[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The Mac Mini Server may be underpowered for render farms or certain Enterpise applications (though I would argue thats mostly a lack of software problem as the CPU power to power consumption ration on them is very good) but for small businesses its perfect and in fact overpowered.

You cannot imagine how many companies are running SBS and Exchange servers for up to 30 users on hardware which is often over 5 years old (and still overpowered). The only issue being the ability to run a Windows directory service for clients newer than XP.

The other job the Mini does is it bolts on to an existing AD for use as an MDM server to the iOS devices.

I do find it odd that Apple has abandoned trying to serve Mac clients in the Enterprise. The current plan seems to be to let AD look after the Macs while providing an option for iOS devices. I would have expected them to be a little more patient given the inroads they have finally made over the last few years into the enterprise with client machines. Executives are finally taking them seriously and if they could produce a sturdy server product that gave Mac clients something more than Windows had then it would drive adoption even faster.

The fact that there are so many small businesses running stuff like Exchange and the flourishing of virtualization is probably exactly why Apple is getting out of this department, at least on the hardware end of things.

Most computing needs are more RAM and disk bound than CPU bound, Exchange included. If I were a small business, why would I be building, racking, and maintaining a little rig to run Exchange when I can pay $20/month for a machine on a SAN? Data storage can get expensive this way, but I bet that it still is far more cost efficient to outsource running these servers one way or another - whether this is to Amazon/Linode/Rackspace and having somebody in house to maintain the software on these servers, or to a local company that will do the same sort of thing.

Small businesses more and more and outsourcing these sorts of things, which means that for the prospects of doing this in-house to make sense, the costs have to be quite attractive, which means Apple's profit margins are razor thin. The way I see it, small business people have to sort of outsource and improvise a little to do stuff with IT, and there is a big chasm between these users and enterprise level IT, where software and hardware (and support) becomes far more expensive (and where Apple has never really been a player in).

The Mini is underpowered for a VM cluster since it lacks memory and a fibre channel, but I don't think Apple cares so much as this isn't their thing. What ought to be Apple's thing though is doing more to support running OS X as a VM guest. This might be changing though...

The thing is, no forward thinking sysadmin wants to setup dedicated Mac servers anymore. This whole concept is dead or dying in general, especially so on the Mac end of things.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

They're buying XServes and stockpiling them and their spare parts.

Which, no offense to anybody here doing this, is a pretty dumb strategy that does nothing except buys a little more time.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The last three Mac Pros have had pretty similar motherboards. The 2009 could be flashed to become a 2010 board. I don't think it took much R&D to drop the newer Xeons in there. Testing yes, R&D no.

I'm still quietly hoping for an all new rackable Mac Pro to replace the Mac Pro and Xserve in one fell swoop.

Sure it requires R&D, R&D to ensure that the premium that people have to pay for these machines is not going to be coupled with reports and reviews of these machines overheating, parts consistently failing to the point that from a PR perspective this machine is an embarrassment to Apple's good name.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The fact that there are so many small businesses running stuff like Exchange and the flourishing of virtualization is probably exactly why Apple is getting out of this department, at least on the hardware end of things.

Most computing needs are more RAM and disk bound than CPU bound, Exchange included. If I were a small business, why would I be building, racking, and maintaining a little rig to run Exchange when I can pay $20/month for a machine on a SAN? Data storage can get expensive this way, but I bet that it still is far more cost efficient to outsource running these servers one way or another - whether this is to Amazon/Linode/Rackspace and having somebody in house to maintain the software on these servers, or to a local company that will do the same sort of thing.

Small businesses more and more and outsourcing these sorts of things, which means that for the prospects of doing this in-house to make sense, the costs have to be quite attractive, which means Apple's profit margins are razor thin. The way I see it, small business people have to sort of outsource and improvise a little to do stuff with IT, and there is a big chasm between these users and enterprise level IT, where software and hardware (and support) becomes far more expensive (and where Apple has never really been a player in).

The Mini is underpowered for a VM cluster since it lacks memory and a fibre channel, but I don't think Apple cares so much as this isn't their thing. What ought to be Apple's thing though is doing more to support running OS X as a VM guest. This might be changing though...

The thing is, no forward thinking sysadmin wants to setup dedicated Mac servers anymore. This whole concept is dead or dying in general, especially so on the Mac end of things.

Except Exchange hosting is more like $20+ per user per month which adds up pretty fast. Since you need a file server in-house anyway, it makes more sense to run your own email in many ways. If you have 30 users, you could buy a new server every 3 or 4 months with that hosting money. These people are in a mindset where a server lasts 5 years at least. In the current climate, getting people to commit to any monthly expense is pretty difficult. Its not as bad as it was 6-12 months ago, but even so I've had people go out of their way to avoid just $20 a month and even less.

Also, the mini can have fibre now via Thunderbolt and options like the Promise Pegasus mean they can have some pretty good disk performance at an affordable price. I do think the Mini Server could use a second ethernet port though. Having to go Thunderbolt to ExpressCard34 to gigabit ethernet is dumb. As is buying an ACD when all you want is the port.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

A Mini Server could morph into a rack mount.

It could, but what would the market be for people who want to run these sorts of servers in-house, or for hosting companies to take this on, despite the fact that users would have to get creative with coming up with their own backup schemes and you'd need to have a ton of these and a relatively hefty price to pay for these electricity costs?

I'd say the market for this is super tiny.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Except Exchange hosting is more like $20+ per user per month which adds up pretty fast. Since you need a file server in-house anyway, it makes more sense to run your own email in many ways. If you have 30 users, you could buy a new server every 3 or 4 months with that hosting money. These people are in a mindset where a server lasts 5 years at least. In the current climate, getting people to commit to any monthly expense is pretty difficult. Its not as bad as it was 6-12 months ago, but even so I've had people go out of their way to avoid just $20 a month and even less.

When I was writing about Exchange I was speaking to the hardware costs, I know nothing about the licensing.

Also, the mini can have fibre now via Thunderbolt and options like the Promise Pegasus mean they can have some pretty good disk performance at an affordable price. I do think the Mini Server could use a second ethernet port though. Having to go Thunderbolt to ExpressCard34 to gigabit ethernet is dumb. As is buying an ACD when all you want is the port.

A second ethernet port and a second drive. Trusting data (and uptime) to a single SATA drive is insanity. I stand corrected on the lack of fibre though, I forgot about Thunderbolt.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Apple, as you know, doesn't do anything drop in. It's all R&D'd and tested.

Actually I don't think you or I know any such thing. Apple thinks things through better than any company I know but that can mean avoiding doing work for the sake of it as much as it can mean doing extra work. That firmware update between the 2009 and 2010 MP boards might have been written from scratch by Apple engineers, or it might have been handed to them wholesale by Intel and tweaked slightly.

I'm inclined to distinguish between quality testing and development. Perhaps others are not. I agree they would have built test rigs with the new firmwares and new chips and thrashed them to see how they performed and what issues arose, I just don't consider that R&D. The R&D was done with the heatsinks on the earlier models and I imagine the last CPU bump was as close as Apple gets to a formality in releasing a new Mac.

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

I think there's a chance we'll see a new case for the Mac Pro.

I really hope so. A rackable variant of the current case would appease a lot of people. Even it it stays 3U.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Which, no offense to anybody here doing this, is a pretty dumb strategy that does nothing except buys a little more time.

Put yourself in the shoes of a company which has been using XServes for years: your infrastructure, both technological and personnel, is set up and working. There is uncertainty as to where Apple is headed with their pro desktop machines. Will they kill them altogether, will they introduce a new, rackable Mac Pro, or will they do something different altogether? Given the not insignificant costs with switching over to a completely new back end, continuing to use the XServe makes a lot of sense, as it both waits to see what Apple does and buys time to map out a more comprehensive strategy should Apple dump the pro machines.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Put yourself in the shoes of a company which has been using XServes for years: your infrastructure, both technological and personnel, is set up and working. There is uncertainty as to where Apple is headed with their pro desktop machines. Will they kill them altogether, will they introduce a new, rackable Mac Pro, or will they do something different altogether? Given the not insignificant costs with switching over to a completely new back end, continuing to use the XServe makes a lot of sense, as it both waits to see what Apple does and buys time to map out a more comprehensive strategy should Apple dump the pro machines.

But what are people running OS X Server for in the first place? If it's Final Cut Server or something that absolutely requires running on OS X, fine, but for those people using OS X as marketed: for simple website hosting of a site/wiki/blog, mail, Calendar Server (now made less useful with iCloud), simple file sharing, etc. why should they invest on keeping their old infrastructure alive rather than moving somewhere else, which is absolutely possible and in many cases not even all that terribly hard to do?

What else would be hard to move off of OS X Server?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I really hope so. A rackable variant of the current case would appease a lot of people. Even it it stays 3U.

Who are these "lot of people"?

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

But what are people running OS X Server for in the first place?

Production/FTP/calendaring/backup/SAN for entire agencies. There are a lot of large-scale OS X server installs out there.

. . .not even all that terribly hard to do?

There is no way switching a large install--multiple servers serving thousands of Macs and TB of storage--is easy. It's not something to be done without a lot of thought and planning.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Production/FTP/calendaring/backup/SAN for entire agencies. There are a lot of large-scale OS X server installs out there.

You could run the XSan software on a regular workstation, right? FTP, calendaring, and backup are all easily replaceable, calendaring with iCloud, no?

There is no way switching a large install--multiple servers serving thousands of Macs and TB of storage--is easy. It's not something to be done without a lot of thought and planning.

But relative portability is something that any sane company would be striving towards anyway, since with whatever solution they have they'd still need to get data off of an old system onto a new one when, say, it is time to replace the storage device(s) or other underlying hardware.

Apache is Apache, FTP/SFTP is FTP/SFTP, backup is backup, these sorts of things are platform agnostic.

My point is that if you are a company that was using OS X Server products, moving to some other solution is a far more sane solution than hoarding spare parts off of eBay, and there are so many reasons to do so: hardware support (if applicable), lower costs, software support/options, an easier time with staffing, flexibility in having a lot of service offerings to choose from, etc. In many ways, switching to these things at end of life cycle is probably not significantly more involved than upgrading to a system on perpetual life support at the end of life cycle.

I'll soften my stance somewhat by adding caveats for Final Cut Server users, I have no idea what those users will do now, but everything else seems like a misguided, unwise effort to continue to run identically to years past under OS X Server where substantial rackable hardware is needed.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

My point is that if you are a company that was using OS X Server products, moving to some other solution is a far more sane solution than hoarding spare parts off of eBay. . .

I told you why they're stockpiling: they're waiting to see what Apple does. If Apple does, in fact, kill off the Mac Pros and any decent server box, then the hoarding will allow them to transition at their own pace. It's essentially a plan for the worst, hope for the best scenario.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

I told you why they're stockpiling: they're waiting to see what Apple does. If Apple does, in fact, kill off the Mac Pros and any decent server box, then the hoarding will allow them to transition at their own pace. It's essentially a plan for the worst, hope for the best scenario.

I think it's still buying time, because even if Apple keeps Mac Pros alive in perpetuity it's still not a great server option. Racking towers is quite expensive since they are so space inefficient, and there are far fewer service options for outsourcing Mac Pro (or Mac anything) hosting.

[cgc]

What does Apple use in it's data farm (e.g. computer model and OS)? Looked briefly and didn't see anything...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by cgc 

What does Apple use in it's data farm (e.g. computer model and OS)? Looked briefly and didn't see anything...

VM host or guest OS?

I'd be willing to bet it is a VM cluster running some sort of Unix based guest OS, as every data center and its dog's data center is running VM clusters these days.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

and its dog's data center

My dog's data center runs Puppy Linux. Duh.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

My dog's data center runs Puppy Linux. Duh.

What happens when his data center goes into heat?

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What happens when his data center goes into heat?

The Linux kernel is multithreaded.

[Waragainstsleep]

Anyone who has been using Xserves.

Believe it or not, some people like using Macs, even as servers. Windows is robust but its ugly and expensive. Linux is robust but again its a hideous PITA to anyone who doesn't enjoy compiling their own software and so paying someone else to do it for you can also get pricey.

There are some fairly large OS X Server based systems (large is relative remember) and sometimes a customer can't afford to upgrade all their machines at once. They have been used to pulling the oldest and adding some new ones every year or two. Now they have to limp along with dating used Xserves until they have the cash to swap out the whole system.

[besson3c]

There are many Linux distros that never require compiling your own software. Debian/Ubuntu and RedHat/Fedora are some examples. I get your point though, although such fear may not be warranted. It's really not that big a deal to setup web or FTP or whatever. The trickiest part of the migration would be setting up an OpenLDAP directory, if you wished to do so, and learning to use the command line tools for this rather than the nice OS X Server GUI (although there is a phpLDAPAdmin which might help, I've never tried it though).

[shifuimam]

I know this is a bump on a sort-of old thread, but...

Originally Posted by Mojo 

2. The iMac lacks basic ergonomic adjustments except for tilt, which is of minimal value. I developed serious neck pain when I first purchased my iMac and I almost returned it before I cobbled together a fix that wouldn't cost me an arm and a leg. Even so, I still have to look up at the display...

The G4 iMac was the absolute best design I have ever seen in an all-in-one computer. I'm still trying to find a good deal on a last-gen 21" model because they're just so amazing. Pain in the ass to service, but that display design was phenomenal. I really hate that Apple has kept the same crappy design ever since the G5.

3. The difficulty of accessing the interior of the iMac.

I just picked up a used first-gen iMac G5 this past weekend and have already upgraded the hard drive and the RAM in a matter of minutes. It is, by far, the easiest iMac to service in the entire lifetime of this desktop series.

I spent a year servicing Macs full time, and let me tell you - the aluminum Intel iMacs are a ****ing pain to service. The models after mid-2010 are slightly better, but prior to that, you had to unscrew a billion screws to get the bezel off, then another billion to get the display off. Then, when you're finishing reassembly, you have to make sure no dust is trapped between the glass and the display.

Worst. Design. Ever.

[P]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

The G4 iMac was the absolute best design I have ever seen in an all-in-one computer. I'm still trying to find a good deal on a last-gen 21" model because they're just so amazing. Pain in the ass to service, but that display design was phenomenal. I really hate that Apple has kept the same crappy design ever since the G5.

Oh, there's a very good reason they dropped the iMac G4 and kept the G5 design for so long: One sold terribly and the other is selling great. The new design is also so much more photogenic - you see it all the time on TV.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I just picked up a used first-gen iMac G5 this past weekend and have already upgraded the hard drive and the RAM in a matter of minutes. It is, by far, the easiest iMac to service in the entire lifetime of this desktop series.

I have that one as well. Originally even the motherboard was a user serviceable part. The problem with that one was the noise and the dust build up.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I spent a year servicing Macs full time, and let me tell you - the aluminum Intel iMacs are a ****ing pain to service. The models after mid-2010 are slightly better, but prior to that, you had to unscrew a billion screws to get the bezel off, then another billion to get the display off. Then, when you're finishing reassembly, you have to make sure no dust is trapped between the glass and the display.

Worst. Design. Ever.

Never had the pleasure to work on the 20" and the 24". My 27" is not quite as bad as I've heard it described, though. Getting the display panel up is bad because of the connections on the back of it, but after that... It's OK. No worse than that old slotloader.

The dust is also less of a problem than I thought it would be. I wipe it down more less before I put the glass on, and then I just plug it in and turn it on. If I see any dust behind the glass when the display is on, I just rip off the glass and wipe that spot off. Since it's all vertical at that point, the dust falls down. I suppose this would be more of a problem if the glass front had to be screwed on.

[Waragainstsleep]

The biggest G4 iMac was actually a 20", just to nitpick. These had a tendency for the display to get a little lop-sided at the end of the neck.

They were certainly beautiful objects but I didn't particularly enjoy servicing them all that much. Replacing the neck on one was a nightmare (dismantling the neck was actually dangerous. Apple wouldn't allow it. The spring in there is under such high tension it would literally explode and could easily take an eye or maybe a brain out. I had to put one back together once and it took two of us basically sitting on it to get enough force to squeeze it back in. And I weigh quite a lot.)
The exploding neck was a factor in why Apple discontinued the form factor as it was much beloved, but the main reason was shipping costs. You had to have the original box to ship one safely otherwise they tended to explode in transit. (Happened to the one I mentioned repairing earlier on a transatlantic boat). Compare the G4 box to a G5 or later. you can ship 3 of the current iMacs for every G4 in the same amount of space. Give or take. Its that simple.

I actually think the original G4 iMac was probably one of the best to service. I probably would have liked it even more if I hadn't had to do so many motherboards on those damn things. I still have a roll of spare caps. I would have hated them more if the displays had failed more often like the newer ones tend to.
The original iMac was also pretty good to service, again as long as the display didn't need doing. CRT deathtraps were always fun for a tech. Apple still includes CRT safety and makes a big deal of it in their technician training.

[olePigeon]

Although even with a laptop, you may see some interesting expansion options via Thunderbolt.

[Doc HM]

The original (non isight) G5 was a total total joy to work on. From the basic idea that you just lift the back off to reveal everything, to the modular parts that just snap together. Apple even colour coded the screws, (bronze for user serviceable), the only slight downside was that this put the display behind the logic board, but even that wasn't such a pain to do.

I have no idea why Apple switched to the current plan of screen out and parts sprayed shotgun fashion across the internal space. I guess it's either much cheaper to build or more off putting for home service

[Waragainstsleep]

I was once told that the whole original G5 iMac was trialled as user serviceable. Apparently the trial was an unmitigated disaster (as you'd expect from ordinary users trying to change a logic board in one of those). That was never the case in the UK, but apparently for a little while stateside.

[P]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

I have no idea why Apple switched to the current plan of screen out and parts sprayed shotgun fashion across the internal space. I guess it's either much cheaper to build or more off putting for home service

The parts are scattered for cooling reasons, with the CPU and the GPU at opposite sides of the box and the heat-sensitive PSU and HD in the center. Serviceability is just not a priority for them - they're not trying to oppose it, they're just ignoring it.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by P 

The parts are scattered for cooling reasons, with the CPU and the GPU at opposite sides of the box and the heat-sensitive PSU and HD in the center. Serviceability is just not a priority for them - they're not trying to oppose it, they're just ignoring it.

Which is kind of a problem since they employ their own service techs. The pre-iSight iMac G4s and the PowerBook G3 line are perfect examples of hardware that looks good and is still easy to service. There isn't a technical reason why new iMacs are so hard to service - they just are.

The white Intel iMacs have this asinine EFI shield all around the chin after you remove the display bezel (which is also a pain due to little clips you have to feel around for). I get why it's there, but did they have to make it razor sharp? I can't even count the number of times I sliced my cuticles and fingertips on those shields.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

The white Intel iMacs have this asinine EFI shield all around the chin after you remove the display bezel (which is also a pain due to little clips you have to feel around for). I get why it's there, but did they have to make it razor sharp? I can't even count the number of times I sliced my cuticles and fingertips on those shields.

I used to find them more annoying because they would frequently tear, and even more because when you replaced the LCD they didn't give you a new one and the old one was a pain to get to line up right with the IR receiver.

[P]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

The white Intel iMacs have this asinine EFI shield all around the chin after you remove the display bezel (which is also a pain due to little clips you have to feel around for). I get why it's there, but did they have to make it razor sharp?

Making things sharp is easy - you cut metal, and it will become sharp. Rounding it is expensive and frequently quite tricky.