[frizzo79]

This should take a byte out of sun microsystems sales. Hopefully it doesn't hurt the friendly relationship Apple has with Sun. An eXcellent beginning for rack mounted Macs. Anyway it's an impressive line of servers.

[ 05-14-2002: Message edited by: frizzo79 ]

[cdhostage]

Hmm. I know the xServe does not really compare to Sun's Big Whoopdie Doo Servers, but I can't wait until someone runs a performance-per-cost calculation.

I've read in the Register that a good server runs hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[smacintush]

Sun's known for its high-end servers. In the mid-to-low-end markets they are beat out handily by M$ and UNIX on PC's. That's what Apple is after.

[MacGorilla]

I don't think sun is going anywhere, but Apple certainly will make a dent in the low to mid range stuff. Sun also targets slightly different markets; Apple is out for graphics houses and education whil Sun speciallizes in number crunching and massive web serving.

[Scotttheking]

LOL, this is no threat to sun.

[maffioso]

Well, its not a threat especially in Australia. Take a look at the P.O.S Apple server that they want to charge:

Summary
• Dual 1 GHz PowerPC G4
• 256K L2 cache & 2MB L3 cache per processor
• 266MHz 512MB DDR SDRAM
• 60GB Apple Drive Module
• CD-ROM drive
• ATI Graphics Card
• Dual Gigabit Ethernet
• Two USB ports
• Three FireWire ports

Subtotal $8,995.00(AUD)

I think Apple shouldn't have even released it here, its a joke!

Apple always does this, any one outside of the US gets third rate technology, however since the US gets second rate technology it doesn't matter too much...

When will Apple learn?

[macvillage.net]

Apple's Xserve is a really nice server, but it is no match for 95% of Suns current offerings. Solaris is a really flexible OS, capable of massive data storage (more than X can take right now).

Xserve can only take 4 drives. SUN has had several machines taking way more.


SUN is expensive, but you get what you pay for.

[G4ME]

As stated before the market that apple is going after, Edu, Biotech, and film, this is a great product. no way can it compete with Sun, Cisco or any other big servers, but the low end, (what the Xserver is designed for) is perfect for.

[TheTraveller]

Originally posted by maffioso:
<STRONG>

Subtotal $8,995.00(AUD)

</STRONG>

You were expecting that Apple's new rack-mount server would be cheap, when their MP3 player costs how much? :-)

[maffioso]

Well consider this:

Summary
• Dual 1 GHz PowerPC G4
• 256K L2 cache & 2MB L3 cache per processor
• 266MHz 512MB DDR SDRAM
• 60GB Apple Drive Module
• CD-ROM drive
• ATI Graphics Card
• Dual Gigabit Ethernet
• Two USB ports
• Three FireWire ports

The same configuration in the US costs: $3999, here is Aus we can't get the totally maxed out server...

Well exchange rate is $1USD to $.54USD to basically a $3999USD machine should cost : around $7400AUD, now consider the price differance for what Apple offers and the exchange rate.

Apple Australia Price: $8995AUD or $4800USD

Apple US Price: $7400AUD or $3999USD

You were expecting that Apple's new rack-mount server would be cheap, when their MP3 player costs how much? :-)

I wasn't expecting cheap, but a $1500AUD or $810USD markup in Australia!!!

What does Apple expect people will pay this bull**** price, Im tired of Apple selling second rate hardware at first rate prices, the only thing that is keeping Apple alive is the OS, and its getting rather slow even on a PM 867!

Where is the Apple I used to know?

[cube-dude]

You may find this thread alive and well in the new forum, Servers - OS X & Xserve, based on feedback from mods and members. Thanks.

We're keeping the Power Mac forum strictly for Power Mac G3/G4 discussion and support (and speculation about the G5, of course).

[mitchell_pgh]

I don't think that the Xserver was meant to bump off any of the competition, but rather stop Mac firms from being forced to buy PC hardware for basic server applications. First and foremost the Xserver will benefit design firms. There are so many organizations that are using M$ boxes for print servers, web servers and basic archiving. The second area that this thing will catch fire is in the education market. Schools work in mysterious ways. They usually have money for the hardware, but seldom have the funding for training. If one person can maintain the entire school districts web server without having an IT degree, then you just sold about 50,000 of these things. The Xserver isn't meant for mission critical applications, but it is for anything a school district could throw at it. I also feel that the Xserver will excel in the small business and nonprofit areas where people need a product that just works, and doesn't take a lifetime to figure out.

I don't think Apple is expecting the Xserver to be a break out item, but rather one that will fill in the void in it's offerings.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
<STRONG>I don't think that the Xserver was meant to bump off any of the competition, but rather stop Mac firms from being forced to buy PC hardware for basic server applications. First and foremost the Xserver will benefit design firms. There are so many organizations that are using M$ boxes for print servers, web servers and basic archiving. The second area that this thing will catch fire is in the education market. Schools work in mysterious ways. They usually have money for the hardware, but seldom have the funding for training. If one person can maintain the entire school districts web server without having an IT degree, then you just sold about 50,000 of these things. The Xserver isn't meant for mission critical applications, but it is for anything a school district could throw at it. I also feel that the Xserver will excel in the small business and nonprofit areas where people need a product that just works, and doesn't take a lifetime to figure out.

I don't think Apple is expecting the Xserver to be a break out item, but rather one that will fill in the void in it's offerings.</STRONG>

I think that's a great point and it makes much more sense than what Jobs and crew were saying at Xserve's debut.

They purposely got quotes from Oracle and Sybase about their commitment to OS X server and their "endorsement" of the hardware platform. They also compared prices to machines are are very much aimed at Enterprise data solutions and critical applications.

No one springs for a Sun box and Oracle 9i for small school LAN or design dept subnet.

They purposesly compared it to the big boys when i fear it doesn't match up at all.

Your market stategy makes more sense than what Apple is saying.

Besides, it's still cheaper to get a Quantum box or a Win2K box to serve files for a few Apple users on an isolated LAN segment and you have more options.

[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: thunderous_funker ]