Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Eug · 08:29 AM

New Xserve.

Single/Dual 1.33 GHz
Firewire 800
ATA133 - up to 0.72 Terabytes
333 MHz DDR bus (at least if you exclude the CPU)
Up to 2 GB RAM
Dual Gigabit Ethernet
Two 64-bit 66 MHz PCI
Combo PCI/AGP slot
Xserve RAID option

$2,799.00
1.33GHz PowerPC G4
2MB L3 cache
256MB DDR333 SDRAM
60GB ATA/133 ADM
Mac OS X Server (Unlimited client)
Dual Gigabit Ethernet
CD-ROM slot load drive
ATI Graphics Card with VGA

$3,799.00
Dual 1.33GHz PowerPC G4
2MB L3 cache per processor
512MB DDR333 SDRAM
60GB ATA/133 ADM
Mac OS X Server (Unlimited client)
Dual Gigabit Ethernet
CD-ROM slot load drive
ATI graphics card with VGA

$8,248.00
Dual 1.33GHz PowerPC G4
2MB L3 cache per processor
2.0GB DDR333 SDRAM
4x180GB ATA/100 ADMs (720GB)
Mac OS X Server (Unlimited client)
Dual Gigabit Ethernet
CD-ROM slot load drive
ATI graphics card with VGA
AppleCare Premium Support Plan
Mac OS X Server Maintenance

RAID
720 GB (4 drives) - $5999
1260 GB (7 drives) - $7499
2520 GB (14 drives) - $10999

Macrat · Feb 10, 2003, 08:34 AM

Why would you need 2 firewire 800 ports on the back of a rackmount server? Is Apple planning on implementing broad LAN-scape wide firewire networking? Also just realized that the PowerMac and Xserve have more firewire ports than usb ports.

tikki · Feb 10, 2003, 08:43 AM

YUM. I want to run my house off of one of those.

Eug · Feb 10, 2003, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Macrat:
Why would you need 2 firewire 800 ports on the back of a rackmount server? Is Apple planning on implementing broad LAN-scape wide firewire networking? Also just realized that the PowerMac and Xserve have more firewire ports than usb ports.

Yeah, I dunno either. Seems kind of odd to me.

By the way, I wonder what speeds they're getting with Firewire networking now. I had about 60-70 Mbps speeds networking my TiBook with my PC using Firewire networking. (I'm thinking that the TiBook was the bottleneck, or else the TiBook and PC don't like playing with each other so much, since people say that on the PC side Firewire networking is much much faster than 100 Mbps Ethernet.)

bradoesch · 08:51 AM

"the industry?s most aggressive price point of just over $4 (US) per GB"

Wow, I am very surprised...in a good way! This is great!

docholiday · Feb 10, 2003, 08:58 AM

This is a great upgrade and it would be a shame if potential buyers never heard of it. If Apple can couple this release with a decent marketing campaign and prove that it offers the best value in the industry, THEN sales of this baby will surge.

my 2 cents

RealMadrid · Feb 10, 2003, 09:27 AM

Do not look bad

Does anybody know what the prices for the "old" ones were? Would like to know how much cheaper they are.

Eug · Feb 10, 2003, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by RealMadrid:
Does anybody know what the prices for the "old" ones were? Would like to know how much cheaper they are.

I believe the new ones are $200 cheaper for the low-end and mid-range Xserves. Dunno about the high-end one.

PoisonTooth · Feb 10, 2003, 11:48 AM

Let me go ahead and ask a really dumb question: is the new Xserve 1.33GHz faster than, say, a DP 1.42 PowerMac? Is there any compelling reason whatsoever to choose an Xserve for a power-user home machine?

Eug · Feb 10, 2003, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by PoisonTooth:
Is there any compelling reason whatsoever to choose an Xserve for a power-user home machine?

No.

Plus the noise would probably drive you insane.

CubieDubbie · Feb 10, 2003, 12:14 PM

PoisonTooth,
EUG is correct the noise would kill you. Plus you need somewhere to put one of these puppies. Which is not exactly easy for a homeowner to find. They are far bigger than they look inn the pictures. I have a pair in my office which are kept in a closet in a rack. Even with the closet door having padding and all, they still produce more racket than I care for. However, they do what I want so for the noise I don't care. You also would face other potential problems as a home machine. The graphics card is not that great but, why should it be. Then you would need to look at how much the extended warranty is. That alone would probably put a damper on that idea. Then of course you would have to buy OSX extra as the Server version would not do you much good.

They are fine for business's especially ones that can make them pay for themselves, otherwise I don't see much use for them.

tooki · Feb 10, 2003, 03:10 PM

Also, while an Xserve is nice and flat, you can't put any weight on top of it. (It really is designed for rack mounting only, where all the weight of any given item in the rack is held solely by the rack screws.) If it were quiet, and strong enough to hold a big monitor on it, then I could see some people putting it on their desks, with all sorts of stuff on top. But If you did that now, you would actually crush the innards.

tooki

ShortcutToMoncton · Feb 10, 2003, 03:40 PM

Put on on a desk???? I hope you have a BIG@SS desk. Those suckas are deep.

greg

juanvaldes · Feb 10, 2003, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by Macrat:
Why would you need 2 firewire 800 ports on the back of a rackmount server? Is Apple planning on implementing broad LAN-scape wide firewire networking? Also just realized that the PowerMac and Xserve have more firewire ports than usb ports.

the keyword in the server space is redundancy. That is why there is two of almost anything, if one should die you are not up **** creek without a paddle.

CubieDubbie · Feb 10, 2003, 06:43 PM

ShortcutToMoncton,
absolutely right. The biggest desk you can find. Even in a 18FT. long closet with a rack It takes more room than I care to give it. And open the closet door and see what you hear??????? It's loud!!!!!!!!

NormPhillips · Feb 10, 2003, 10:31 PM

Can OS X Client even run on the Xserve?

Besides, what's the low end video card on the Xserve? The high end is a RADEON 8500, but all Apple saids for the low end is that it's a 32MB PCI ATi card. It could be a Rage 128 Ultra for all we know...

Cipher13 · Feb 10, 2003, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by tooki:
Also, while an Xserve is nice and flat, you can't put any weight on top of it. (It really is designed for rack mounting only, where all the weight of any given item in the rack is held solely by the rack screws.) If it were quiet, and strong enough to hold a big monitor on it, then I could see some people putting it on their desks, with all sorts of stuff on top. But If you did that now, you would actually crush the innards.

tooki

That isn't the major problem... the problem is how DEEP it is. It's massive. Way beyond standard desk dimensions.

Mac Zealot · Feb 10, 2003, 11:34 PM

bah. I would love to have a few xserves and an xraid in my closet.

CubieDubbie · Feb 10, 2003, 11:39 PM

Cipher13,
thank you as always for coming to the rescue. I hope you are well these days????? The XServe is a little more than massive, which is an understatement to say the least. And it's far from quite. These and the fact that it comes with vga video and a cd-rom, should be more than enough to discourage any thoughts of it being a desktop of any kind. And again also add the huge extended warranty price should be enough to make most people think twice. And where would one put the thing where they would not have to listen to it???????? Oh well enough reminice on the subject. Say did you get a new machine, I guess I have forgotten now sorry!!!!! See yah!!!!

Superchicken · Feb 11, 2003, 12:58 AM

I saw one of these in a store... they're freakin massive! No wonder apple could fit dual processors in there I don't know why they made it sound like they did something amazing, heck they coulda probably fit quads in that thing!
Not that that would be cost/proformance effective but whatever

I didn't check how loud but yeah... deffinately not a desktop... but if some day the sites I work with get big enough... I'm gona get one of these and leave it in the basement as a server or something... hence... I'm never gona have one... although it'd be kinda cool once they start getting cheap

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Feb 11, 2003, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by Macrat:
Why would you need 2 firewire 800 ports on the back of a rackmount server?

Because if they had put FireWire 400 ports on the high end servers there would be 5 threads here of people bitching up a storm that Apple had dropped the ball.

CubieDubbie · Feb 11, 2003, 10:36 AM

Superchic[k]en
glad you got a chance to see one. The pleasure in owning them is they are simple to use and thank you bullet proof as one can get I suspect. Though they all have problems of some kind. You ought to see the size of the rack. Looks like a meat cutters wagon at the butcher shop. I play my music loud all the time and those puppies still can be heard but, it's tolerable with closet shut. Open, I prefer to leave the house.

As for what they could or could not fit in em I don't know for sure. But a cinch deal, is they could not get above what 1.33 mhz. they have in them now, as they would fry like a pnacake. I had mine installed and I got their on-site service contract. So, I just leave my puppies alone. I got a programmer who gets to handle the server area. But, I know from what he tells me they are a piece of cake compared to other servers I could have bought. The price is right considering it's Apple and considering it's OSX server.

With all that said, OSX Server has pitiful documentation. They certainly could do better there. To have a dekstop out of one, one would really have to spend the bucks as there would be a lot to have to replace. And like we have said a desktop????????? That would be one extremely large desk and then some. Hardly worth the effort in my humble opinion.

NormPhillips · Feb 11, 2003, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by NormPhillips:
Can OS X Client even run on the Xserve?

Besides, what's the low end video card on the Xserve? The high end is a RADEON 8500, but all Apple saids for the low end is that it's a 32MB PCI ATi card. It could be a Rage 128 Ultra for all we know...

Well, does anyone know?

Peder Rice · Feb 11, 2003, 10:35 PM

It does indeed run OS X client, and quite well. In fact, I was using an XServe as my desktop for a while. Fast....

Anyhow, the noise was terrible, and the thing crashed thrice a day at best, so we returned it.

krove · Feb 11, 2003, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
Because if they had put FireWire 400 ports on the high end servers there would be 5 threads here of people bitching up a storm that Apple had dropped the ball.

You're quite perceptive.

So what kind of Firewire devices do people envision will be used with the Xserve? I know that the firewire port on the original Xserve on the front was quite convenient when hauling around a portable Firewire HD. FW 800, though, should provide some opportunity for higher-bandwidth applications, right?