High Fidelity - Apple rackmount

Comments

• Reply 1 of 10

  hornet Posts: 76member

  May 14, 2002 4:59AM

  Believable. In fact, I'd bet on the servers not having >1000mhz processors. It would make the pro line look even worse (and the current PM's look like outdated bondi blue imacs compared to the rest of the world... ok going a little far )
  
  
  
  Dual 1ghz is expected. quad wouldn't suprise me (just so long as its not more than 1000mhz). Dual gigabit enet is expectable, as its a server. The big thing is the DDR = goodness, = MWNY powermacs DDR'd
• Reply 2 of 10

  othello Posts: 1,054member

  May 14, 2002 5:26AM

  that does sound possible to me. this could be a good day <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
• Reply 3 of 10

  jambo Posts: 3,036member

  May 14, 2002 5:53AM

  [quote]Originally posted by Henriok:
  
  <strong>
  
  
  
  • 1U case
  
  *\t2x G4/1 GHz (could be a new G4-strain)
  
  *\t2 GB DDR RAM
  
  *\t2x 64-bit PCI
  
  *\t2x Gigabit Ethernet
  
  *\t4x hotswapable UltraATA100 120 GB harddrives
  
  *\tUSB
  
  *\t800 Mbps FireWire
  
  *\tConsole-port
  
  *\tVGA-port
  
  
  
  Driven by OSX Server 10.1.x for now. With new software for headless operation and administration. Price and availability? Unavailable.
  
  
  
  </strong><hr></blockquote>
  
  
  
  Sounds extremely plausible, does anyone know when the announcement is BST (GMT+1)?
  
  
  
  J :cool:
• Reply 4 of 10

  unknown_source Posts: 31member

  May 14, 2002 5:57AM

  Very believable. And people will piss and complain that they did not get anything higher... why? Because these people generate their own hype and start believing it and when Apple does not deliver they piss all over the place
• Reply 5 of 10

  othello Posts: 1,054member

  May 14, 2002 5:59AM

  [quote]Originally posted by Jamie:
  
  <strong>
  
  
  
  Sounds extremely plausible, does anyone know when the announcement is BST (GMT+1)?
  
  
  
  J :cool: </strong><hr></blockquote>
  
  
  
  <a href="http://www.timezoneconverter.com"; target="_blank">http://www.timezoneconverter.com</a>; has it at 16:00, but that doesn't include BST. So 5pm it is then...
• Reply 6 of 10

  jambo Posts: 3,036member

  May 14, 2002 6:23AM

  [quote]Originally posted by othello:
  
  <strong>
  
  
  
  <a href="http://www.timezoneconverter.com"; target="_blank">http://www.timezoneconverter.com</a>; has it at 16:00, but that doesn't include BST. So 5pm it is then...</strong><hr></blockquote>
  
  
  
  Damn, just when I'm sitting in traffic! Thanks for the site
  
  
  
  J :cool:
• Reply 7 of 10

  anders Posts: 6,523member

  May 14, 2002 6:31AM

  [quote]Originally posted by Henriok:
  
  <strong> ...availability? Unavailable.
  
  </strong><hr></blockquote>
  
  
  
  This is what makes it believable. It would be typical Apple
• Reply 8 of 10

  othello Posts: 1,054member

  May 14, 2002 6:33AM

  [quote]Originally posted by Jamie:
  
  <strong>
  
  
  
  Damn, just when I'm sitting in traffic! Thanks for the site
  
  
  
  J :cool: </strong><hr></blockquote>
  
  
  
  its not finishing until 8pm -- i was going to stay late in work and wait for news but now i'm not so sure
• Reply 9 of 10

  jambo Posts: 3,036member

  May 14, 2002 6:35AM

  [quote]Originally posted by othello:
  
  <strong>
  
  
  
  its not finishing until 8pm -- i was going to stay late in work and wait for news but now i'm not so sure </strong><hr></blockquote>
  
  
  
  3 hours really is a hell of a long time to talk about a rack server.
  
  
  
  J :cool:
• Reply 10 of 10

  macommentary Posts: 196member

  May 14, 2002 6:42AM

  you hay have pegged it here... but I wouldn't suggest the quads just yet... I think that whatever hits the servers (interms of multiple processors) will hit the desktops first because of the heat factor.