This is a bad and irresponsible move on Apple's part. Many depend on the Xserve.
People keep saying that, but no one has been able to say how many 'many' is. Except Apple who says that 'Many' is not enough to justify the product line.
I wonder know knows the Xserve sales level better - Apple or these AI trolls?
Nobody has said they are - it's about a potential market, not the current state of affairs. And it's about not being respectful of your current customers, no matter how few.
As I posted above, it is disrespectful -- especially since it was handled badly. The reasons should have been explained and the supporters and customers should have been contacted, alerted. and "sold" on the idea.
If Apple were to license OS X Server to, say, IBM, it likely, would mitigate the problems and offer greater potential for customers, supporters, Apple, and IBM.
I hope that is what we will see!
I am trying to step back and think if there might better solution for Home and SMBs than the "server solution" we know today -- maybe a combination local and remote combination.
People keep saying that, but no one has been able to say how many 'many' is. Except Apple who says that 'Many' is not enough to justify the product line.
I wonder know knows the Xserve sales level better - Apple or these AI trolls?
Someone said about 300,000 units, and I'd be inclined to agree, or maybe 250,000 - sales since the product's inception have been 5,000-10,000 units per quarter. This is a guess.
As I posted above, it is disrespectful -- especially since it was handled badly. The reasons should have been explained and the supporters and customers should have been contacted, alerted. and "sold" on the idea.
If Apple were to license OS X Server to, say, IBM, it likely, would mitigate the problems and offer greater potential for customers, supporters, Apple, and IBM.
I hope that is what we will see!
I am trying to step back and think if there might better solution for Home and SMBs than the "server solution" we know today -- maybe a combination local and remote combination.
That may be where Apple sees the potential.
.
Yes, if Apple had simply said that along with EOLing the Xserve, OS X Server would be made available on some other (enterprise/DC) hardware, or virtualized, I don't think anyone would have been in the least surprised or upset - possibly even happy. But OS X Server is not virtualizable or operable on anything but OS X on Apple hardware, so we're screwed. Maybe Apple will surprise us, but enterprise customers HATE surprises, and the damage has been largely done.
It's funny that you think people will still make applications for OS X or use it at all if they don't have servers to run their business or computers to test them on.
It's cute that you think those developers were buying servers from Apple to begin with.
From the reading I've done, the XServe still consumes power when it is off -- so that is the equivalent of any Mac (including the Mini) running in sleep state.
I think it is similar to sleep, but not the same. The motherboard, graphics card, fans etc are all off. You are right about the remote control power strip: It will achieve true power on/off control.
I know that discontinuing the XServe is a "big deal" to existing users -- but they don't appear to be a notable player in the bigger scheme of things.
.
Hmmm... The entire server market is in a lot worse shape than I thought and I knew it was pretty bad. The server market looks like a sinking ship and the margins must be horrible. It's no wonder that IBM, HP, Dell, and Sun are looking to software, storage, networking, and other services to prop up their enterprise business. The Mac market alone ($22 billion in sales in fiscal '10) is more than half of the entire server market.
Does anyone have any sources they can cite that discuss what XServes are being used for?
XAMPP? ColdFusion?
MS SQL Server is out! Sybase? Oracle?
Java?
Its been a while but I played around with
-- OS X Server
-- Apache,
-- various DBs: MySQL, Derby, SyBase, FileMaker, MS-Access,..
-- PHP, Perl, ColdFusion, and Java
-- JRun, load-balancing / fail-over.
I have done a lot of this on an iPod and a gen 1 AppleTV.
Any of today's Macs should be able to handle a reasonable volume of Web/LAN traffic on a single machine. As traffic increases, though, you begin to separate the functions to separate machines -- web, application, db, file, streaming servers.
At some point, when you have servers dedicated to a single function, I suspect that XServe becomes less competitive and more niche.
What I'd like to know:
1) What does an XServe do better than the competition?
2) What does OS X Server do better than the competition?
3) Does one require the other -- can OS X Server succeed without XServe?
4) If Apple were to offer an XServe follow-on, but could start from scratch -- what would it target?
5) Is there an opportunity that Apple sees, but we are missing?
z3ro above linked to a petition - there are a number of very cogent comments from pro and DC users there. For anyone who really wants to understand the impact of the cancellation, take a read:
It would have had a lot more impact if those people had actually bought xserves.
A signature from someone who never bought an xserve and had no plans to do so is pretty meaningless.
Mmm... I'd be careful here.
You have some unhappy people, who, likely:
-- are professionals (as opposed to consumers)
-- are knowledgeable of the Apple products and competitors' products
-- are trained and employed in their area of expertise
-- have embraced and recommended Apple solutions
-- have a vested interest in the success of Apple withint their enterprises
We call these people "decision influencers". They are the "inside men" within a company, who, by their daily actions, choices, suggestions and recommendations influence those who do make the purchasing decision!.
As a vendor to enterprise, you "kill" to develop insider contacts in a company -- and you try to keep them happy (within moral, legal and ethical bounds). That's one of the ways "business gets done".*
It's different in the consumer sector where an individual will make a purchasing decision of a few computers or phones -- based [somewhat] on the recommendations of a few friends.
The "decision influencer" can influence the purchase of thousands or millions of dollars worth of equipment,
Take a business segment, any business segment -- say the Fortune 100. Likely, there only 100 people in these 100 companies that can make a purchasing decision over $1 million.
At the same time there 50-100 (or so) people in these same companies that influence that decision!
As Apple, or any other vendor -- I want these people on my side!
The way you get them on your side is to support them and help them to become successful!
* I spent 7 years working for large enterprises in Data Processing (the forerunner to IT). Later, 16 + years with IBM technical Marketing Support: "selling" into IT. Still later, 11+ years as an owner of some retail computer stores selling into SMBs and Fortune 500 companies, Government, Education and medical.
You (or anybody) can check my posts -- I have checked yours!
I stand on my record!
You?
.
The only posts of yours I am concerned with, are the ones with you making a claim that you refuse to back up. I don't care about which computer is better, which one has better power usage etc, I want you to back up your claim, so I am a bit confused why you are willing to stand by your record.
But why ask me about mine, I wasn't the one making the claim, I believe that was you. But in saying that, I stand by what I have posted, just because I might have different opinions to you doesn't change what I have posted.
Now in saying that, can you please back up your claim, how do you remotely connect to a powered off Mac Mini and turn it on?
Apple missed out on the opportunity to buy Sun and turn them into "Apple Enterprise".
Perhaos the next best thing would be for Apple to partner with Oracle and get Mac OS X exclusively on their servers. The support channel would already be in place a long with sales. Apple would definitely be taken seriously on Oracle/Sun hardware.
The Sun Fire X4170 M2 Server would be a great Xserve replacement along with Sun Storage:
-- are knowledgeable of the Apple products and competitors' products
-- are trained and employed in their area of expertise
-- have embraced and recommended Apple solutions
-- have a vested interest in the success of Apple withint their enterprises
We call these people "decision influencers". They are the "inside men" within a company, who, by their daily actions, choices, suggestions and recommendations influence those who do make the purchasing decision!.
Considering how few Xserves were sold, these 'decision influencers' obviously weren't very effective.
It's really very simple. Apple has a strategy and tactics to go with that strategy. They are smart enough to realize that you can't keep everyone happy and that their success depends on excelling in the areas where they choose to compete.
If a couple of whiners are unhappy, it won't hurt Apple in the end. If the numbers were large enough, then sales would have been higher.
You don't go around trying to make EVERYONE happy and continue to sell unsuccessful products just because a couple of people might be unhappy. That's a sure road to failure and mediocrity.
Apple gave people a couple of months' warning and is continuing to support existing ones. I just can't see how people can get worked up over it - especially considering how few people used the Xserve, anyway.
I liked the product. We bought one, but for our needs, the Mac Pro server would be even better. The same is undoubtedly true of many of the Xserve customers. Only a very, very tiny number even care.
I fear I'm just feeding the trolls here, but anyway....
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
You bad mouth Jobs and then you give us the crap below as a justification. Sadly it looks like you have more issues than Steve ever had.
You take my company's dissatisfaction with Steve Jobs' decision personally? Are you mad?
Quote:
So you suspected for 3 years this might happen and now you are angery!
Hindsight is always perfect, and dropping a product like this with three months notice is pretty extreme.
Quote:
Niether was the XServe for most businesses.
I agree, but that doesn't change the importance of the XServe to our and other business that do use it, or the large use of XServes in education.
Quote:
You have to be kidding you had an emergency meeting over this. That has to be the biggest joke that I've seen posted in these forums in years. Seriously the discontinued a model and gave you a whole quarters warning, this is not something that requires an emergency meeting. Not unless you make a habit of building moutains out of mole hills.
Have you ever had to make annual IT budgets in the hundreds or millions of dollars (euros) before? How do you think you should plan your budget based on being given three months notice?
Quote:
Are you ignorant or just trying to pull our legs. The Classic to OS/X transition had to happen because everybody was rejecting the old and brittle OS. Like wise with the transition to i86 which had to happen because of the lackluster development in PPC land. As to software what is wrong there, Apple has delivered a state of the art GUI to build any piece of software you could want. Further third party development is going very strong right now.
I think you're somewhat lost.
Quote:
I need to find out who you are so that I can write the board to detail your rash and unprofessional behavior. Seriously this type of thing has sunk companies. There is no bit of sound reasoning or justification for making a decision like this so fast.
While it's sort of funny at how upset you get at the mention of Microsoft and Windows, and you're more than welcome to write and accuse our board of being unprofessional, I don't think they would take kindly to be spammed by strange, threatening people from the internet.
Quote:
You sad - BS. It appears that you or someone at your place of work was just looking for a reason to get rid of all Apple hardware.
No, I personally am quite sad. While I've had my fair share of problems with OSX Server, it's a very easy to configure and manage system and I will genuinely miss it.
Quote:
OK Be aware that you are making a big mistake. Microsoft is just about the worst possible choice you could make.
and this one...
Quote:
You see what is pathetic here is that many people claim that one issue with Apple in the corporate world is that they don't communicate. Yet the minute they try to do the right thing and pre announce a change in the product line up they get crapped on by organizations like yours. You can't have it both ways.
In any event lots of luck with that Microsift based system! The grass isn't any greener on the other side of the fence. Plus we could have a very very long talk about failed Microsoft software initiatives. In the end I suspect you will find out that your very rash behavior will result in far more problems than simply addressing the server issue in a mature fashion.
We're quite aware of what we're doing, thanks, but we appreciate your professional advice on the history of Microsoft. Microsoft has lots of problems and issues, but we feel we can live with those better than we can with Apple's. Microsoft has good legacy support and genuine roadmaps. That means a lot to us.
Does anyone have any sources they can cite that discuss what XServes are being used for?
XAMPP? ColdFusion?
MS SQL Server is out! Sybase? Oracle?
Java?
Its been a while but I played around with
-- OS X Server
-- Apache,
-- various DBs: MySQL, Derby, SyBase, FileMaker, MS-Access,..
-- PHP, Perl, ColdFusion, and Java
-- JRun, load-balancing / fail-over.
I have done a lot of this on an iPod and a gen 1 AppleTV.
Any of today's Macs should be able to handle a reasonable volume of Web/LAN traffic on a single machine. As traffic increases, though, you begin to separate the functions to separate machines -- web, application, db, file, streaming servers.
At some point, when you have servers dedicated to a single function, I suspect that XServe becomes less competitive and more niche.
What I'd like to know:
1) What does an XServe do better than the competition?
2) What does OS X Server do better than the competition?
3) Does one require the other -- can OS X Server succeed without XServe?
4) If Apple were to offer an XServe follow-on, but could start from scratch -- what would it target?
5) Is there an opportunity that Apple sees, but we are missing?
.
I'm not sure if you're trolling, but I would dearly love to know how you got Java running on your ipod and your apple tv.
For all the things you mentioned, the XServe does nothing better than the competition.
However, the XServe:
- is the only 1u rack mountable server from Apple that includes redundant power supplies, Lights Out Management, from accessible hard drives and fibre channel al in one.
- Is used heavily for the "one click" functionality of web serving, wiki, calendaring, mail, directory services, chat, file serving, print sharing, centralised user and client management for educational and creative companies.
- is used heavily together with XSan and FCP Server in video production/post production houses.
- OSX Server could exist without the Xserve just fine and probably will in small businesses, but it needs proper servers to run on in data centers. Apple allowing OSX to be licensed by 3rd parties would change that.
Does anyone have any sources they can cite that discuss what XServes are being used for?
XAMPP? ColdFusion?
MS SQL Server is out! Sybase? Oracle?
Java?
Its been a while but I played around with
-- OS X Server
-- Apache,
-- various DBs: MySQL, Derby, SyBase, FileMaker, MS-Access,..
-- PHP, Perl, ColdFusion, and Java
-- JRun, load-balancing / fail-over.
I have done a lot of this on an iPod and a gen 1 AppleTV.
Any of today's Macs should be able to handle a reasonable volume of Web/LAN traffic on a single machine. As traffic increases, though, you begin to separate the functions to separate machines -- web, application, db, file, streaming servers.
At some point, when you have servers dedicated to a single function, I suspect that XServe becomes less competitive and more niche.
What I'd like to know:
1) What does an XServe do better than the competition?
2) What does OS X Server do better than the competition?
3) Does one require the other -- can OS X Server succeed without XServe?
4) If Apple were to offer an XServe follow-on, but could start from scratch -- what would it target?
5) Is there an opportunity that Apple sees, but we are missing?
.
1,2) For us, an Xserve is used for it's versatile scripting language, AppleScript. Combines with file services, web services, and our DAM backbone software, we use AS to modify documents, add custom metadata to InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. files, create multiple versions of files added to the server from clients (image and video files), sorting and moving documents based on metadata (job numbers), file type, and more. And much much more. We have elaborate automated workflows based on AS, file system events, folder actions, and cron jobs that run scripts. Much of this can't be done on other platforms. At least not with a lot of work. Some platforms, like Linux/Unix, will NOT be able to do any of this because Adobe and Microsoft apps are not available for them.
It leaves us in a bad spot. We can work through this eventually, but it will be time consuming and any work we put into the current set up will not be able to be reused.
Xserve is necessary because it's redundant systems are critical for business continuity. that mean we need to minimize down time as much as possible. Xserves have been rock solid. I've only had to swap out 2 bad PSUs in my 8 years of running Xserve, and both times were done uninterrupted. Same with drive failures.
3) Yes. See above about a redundant capable system that can run Mac OS X Server.
4) I think 2 server solution would be best. One based on the mini. Except use a non-unibody case. Make it deeper. Add another Ethernet port and get rid of the HDMI port in favor of a dual channel fiber port(s). Put a USB and Firewire up front. Make the top easy to open so you can easily swap out one of the two 2.5" drives. 4 SO-DIMM slots. Option to upgrade to quad core CPU. Since this is a mini server, Use Intel's chipset with it's mediocre, but adequate GPU. This machine would be the low end server option that would be the ideal MDC option for future Xsan deployments.
Second server would be a joint venture with Oracle where you can pre order a Sun Fire with OS X preinstalled.
5) Corps that need to deploy and manage iPhones and iPad with the iPhone enterprise mobile device management would like a MacOS X server running in their server rooms. Now this could be accomplished running it in VM but you need to run a MacOS X vm server on an Apple based system to begin with. As i mentioned before, Xsan is pretty crippled nor with out a solid enterprise level solution for md/j management.
Comments
This is a bad and irresponsible move on Apple's part. Many depend on the Xserve.
People keep saying that, but no one has been able to say how many 'many' is. Except Apple who says that 'Many' is not enough to justify the product line.
I wonder know knows the Xserve sales level better - Apple or these AI trolls?
Nobody has said they are - it's about a potential market, not the current state of affairs. And it's about not being respectful of your current customers, no matter how few.
As I posted above, it is disrespectful -- especially since it was handled badly. The reasons should have been explained and the supporters and customers should have been contacted, alerted. and "sold" on the idea.
If Apple were to license OS X Server to, say, IBM, it likely, would mitigate the problems and offer greater potential for customers, supporters, Apple, and IBM.
I hope that is what we will see!
I am trying to step back and think if there might better solution for Home and SMBs than the "server solution" we know today -- maybe a combination local and remote combination.
That may be where Apple sees the potential.
.
People keep saying that, but no one has been able to say how many 'many' is. Except Apple who says that 'Many' is not enough to justify the product line.
I wonder know knows the Xserve sales level better - Apple or these AI trolls?
Someone said about 300,000 units, and I'd be inclined to agree, or maybe 250,000 - sales since the product's inception have been 5,000-10,000 units per quarter. This is a guess.
As I posted above, it is disrespectful -- especially since it was handled badly. The reasons should have been explained and the supporters and customers should have been contacted, alerted. and "sold" on the idea.
If Apple were to license OS X Server to, say, IBM, it likely, would mitigate the problems and offer greater potential for customers, supporters, Apple, and IBM.
I hope that is what we will see!
I am trying to step back and think if there might better solution for Home and SMBs than the "server solution" we know today -- maybe a combination local and remote combination.
That may be where Apple sees the potential.
.
Yes, if Apple had simply said that along with EOLing the Xserve, OS X Server would be made available on some other (enterprise/DC) hardware, or virtualized, I don't think anyone would have been in the least surprised or upset - possibly even happy. But OS X Server is not virtualizable or operable on anything but OS X on Apple hardware, so we're screwed. Maybe Apple will surprise us, but enterprise customers HATE surprises, and the damage has been largely done.
It's funny that you think people will still make applications for OS X or use it at all if they don't have servers to run their business or computers to test them on.
It's cute that you think those developers were buying servers from Apple to begin with.
I'll take 5.
These are going to sell like hotcakes.
From the reading I've done, the XServe still consumes power when it is off -- so that is the equivalent of any Mac (including the Mini) running in sleep state.
I think it is similar to sleep, but not the same. The motherboard, graphics card, fans etc are all off. You are right about the remote control power strip: It will achieve true power on/off control.
.
I know that discontinuing the XServe is a "big deal" to existing users -- but they don't appear to be a notable player in the bigger scheme of things.
.
Hmmm... The entire server market is in a lot worse shape than I thought and I knew it was pretty bad. The server market looks like a sinking ship and the margins must be horrible. It's no wonder that IBM, HP, Dell, and Sun are looking to software, storage, networking, and other services to prop up their enterprise business. The Mac market alone ($22 billion in sales in fiscal '10) is more than half of the entire server market.
Does anyone have any sources they can cite that discuss what XServes are being used for?
XAMPP? ColdFusion?
MS SQL Server is out! Sybase? Oracle?
Java?
Its been a while but I played around with
-- OS X Server
-- Apache,
-- various DBs: MySQL, Derby, SyBase, FileMaker, MS-Access,..
-- PHP, Perl, ColdFusion, and Java
-- JRun, load-balancing / fail-over.
I have done a lot of this on an iPod and a gen 1 AppleTV.
Any of today's Macs should be able to handle a reasonable volume of Web/LAN traffic on a single machine. As traffic increases, though, you begin to separate the functions to separate machines -- web, application, db, file, streaming servers.
At some point, when you have servers dedicated to a single function, I suspect that XServe becomes less competitive and more niche.
What I'd like to know:
1) What does an XServe do better than the competition?
2) What does OS X Server do better than the competition?
3) Does one require the other -- can OS X Server succeed without XServe?
4) If Apple were to offer an XServe follow-on, but could start from scratch -- what would it target?
5) Is there an opportunity that Apple sees, but we are missing?
.
z3ro above linked to a petition - there are a number of very cogent comments from pro and DC users there. For anyone who really wants to understand the impact of the cancellation, take a read:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/applepros/signatures
273 signatures so far... yup... some impact...
273 signatures so far... yup... some impact...
It would have had a lot more impact if those people had actually bought xserves.
A signature from someone who never bought an xserve and had no plans to do so is pretty meaningless.
273 signatures so far... yup... some impact...
Number of signatures means nothing since not everyone who might want to sign is aware of the petition.
273 signatures so far... yup... some impact...
It would have had a lot more impact if those people had actually bought xserves.
A signature from someone who never bought an xserve and had no plans to do so is pretty meaningless.
Mmm... I'd be careful here.
You have some unhappy people, who, likely:
-- are professionals (as opposed to consumers)
-- are knowledgeable of the Apple products and competitors' products
-- are trained and employed in their area of expertise
-- have embraced and recommended Apple solutions
-- have a vested interest in the success of Apple withint their enterprises
We call these people "decision influencers". They are the "inside men" within a company, who, by their daily actions, choices, suggestions and recommendations influence those who do make the purchasing decision!.
As a vendor to enterprise, you "kill" to develop insider contacts in a company -- and you try to keep them happy (within moral, legal and ethical bounds). That's one of the ways "business gets done". *
It's different in the consumer sector where an individual will make a purchasing decision of a few computers or phones -- based [somewhat] on the recommendations of a few friends.
The "decision influencer" can influence the purchase of thousands or millions of dollars worth of equipment,
Take a business segment, any business segment -- say the Fortune 100. Likely, there only 100 people in these 100 companies that can make a purchasing decision over $1 million.
At the same time there 50-100 (or so) people in these same companies that influence that decision!
As Apple, or any other vendor -- I want these people on my side!
The way you get them on your side is to support them and help them to become successful!
* I spent 7 years working for large enterprises in Data Processing (the forerunner to IT). Later, 16 + years with IBM technical Marketing Support: "selling" into IT. Still later, 11+ years as an owner of some retail computer stores selling into SMBs and Fortune 500 companies, Government, Education and medical.
.
You (or anybody) can check my posts -- I have checked yours!
I stand on my record!
You?
.
The only posts of yours I am concerned with, are the ones with you making a claim that you refuse to back up. I don't care about which computer is better, which one has better power usage etc, I want you to back up your claim, so I am a bit confused why you are willing to stand by your record.
But why ask me about mine, I wasn't the one making the claim, I believe that was you. But in saying that, I stand by what I have posted, just because I might have different opinions to you doesn't change what I have posted.
Now in saying that, can you please back up your claim, how do you remotely connect to a powered off Mac Mini and turn it on?
I must be!
Perhaos the next best thing would be for Apple to partner with Oracle and get Mac OS X exclusively on their servers. The support channel would already be in place a long with sales. Apple would definitely be taken seriously on Oracle/Sun hardware.
The Sun Fire X4170 M2 Server would be a great Xserve replacement along with Sun Storage:
http://www.oracle.com/us/products/se...er-077278.html
I think Apple will license its OSX server for virtual machines and/or HP/Dell/IBM! machines.
I must be!
Mmm... I'd be careful here.
You have some unhappy people, who, likely:
-- are professionals (as opposed to consumers)
-- are knowledgeable of the Apple products and competitors' products
-- are trained and employed in their area of expertise
-- have embraced and recommended Apple solutions
-- have a vested interest in the success of Apple withint their enterprises
We call these people "decision influencers". They are the "inside men" within a company, who, by their daily actions, choices, suggestions and recommendations influence those who do make the purchasing decision!.
Considering how few Xserves were sold, these 'decision influencers' obviously weren't very effective.
It's really very simple. Apple has a strategy and tactics to go with that strategy. They are smart enough to realize that you can't keep everyone happy and that their success depends on excelling in the areas where they choose to compete.
If a couple of whiners are unhappy, it won't hurt Apple in the end. If the numbers were large enough, then sales would have been higher.
You don't go around trying to make EVERYONE happy and continue to sell unsuccessful products just because a couple of people might be unhappy. That's a sure road to failure and mediocrity.
Apple gave people a couple of months' warning and is continuing to support existing ones. I just can't see how people can get worked up over it - especially considering how few people used the Xserve, anyway.
I liked the product. We bought one, but for our needs, the Mac Pro server would be even better. The same is undoubtedly true of many of the Xserve customers. Only a very, very tiny number even care.
You bad mouth Jobs and then you give us the crap below as a justification. Sadly it looks like you have more issues than Steve ever had.
You take my company's dissatisfaction with Steve Jobs' decision personally? Are you mad?
So you suspected for 3 years this might happen and now you are angery!
Hindsight is always perfect, and dropping a product like this with three months notice is pretty extreme.
Niether was the XServe for most businesses.
I agree, but that doesn't change the importance of the XServe to our and other business that do use it, or the large use of XServes in education.
You have to be kidding you had an emergency meeting over this. That has to be the biggest joke that I've seen posted in these forums in years. Seriously the discontinued a model and gave you a whole quarters warning, this is not something that requires an emergency meeting. Not unless you make a habit of building moutains out of mole hills.
Have you ever had to make annual IT budgets in the hundreds or millions of dollars (euros) before? How do you think you should plan your budget based on being given three months notice?
Are you ignorant or just trying to pull our legs. The Classic to OS/X transition had to happen because everybody was rejecting the old and brittle OS. Like wise with the transition to i86 which had to happen because of the lackluster development in PPC land. As to software what is wrong there, Apple has delivered a state of the art GUI to build any piece of software you could want. Further third party development is going very strong right now.
I think you're somewhat lost.
I need to find out who you are so that I can write the board to detail your rash and unprofessional behavior. Seriously this type of thing has sunk companies. There is no bit of sound reasoning or justification for making a decision like this so fast.
While it's sort of funny at how upset you get at the mention of Microsoft and Windows, and you're more than welcome to write and accuse our board of being unprofessional, I don't think they would take kindly to be spammed by strange, threatening people from the internet.
You sad - BS. It appears that you or someone at your place of work was just looking for a reason to get rid of all Apple hardware.
No, I personally am quite sad. While I've had my fair share of problems with OSX Server, it's a very easy to configure and manage system and I will genuinely miss it.
OK Be aware that you are making a big mistake. Microsoft is just about the worst possible choice you could make.
and this one...
You see what is pathetic here is that many people claim that one issue with Apple in the corporate world is that they don't communicate. Yet the minute they try to do the right thing and pre announce a change in the product line up they get crapped on by organizations like yours. You can't have it both ways.
In any event lots of luck with that Microsift based system! The grass isn't any greener on the other side of the fence. Plus we could have a very very long talk about failed Microsoft software initiatives. In the end I suspect you will find out that your very rash behavior will result in far more problems than simply addressing the server issue in a mature fashion.
We're quite aware of what we're doing, thanks, but we appreciate your professional advice on the history of Microsoft. Microsoft has lots of problems and issues, but we feel we can live with those better than we can with Apple's. Microsoft has good legacy support and genuine roadmaps. That means a lot to us.
.
Does anyone have any sources they can cite that discuss what XServes are being used for?
XAMPP? ColdFusion?
MS SQL Server is out! Sybase? Oracle?
Java?
Its been a while but I played around with
-- OS X Server
-- Apache,
-- various DBs: MySQL, Derby, SyBase, FileMaker, MS-Access,..
-- PHP, Perl, ColdFusion, and Java
-- JRun, load-balancing / fail-over.
I have done a lot of this on an iPod and a gen 1 AppleTV.
Any of today's Macs should be able to handle a reasonable volume of Web/LAN traffic on a single machine. As traffic increases, though, you begin to separate the functions to separate machines -- web, application, db, file, streaming servers.
At some point, when you have servers dedicated to a single function, I suspect that XServe becomes less competitive and more niche.
What I'd like to know:
1) What does an XServe do better than the competition?
2) What does OS X Server do better than the competition?
3) Does one require the other -- can OS X Server succeed without XServe?
4) If Apple were to offer an XServe follow-on, but could start from scratch -- what would it target?
5) Is there an opportunity that Apple sees, but we are missing?
.
I'm not sure if you're trolling, but I would dearly love to know how you got Java running on your ipod and your apple tv.
For all the things you mentioned, the XServe does nothing better than the competition.
However, the XServe:
- is the only 1u rack mountable server from Apple that includes redundant power supplies, Lights Out Management, from accessible hard drives and fibre channel al in one.
- Is used heavily for the "one click" functionality of web serving, wiki, calendaring, mail, directory services, chat, file serving, print sharing, centralised user and client management for educational and creative companies.
- is used heavily together with XSan and FCP Server in video production/post production houses.
- OSX Server could exist without the Xserve just fine and probably will in small businesses, but it needs proper servers to run on in data centers. Apple allowing OSX to be licensed by 3rd parties would change that.
.
Does anyone have any sources they can cite that discuss what XServes are being used for?
XAMPP? ColdFusion?
MS SQL Server is out! Sybase? Oracle?
Java?
Its been a while but I played around with
-- OS X Server
-- Apache,
-- various DBs: MySQL, Derby, SyBase, FileMaker, MS-Access,..
-- PHP, Perl, ColdFusion, and Java
-- JRun, load-balancing / fail-over.
I have done a lot of this on an iPod and a gen 1 AppleTV.
Any of today's Macs should be able to handle a reasonable volume of Web/LAN traffic on a single machine. As traffic increases, though, you begin to separate the functions to separate machines -- web, application, db, file, streaming servers.
At some point, when you have servers dedicated to a single function, I suspect that XServe becomes less competitive and more niche.
What I'd like to know:
1) What does an XServe do better than the competition?
2) What does OS X Server do better than the competition?
3) Does one require the other -- can OS X Server succeed without XServe?
4) If Apple were to offer an XServe follow-on, but could start from scratch -- what would it target?
5) Is there an opportunity that Apple sees, but we are missing?
.
1,2) For us, an Xserve is used for it's versatile scripting language, AppleScript. Combines with file services, web services, and our DAM backbone software, we use AS to modify documents, add custom metadata to InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. files, create multiple versions of files added to the server from clients (image and video files), sorting and moving documents based on metadata (job numbers), file type, and more. And much much more. We have elaborate automated workflows based on AS, file system events, folder actions, and cron jobs that run scripts. Much of this can't be done on other platforms. At least not with a lot of work. Some platforms, like Linux/Unix, will NOT be able to do any of this because Adobe and Microsoft apps are not available for them.
It leaves us in a bad spot. We can work through this eventually, but it will be time consuming and any work we put into the current set up will not be able to be reused.
Xserve is necessary because it's redundant systems are critical for business continuity. that mean we need to minimize down time as much as possible. Xserves have been rock solid. I've only had to swap out 2 bad PSUs in my 8 years of running Xserve, and both times were done uninterrupted. Same with drive failures.
3) Yes. See above about a redundant capable system that can run Mac OS X Server.
4) I think 2 server solution would be best. One based on the mini. Except use a non-unibody case. Make it deeper. Add another Ethernet port and get rid of the HDMI port in favor of a dual channel fiber port(s). Put a USB and Firewire up front. Make the top easy to open so you can easily swap out one of the two 2.5" drives. 4 SO-DIMM slots. Option to upgrade to quad core CPU. Since this is a mini server, Use Intel's chipset with it's mediocre, but adequate GPU. This machine would be the low end server option that would be the ideal MDC option for future Xsan deployments.
Second server would be a joint venture with Oracle where you can pre order a Sun Fire with OS X preinstalled.
5) Corps that need to deploy and manage iPhones and iPad with the iPhone enterprise mobile device management would like a MacOS X server running in their server rooms. Now this could be accomplished running it in VM but you need to run a MacOS X vm server on an Apple based system to begin with. As i mentioned before, Xsan is pretty crippled nor with out a solid enterprise level solution for md/j management.