[Microns]

Interesting note in a recent column by Tom Yager over at InfoWorld (find it here: http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/...OPcurve_1.html) about an Apple statement that the Xserve will remain IBM PowerPC.

Anyone here on the conference call or know more about this? Are there two architectures in our future?

[Lateralus]

I've been hoping Apple would commit to keeping at least one line PowerPC based, as it is really the best way to enforce dual-compiling with software developers. Of course, the Xserve really isn't what I had in mind...

[mduell]

I recently had two conference calls ... the other with Apple about the future of its high-end server business.

Apple's high-end server business? Since when has Apple been in the high-end server business? The Xserve isn't even midrange, much less high-end. Xserves are the typical low-end box: 2-way 1U under $25k.

In the race to pawn off Intel bargain-bin desktops as servers, IBM has crossed the line first.

Let me just pull up Apple's quarterly summary data, and oh, there it is:
Desktops (2)
(2) Includes iMac, eMac, Mac mini, PowerMac and Xserve product lines.
Huh, I guess IBM is not the only one who considers their servers to be desktops.

Since the quarterly report didnt help us much with Xserve sales, just how many Xserves is Apple selling?
For 2005Q1 (Apple's Q2):
... Apple Computer is the number five RISC/Unix vendor by box count, with 7,736 boxes sold. But with only $41.4 million in sales, it is not in the top 10 when ranked by sales. (ITJungle/Gartner)

Even after throwing out the 70% of the server market that uses Windows and all of the high-end and midrange servers, Apple is a small fish in the Unix and Unix-like server market.
... looking at Unix/RISC servers priced at $25,000 or below, Apple had less than 5 per cent of revenue and less than 10 per cent of unit shipments (MacWorld UK)

What am I getting at? This author is playing fast and loose with terminology and Xserve sales aren't going that well to justify keeping the G5s around.
It seems like a lot of effort to keep one PPC line (without any commonality to other lines as they have now) given the low payoff of the line.

[OreoCookie]

I think (and I hope) Apple will keep a Marklar-type project as to ensure cross-platform compatibility. It keeps their options open.

[Thinine]

Personally, I think they should just use the best parts they can find, now that they're officially cross architecture capable.

[Eug Wanker]

OK, I read the article twice now, I still don't really understand what he's talking about.

Yeah, Xserve G5s will continue to use G5s for while, but Apple has already said the transition to Intel is going to take 2 years. And many of us had figured that the Xserve would be one of the later machines to switch, mainly because Apple has a contract with IBM that ends in 2007, and because G5s are pretty fast already. They don't need to switch soon, unlike the laptops.

However, come 2007, you can count on Xserve G5s being EOL'd.

[Salty]

Mightn't we see X86 and PPC Xserves in the future? I could actually see PPC PMs and Xserves still existing for a while for those who want.

[Big Mac]

I didn't exactly see a quotation from Apple that would suggest there is any serious commitment. But it's definitely nice to have hope.

[Eriamjh]

In the business world, "remain" usually means more than two years. After that, all bets are off.

[Cadaver]

I predict the Xserve G5 will never use anything but the PowerPC G5.

[newtech]

XServe would logically next go to Dual core G5, so long as a 1U form factor liquid cooling system is feasable. Further down the road perhaps IBM Power5 processors?

Hmmm..what about....XCool a cooling server for mutiple Xserver. Say 6U using liquid nitrogen or ammonia as coolant

[hmurchison2001]

I doubt there's really any reason to keep the Xserve on PPC. Once the merom core ships and Conroe and Woodcrest are delivered there will be absolutely no reason to stick with a PPC server. Leopard will be shipping and the Merom core'd Conroe/Woodcrest will be faster and more efficient than the PPC970MP chip at that time. Both will be 65nm and use a shared L2 cache system.

I expect Apple to deliver a 2U Xserve as well moving to a SAS backbone for their drives.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by newtech

XServe would logically next go to Dual core G5, so long as a 1U form factor liquid cooling system is feasable. Further down the road perhaps IBM Power5 processors?

Hmmm..what about....XCool a cooling server for mutiple Xserver. Say 6U using liquid nitrogen or ammonia as coolant

I think it is feasible. There are some PowerMac-like closed-circuit liquid coolers in the pc world as well.

Power5 cpus dissipate even more heat than a G5 (dual-core or not). So I wouldn't count on having one in a Mac any time soon. Plus, they cost an arm and a leg anyway

[hmurchison2001]

Liquid cooling would not typically be used in a server. There is a reason why they have filtered air conditioned air in datacenters.

You can buy 42u racks from APC and Liebert with built in cooling which is much safer than having liquid coursing through your servers.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by newtech

XServe would logically next go to Dual core G5, so long as a 1U form factor liquid cooling system is feasable. Further down the road perhaps IBM Power5 processors?

POWER5? Not a chance.
But PPC980, the POWER5 derivative? Maybe next year... can they get it in before the switch?