now officially a toymaker.



    Sad indeed for those of us who respected them as a computer company. I'm predicting $50 a share in a few years, once the hype around the iPhone and iPad dies down and competition establishes itself - Apple now has a very fickle and uneducated consumer base, one good competitive product will bring them down.



    All they needed to do was put 4 drives in instead of 3. I wonder what's gonna go in the big datacenter(s)? Perhaps OS X Server will come out on Dell? Wait - I know - Apple's gonna buy IBM...



    p.s. the Mac Pro will go next...





    $50 a share ? LOL, Warren Buffet will buy it all for $100 a share, if i had the money i would too. Considering they have $56 dollars per share worth of cash. And other asset that is worth at least 14 dollars. No Debt.
  • Reply 24 of 332
    ksecksec Posts: 1,568member
    I dont understand the logic behind this. Xserve may not be making much money, but it is definitely needed if you are continuing with OSX Server. Mac Mini is not a server, even with Server software.



    What will Apple do with their Server Farm, i bet they wont be using any others competitors Server considering if some image of it leaks out. ( Apple Billion Server Farm using Dell machines......... )



    They could make their own, but they might just as well uses XServe.



    Unless, as some one already mention, they are going to redesign Server, Or their Whole data center will be using Mac Mini ( WOOT!!!??? ), sounds crazy, but apple has always been doing crazy things.



    Edit: As a matter of fact this isn't so far off. Apple needs loads of Servers , or container for HDD Storage. But actual processing and memory usage is rather low.
  • Reply 25 of 332
    steve-jsteve-j Posts: 320member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aplnub View Post


    he only wants the End User part of the enterprise business.





    I think it is clear that they want no part of the enterprise. They have dropped hints before, but now thy are taking action.



    They want the consumer market. That is where they are aiming. All the cool new products are consumer products.



    AFAIK, the only computers which make them enough money to bother with are the laptops. None of the others sell all that well compared to the other consumer lines.



    iPods, iPhones and iPads are where the money is.
  • Reply 26 of 332
    I don't know why everyone is freaking out...



    - The new Mac Mini with Leopard Server is close to the same specs for 1/3rd the price.

    - You don't really need the faster processors in a server.

    - You can get external raid storage if you need it (Mac Mini has FireWire 800)



    And mostly.. Apple is pushing "going green"

    - Mac Mini's use 10W of power when idling. (max of 80W) XServe does max of 750W??
  • Reply 27 of 332
    steve-jsteve-j Posts: 320member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post


    '

    they needed to just stop pretending they could compete and get out.

    they are a 'mobile' company now anyway right?





    Bingo.



    They are not known for flogging a dead horse. They instead follow the money wherever it leads them.
  • Reply 28 of 332
    c-rayc-ray Posts: 40member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by oseame View Post


    damnit, what are they thinking? xserve hardware though often a step behind mac pro hardware is far better suited to the comms room than mac pros - I'll have to get a whole new cage when I next upgrade just to house the new machines!



    The real issue is, do you really want to run Apple kit in your server room, or do you only need to run OS X Server ?



    I fully expect OS X Server to be available under virtualization (on non-Apple hardware). That actually reduces the number of rack units you need in the server room.
  • Reply 29 of 332
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GelfTheElf View Post


    I don't know why everyone is freaking out...



    - The new Mac Mini with Leopard Server is close to the same specs for 1/3rd the price.

    - You don't really need the faster processors in a server.

    - You can get external raid storage if you need it (Mac Mini has FireWire 800)



    And mostly.. Apple is pushing "going green"

    - Mac Mini's use 10W of power when idling. (max of 80W) XServe does max of 750W??



    Firewire 800 is a joke compared to Fibre
  • Reply 30 of 332
    steve-jsteve-j Posts: 320member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    With my background, "big iron" means mainframes with lots of compute power.



    As I see it, a server farm, needs lots of storage, I/O, caching, bandwidth, parallelism, redundancy.



    This is better provided by many, less-powerful, devices!



    What do you mean by "big iron"?





    And what brands?



    .







    I misused the term.
  • Reply 31 of 332
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ksec View Post


    Edit: As a matter of fact this isn't so far off. Apple needs loads of Servers , or container for HDD Storage. But actual processing and memory usage is rather low.



    Easily accomplished with an iSCSI or Fibre Channel SAN solution, no need for a bunch of Mac Minis to do this, especially considering the lack of easily swappable drives in the Mini (let alone that they are consumer-level 2.5" drives) essentially precludes them from being used in a tier-1 enterprise environment.
  • Reply 32 of 332
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,471member
    Could this be a prelude to a deal between Steve and Larry? Maybe an Apple / Sun deal may be coming ... just a thought.
  • Reply 33 of 332
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kwatson View Post


    Apple... now officially a toymaker.



    Sad indeed for those of us who respected them as a computer company. I'm predicting $50 a share in a few years, once the hype around the iPhone and iPad dies down and competition establishes itself - Apple now has a very fickle and uneducated consumer base, one good competitive product will bring them down.



    All they needed to do was put 4 drives in instead of 3. I wonder what's gonna go in the big datacenter(s)? Perhaps OS X Server will come out on Dell? Wait - I know - Apple's gonna buy IBM...



    p.s. the Mac Pro will go next...



    What the heck are talking about? You just went on just to hear yourself rant some ant-apple hate.

    Fail +10.

    Apple helped pioneer the f****** pc industry little boy. They make their own world class OS and they design their own godd**** hardware.

    You better thank god Apple is pulling out and not really putting their full force behind servers.Why? Don't you know? Your job security!!!!

    Toy maker? Ha ha ha ha!
  • Reply 34 of 332
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GelfTheElf View Post


    I don't know why everyone is freaking out...



    - The new Mac Mini with Leopard Server is close to the same specs for 1/3rd the price.

    - You don't really need the faster processors in a server.

    - You can get external raid storage if you need it (Mac Mini has FireWire 800)



    And mostly.. Apple is pushing "going green"

    - Mac Mini's use 10W of power when idling. (max of 80W) XServe does max of 750W??



    You obviously did not you read the PDF Apple has posted on their website their performance is over 1/3 less as well......or have any experience in servers at all.



    Here's the kicker Godaddy started this year to offer Dedicated XServe Hosting as well. Wonder what will happen now ?? (http://www.godaddy.com/hosting/mac-h....aspx?ci=18037)
  • Reply 35 of 332
    rbonnerrbonner Posts: 635member
    Not thinking they sold a ton of these, there are some great hosts out there now, and with Apple's cloud center coming online, betting they will offer a better solution.



    It's so funny that most folks (and betting folks that have never bought an X-Serve) are way smarter than Apple in this case. Overall they seem to know what they are doing.
  • Reply 36 of 332
    Who cares?!

  • Reply 37 of 332
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GelfTheElf View Post


    I don't know why everyone is freaking out...



    - The new Mac Mini with Leopard Server is close to the same specs for 1/3rd the price.

    - You don't really need the faster processors in a server.

    - You can get external raid storage if you need it (Mac Mini has FireWire 800)



    And mostly.. Apple is pushing "going green"

    - Mac Mini's use 10W of power when idling. (max of 80W) XServe does max of 750W??



    The Mac Mini has been THE choice for Mac servers for a long time now. I've actually been under the impression that the Xserve was on it's way out, and I was more right than I thought. If your processing needs are beyond the Mac Mini, which is not likely, the Mac Pro is your answer, especially for it's expandability. You can buy it it bear bones and upgrade at your convenience.



    An Xserve has always just been the most expensive option, both initially and in power consumption. Period. In the last year, sales must have finally reached a point where it was no longer cost effective to produce the product.
  • Reply 38 of 332
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post


    'bye bye'? they never were in the enterprise. they never worked at getting in the enterprise and no one really uses them except for here and there a lonely xserv ha.

    they needed to just stop pretending they could compete and get out.

    they are a 'mobile' company now anyway right?



    You sound thrilled! Must be happy Apple saved your effing job security. Anybody in the know knows that if Apple wanted to play the disposable server game they could.

    The server business is a dump that keeps a bunch of high paid techs employed.

    laugh at that!
  • Reply 39 of 332
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacYeah View Post


    Firewire 800 is a joke compared to Fibre



    A joke. So is the number of people who have those needs, and ALSO require Mac Server software.
  • Reply 40 of 332
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,756member
    Good It's about time. A non-performing asset if there ever was one.
Sign In or Register to comment.