I was following along nicely until this ... "Apple could then license its platform to companies that are good at building servers, including Dell and HP". You have to be kidding! Now if you had said Sun I would listen.
The XServe and the PowerMac/Mac Pro in their current configuration were actually designed to support Stevie's other hobby .. and the one which was making him money at the time .. Pixar. (Along with XSan & all the other video oriented networking products) How unusual is this? A man with a manufacturing company uses his company's resources to build special equipment for another company of his? Not unusual at all.
Custom hardware made to Pixar's needs, and then offered for sale to the general public. They sell every Mac Pro they make .. but who for gawds sake needs a 6-8-12 core computer? Video and 3D and animation pro's do.
If that incentive has been removed and no one disputes they simply didn't sell many to the open market. Buh bye XServe.
IMO, Apple needs a Home Server Solution with RAID, local TimeMachine backup, co-ordinated with cloud backup.
Something to Store iTunes and iLife content and serve it tp AppleTV -- ultimately to be replaced with modstly cloud stouage of your content and the home server being used as fast-access staged storage from the cloud.
This article is mostly well researched and draws measured conclusions. Where is XServegate???
I dunno. I mostly like Daniel's stuff but that part about server "apps" and a server app market just sounds like garbage to me. I don't see that there is any facts that support such a conclusion either. It just sounds like purest speculative nonsense to me.
I just don't see Apple allowing virtualization, or allowing the server code to run on 3rd party hardware. It would open the floodgates to pirating of the software. Once the code hit the web there would be no stopping anyone from just grabbing it and installing it anywhere.
Very nice article and very nice appeal. The idea of a server software store is a nice one except that it already exists for VMWare, if not in such a nice interface. VMWare hosts free and for pay VM Applications which a lot of people use. I'm sure Apple could do it better, if they wanted to. I'm also sure that they could very easily license OSX Server to run on 3rd party hardware and in VMs, again if they wanted to.
But, to be honest, I don't think they want to and if they had wanted to, they would almost certainly have already done it, as killing an enterprise product right in the middle of companies' yearly budget finalisations without announcing enterprise level alternatives is enough to make those customers head for the door as they need steady suppliers. It's a fiscal reality.
Nope, Apple might come out with some marvelous new cloud based server product hosted in their new data center in NC, but cloud based services are no good for companies that need high availability, low latency services, and on top of that many companies are very wary of trusting their sensitive data to 3rd parties. And the customers Apple is losing right now are lost for good, or at least until the next generation grows up to fill their shoes.
Methinks the only wishful thinking there is from the author. Who said that Apple would begin selling Windows? Silly. Many expected them to return to clones, but Windows? That article is the first time I ever heard such a notion.
Dvorak stated it and it got parroted by and anti-Apple advocate and idiots that don?t understand business.
A beautiful solution that gets Apple out of the server hardware business, which they don't want to be in.
This would be very much the path I would expect Apple to take; get out of the OS business and instead support a virtualized OS with a CUSTOM APPLE SPECIFIC VIRTUALIZATION ENGINE that lives below the OS, not inside the primary OS.
Thanks for that, I've been wondering how it was done. So Virtual Box is free? I was a little confused by that first link. You download the version for the OS that is already running on your server? So if I have a server running a Windows OS I would install the Windows Virtual Box and then install my Leopard Server into that?
The Unix based OSX Server's early life was primarily as a WebObjects platform. Recently WebObjects has been in maintenance mode, but it was very popular for a while. Only later did Mac OS X Server grow to focus on Mac specific things like MCX (formerly mac manager) and Netboot/Netinstall/Software update server and then more recently XSAN/Podcast producer.
Current OSX Server deployments mainly focus on two areas. Management/Deployment of OSX Desktops and Video production. Most companies and schools that use OSX Server leverage the NetBoot/Netinstall functionality to image their workstations and the MCX functionality to centrally manage user's desktops. Video production houses use Xserve and XSAN as well as applications like FCP compressor to facilitate shared editing of video and compression/transcoding.
Most of the more common network services (DNS, DHCP, Mail, etc..) have never been a huge competitive advantage of OSX Server and on mixed platform networks are usually provided by other servers. However, Apple does provide a GUI based management console for the network services that differentiates it from other UNIX based solutions such as Linux.
Historically Xserves have also been used as file servers for predominately Mac workgroups (AFP), but as Windows file sharing compatibility in OSX has improved this has become less of a focus. This use case peaked twice. Once in the pre OSX and classic OS9/X transition period where carbon applications worked much better with AFP due to resource fork issues, and a second time about 4 years ago when the Xserve RAID offered the lowest price/GB ratio of any 1st tier storage vendor. Many companies bought Xserves along with the XSR to share out their massive XSR based storage volumes to both Macs and PCs. When the Xserve RAID became less competitive and was finally discontinued this use case has become less popular.
The lack of a rack mountable and redundant hardware platform for OSX Server will most likely cause companies wishing to support OSX to look to other server platforms for network services that will run on those platforms. Fortunately, the cross platform integration ability of Mac OS X has only improved over time and is actually quite good these days. Directory integration, client management, and file sharing all work very well with other server platforms. It is a little less clear what will happen with the Mac specific server technologies such as netboot/netinstall and SUS.
]Current OSX Server deployments mainly focus on two areas. Management/Deployment of OSX Desktops and Video production.
The management ad deployment breaks into a few categories.
1. File services
2. and management
File services for the avg small business, the mac mini is fine but it will not serve the needs of the other part of this market.
1. Video production (Which you mentioned)
2. LArge file IO design / print..
iSCSI doesn't work because its throughput won't work for either application. Even if you decide that a mac pro is a good idea, everyone's infrastructure is rack based systems. 19" wide.. the mac pro because if its incompatible size and monitoring ability cant be hosted anywhere at a reasonable cost (19 U is expensive to lease), it can't be monitored.. IT is a terrible idea.
You need a server to fit inside a rack and be monitor able. The mac mini works for the rack system sorta, but has no mass storage, and the mac pro just fits neither application.
This is one of the reasons why the Apple store is a bad idea. Some guy walks in and says "I have a business and I need a server". before they would send them to a xserve.. IT was server class, it had a warranty which was better than most, and fit inside a rack.. Apple came out with a mac mini, and now the apple store says .. "buy this it is perfect". The turned a 4K sale into a 1K sale..
So what does one do?
If you are a design firm, and you have large files.. you buy a windows server with extreme ZIP. IF you are a video client and you use XsAN... you are in TROUBLE! Good luck. Take you rack which used to hold 48 servers and now it holds 6.. AWESOME!.. And if your master controller for XSAN breaks.. cross your fingers and hope someone comes down to fix your machine.. because there are no user installable parts OR guarantee on part deliver time...
1. Considering what one got, the XServe is very expensive and could be easily replaced with 1U servers in the $900 to $1500 range.
2. The server industry needs a supplier that can serve multiple needs, that means more models than a baseline 1U appliance.
3. There is a vast difference in what is acceptable server hardware for big business and small business. Apple had nothing for either. Like it or not XServe was to expensive for small business. Even medium sized companies have been know to recycle used desktop computers for light serving duties such as printing.
4. The fact that XServe got zero traction in small business should tell everyone volumes. This is an Apple traditional market, that never even considered the machines.
To me, the real market for Apple is in home server product. Build a box with multiple storage that average user can use to store photos, music, video, backup, contact, calendar, etc. A beefed up iTunes + Time Capsule server, if you will, with next gen file system such as ZFS or Btrfs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
IMO, Apple needs a Home Server Solution with RAID, local TimeMachine backup, co-ordinated with cloud backup.
Something to Store iTunes and iLife content and serve it tp AppleTV -- ultimately to be replaced with mostly cloud storage of your content and the home server being used as fast-access staged storage from the cloud..
ZFS would be a better solution than RAID for home users...
Hell yeah x10. I've been going on and on about this one for ages and to be honest I can't believe they haven't announced something!
I'm not sure about calling it Home Server though (more on that below), maybe more like iHub or iHome.
Cloud storage is certainly the future, but we aren't quite there yet. A far better solution is to have a local device that manages content, allows the synchronization of content between devices, and then have parts of that content synced to the cloud.
Microsoft already have similar product called Windows Home Server which, after a couple of service packs, was bloody awesome. I've played with the WHS Vail preview as well which is even better.
Microsoft are missing out on a few key features IMO.
Storage isn't transparent enough. One needs to be very specific about where things are being saved to ensure everything works the way it is suppose to.
It doesn't handle the synchronization of multiple users data to the cloud. It will act as a central file store, and it can sync that file store to one SkyDrive account, but it can't sync the data from different users to different SkyDrive accounts (although this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that users can connect to the server remotely and access their files)
The most important feature that it is missing is that it is still a PC and is treated like one. It needs to be more like an appliance. This is going to sound silly, but a PC server at home isn't sexy enough for mainstream users.
Much as I like Dan Dilger, I don't agree with this one at all.
Apple has just wiped out its credibility selling Mac OS X Server into the Enterprise market. Having wiped out their Enterprise efforts now on two occasions, it's over for good this time.
There is no way Apple is letting Mac OS X Server loose on gawd-knows-what 100s of different 'PC' hardware combinations unless they can conjure up a license with either a virtualization software vendor or a hardware vendor whereby Apple provides NO hardware issue support, ever. Good luck seeing that happen.
Meanwhile, the Mac Pro and the Mac Mini continue to provide decent servers for homes and SMALL business. I easily see Mac OS X Server having a continuing future, just not in the Enterprise, not ever again. The Enterprise has lost its single best operating system. A hell of a lot of us mourn that fact.
This really says it all. Aside from pretty hardware and Mac OS X Server's configuration tool, there's nothing particularly unique about Xserve. A competent admin can put together a Linux rack with necessary tools for significantly less.
Comparing Xserve to Windows Server is rather silly. Most organizations don't need Xserve's spec and you can build very capable server for about $1000 (minus software), such as Dell PowerEdge R-series (and you can buy RAM and hard disk for much less elsewhere). Although CAL for Windows and related products are very pricey, most of Mac OS X Server's features are based on free open source apps that runs on Linux (and installed on many Linux server distros, minus pretty admin UI).
And you can shop around for MS CAL's, and you could buy a Enterprise copy of windows and then use the free Hyper V to virtualize up to 4 more copies of windows server on that hardware, or you could run a teminal server and your clients could use cheap thin devices from wyse, hp, etc and save tons of money over the cost of Mac desktops or laptops.
The comparison is nothing but BS bias from AI. SSDD. Xserver failed because its not needed and Apple never really got behind it. Mobile Email is a effing epic failure, or was up to July when I closed my account. It was slow as hell, and unreliable as well....and that is running on Solaris boxes. Xserver would have been crushed even worse.
Comments
Why the XServe came into existence.
The XServe and the PowerMac/Mac Pro in their current configuration were actually designed to support Stevie's other hobby .. and the one which was making him money at the time .. Pixar. (Along with XSan & all the other video oriented networking products) How unusual is this? A man with a manufacturing company uses his company's resources to build special equipment for another company of his? Not unusual at all.
Custom hardware made to Pixar's needs, and then offered for sale to the general public. They sell every Mac Pro they make .. but who for gawds sake needs a 6-8-12 core computer? Video and 3D and animation pro's do.
If that incentive has been removed and no one disputes they simply didn't sell many to the open market. Buh bye XServe.
Incorrect.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-983898.html
IMO, Apple needs a Home Server Solution with RAID, local TimeMachine backup, co-ordinated with cloud backup.
Something to Store iTunes and iLife content and serve it tp AppleTV -- ultimately to be replaced with modstly cloud stouage of your content and the home server being used as fast-access staged storage from the cloud.
.
This article is mostly well researched and draws measured conclusions. Where is XServegate???
I dunno. I mostly like Daniel's stuff but that part about server "apps" and a server app market just sounds like garbage to me. I don't see that there is any facts that support such a conclusion either. It just sounds like purest speculative nonsense to me.
I just don't see that happening.
What's with this NeXT Beta? Openstep 4.2 RC2 was released in 1997. Openstep 4 was already out by 1996.
DED adjusts facts to support his agenda!
.
OS X Server can run on VMs but only on Apple hardware. AKA in Fusion. But I agree that Xserve is going to be replaced by a mass service from apple.
I am running OS X Server inside Oracle VM VirtualBox on a Dell Power Edge as you are reading this.
http://dlc.sun.com/virtualbox/vboxdownload.html
http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Guest_OSes
Enjoy
But, to be honest, I don't think they want to and if they had wanted to, they would almost certainly have already done it, as killing an enterprise product right in the middle of companies' yearly budget finalisations without announcing enterprise level alternatives is enough to make those customers head for the door as they need steady suppliers. It's a fiscal reality.
Nope, Apple might come out with some marvelous new cloud based server product hosted in their new data center in NC, but cloud based services are no good for companies that need high availability, low latency services, and on top of that many companies are very wary of trusting their sensitive data to 3rd parties. And the customers Apple is losing right now are lost for good, or at least until the next generation grows up to fill their shoes.
Methinks the only wishful thinking there is from the author. Who said that Apple would begin selling Windows? Silly. Many expected them to return to clones, but Windows? That article is the first time I ever heard such a notion.
Dvorak stated it and it got parroted by and anti-Apple advocate and idiots that don?t understand business.
A beautiful solution that gets Apple out of the server hardware business, which they don't want to be in.
This would be very much the path I would expect Apple to take; get out of the OS business and instead support a virtualized OS with a CUSTOM APPLE SPECIFIC VIRTUALIZATION ENGINE that lives below the OS, not inside the primary OS.
I am running OS X Server inside Oracle VM VirtualBox on a Dell Power Edge as you are reading this.
http://dlc.sun.com/virtualbox/vboxdownload.html
http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Guest_OSes
Enjoy
It runs fine in vCenter on a Cisco Blade Server as well. Does Apple Support it? No, but do I need them to support it? No.
I am running OS X Server inside Oracle VM VirtualBox on a Dell Power Edge as you are reading this.
http://dlc.sun.com/virtualbox/vboxdownload.html
http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Guest_OSes
Enjoy
Thanks for that, I've been wondering how it was done. So Virtual Box is free? I was a little confused by that first link. You download the version for the OS that is already running on your server? So if I have a server running a Windows OS I would install the Windows Virtual Box and then install my Leopard Server into that?
Current OSX Server deployments mainly focus on two areas. Management/Deployment of OSX Desktops and Video production. Most companies and schools that use OSX Server leverage the NetBoot/Netinstall functionality to image their workstations and the MCX functionality to centrally manage user's desktops. Video production houses use Xserve and XSAN as well as applications like FCP compressor to facilitate shared editing of video and compression/transcoding.
Most of the more common network services (DNS, DHCP, Mail, etc..) have never been a huge competitive advantage of OSX Server and on mixed platform networks are usually provided by other servers. However, Apple does provide a GUI based management console for the network services that differentiates it from other UNIX based solutions such as Linux.
Historically Xserves have also been used as file servers for predominately Mac workgroups (AFP), but as Windows file sharing compatibility in OSX has improved this has become less of a focus. This use case peaked twice. Once in the pre OSX and classic OS9/X transition period where carbon applications worked much better with AFP due to resource fork issues, and a second time about 4 years ago when the Xserve RAID offered the lowest price/GB ratio of any 1st tier storage vendor. Many companies bought Xserves along with the XSR to share out their massive XSR based storage volumes to both Macs and PCs. When the Xserve RAID became less competitive and was finally discontinued this use case has become less popular.
The lack of a rack mountable and redundant hardware platform for OSX Server will most likely cause companies wishing to support OSX to look to other server platforms for network services that will run on those platforms. Fortunately, the cross platform integration ability of Mac OS X has only improved over time and is actually quite good these days. Directory integration, client management, and file sharing all work very well with other server platforms. It is a little less clear what will happen with the Mac specific server technologies such as netboot/netinstall and SUS.
]Current OSX Server deployments mainly focus on two areas. Management/Deployment of OSX Desktops and Video production.
The management ad deployment breaks into a few categories.
1. File services
2. and management
File services for the avg small business, the mac mini is fine but it will not serve the needs of the other part of this market.
1. Video production (Which you mentioned)
2. LArge file IO design / print..
iSCSI doesn't work because its throughput won't work for either application. Even if you decide that a mac pro is a good idea, everyone's infrastructure is rack based systems. 19" wide.. the mac pro because if its incompatible size and monitoring ability cant be hosted anywhere at a reasonable cost (19 U is expensive to lease), it can't be monitored.. IT is a terrible idea.
You need a server to fit inside a rack and be monitor able. The mac mini works for the rack system sorta, but has no mass storage, and the mac pro just fits neither application.
This is one of the reasons why the Apple store is a bad idea. Some guy walks in and says "I have a business and I need a server". before they would send them to a xserve.. IT was server class, it had a warranty which was better than most, and fit inside a rack.. Apple came out with a mac mini, and now the apple store says .. "buy this it is perfect". The turned a 4K sale into a 1K sale..
So what does one do?
If you are a design firm, and you have large files.. you buy a windows server with extreme ZIP. IF you are a video client and you use XsAN... you are in TROUBLE! Good luck. Take you rack which used to hold 48 servers and now it holds 6.. AWESOME!.. And if your master controller for XSAN breaks.. cross your fingers and hope someone comes down to fix your machine.. because there are no user installable parts OR guarantee on part deliver time...
apple this was a dumb move..
1. Considering what one got, the XServe is very expensive and could be easily replaced with 1U servers in the $900 to $1500 range.
2. The server industry needs a supplier that can serve multiple needs, that means more models than a baseline 1U appliance.
3. There is a vast difference in what is acceptable server hardware for big business and small business. Apple had nothing for either. Like it or not XServe was to expensive for small business. Even medium sized companies have been know to recycle used desktop computers for light serving duties such as printing.
4. The fact that XServe got zero traction in small business should tell everyone volumes. This is an Apple traditional market, that never even considered the machines.
I am running OS X Server inside Oracle VM VirtualBox on a Dell Power Edge as you are reading this.
http://dlc.sun.com/virtualbox/vboxdownload.html
http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Guest_OSes
Enjoy
Wow! This is interesting. I wonder how long it will be before Larry Ellison gets a cease and desist letter from Steve Jobs.
Seriously though, I think this is a great way to support multiple development environments on a single hardware platform.
I also think it would have been a lot more fun and interesting if Steve had purchased Sun instead of Larry...
To me, the real market for Apple is in home server product. Build a box with multiple storage that average user can use to store photos, music, video, backup, contact, calendar, etc. A beefed up iTunes + Time Capsule server, if you will, with next gen file system such as ZFS or Btrfs.
IMO, Apple needs a Home Server Solution with RAID, local TimeMachine backup, co-ordinated with cloud backup.
Something to Store iTunes and iLife content and serve it tp AppleTV -- ultimately to be replaced with mostly cloud storage of your content and the home server being used as fast-access staged storage from the cloud..
ZFS would be a better solution than RAID for home users...
What Apple needs to build is a home server.
http://waggtech.blogspot.com/2010/10...-need-for.html
Hell yeah x10. I've been going on and on about this one for ages and to be honest I can't believe they haven't announced something!
I'm not sure about calling it Home Server though (more on that below), maybe more like iHub or iHome.
Cloud storage is certainly the future, but we aren't quite there yet. A far better solution is to have a local device that manages content, allows the synchronization of content between devices, and then have parts of that content synced to the cloud.
Microsoft already have similar product called Windows Home Server which, after a couple of service packs, was bloody awesome. I've played with the WHS Vail preview as well which is even better.
Microsoft are missing out on a few key features IMO.
Storage isn't transparent enough. One needs to be very specific about where things are being saved to ensure everything works the way it is suppose to.
It doesn't handle the synchronization of multiple users data to the cloud. It will act as a central file store, and it can sync that file store to one SkyDrive account, but it can't sync the data from different users to different SkyDrive accounts (although this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that users can connect to the server remotely and access their files)
The most important feature that it is missing is that it is still a PC and is treated like one. It needs to be more like an appliance. This is going to sound silly, but a PC server at home isn't sexy enough for mainstream users.
Apple has just wiped out its credibility selling Mac OS X Server into the Enterprise market. Having wiped out their Enterprise efforts now on two occasions, it's over for good this time.
There is no way Apple is letting Mac OS X Server loose on gawd-knows-what 100s of different 'PC' hardware combinations unless they can conjure up a license with either a virtualization software vendor or a hardware vendor whereby Apple provides NO hardware issue support, ever. Good luck seeing that happen.
Meanwhile, the Mac Pro and the Mac Mini continue to provide decent servers for homes and SMALL business. I easily see Mac OS X Server having a continuing future, just not in the Enterprise, not ever again. The Enterprise has lost its single best operating system. A hell of a lot of us mourn that fact.
This really says it all. Aside from pretty hardware and Mac OS X Server's configuration tool, there's nothing particularly unique about Xserve. A competent admin can put together a Linux rack with necessary tools for significantly less.
Comparing Xserve to Windows Server is rather silly. Most organizations don't need Xserve's spec and you can build very capable server for about $1000 (minus software), such as Dell PowerEdge R-series (and you can buy RAM and hard disk for much less elsewhere). Although CAL for Windows and related products are very pricey, most of Mac OS X Server's features are based on free open source apps that runs on Linux (and installed on many Linux server distros, minus pretty admin UI).
And you can shop around for MS CAL's, and you could buy a Enterprise copy of windows and then use the free Hyper V to virtualize up to 4 more copies of windows server on that hardware, or you could run a teminal server and your clients could use cheap thin devices from wyse, hp, etc and save tons of money over the cost of Mac desktops or laptops.
The comparison is nothing but BS bias from AI. SSDD. Xserver failed because its not needed and Apple never really got behind it. Mobile Email is a effing epic failure, or was up to July when I closed my account. It was slow as hell, and unreliable as well....and that is running on Solaris boxes. Xserver would have been crushed even worse.