Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

suhail · Nov 22, 2002, 07:51 PM

Everytime I read about the new PPC 970, I cannot help to wonder what if Apple starts to ship a Mega highend XServe running on a POWER4, is this even possible?

And if it is possible, do you think Apple's next move would be to launch a madly powered Server or Workstation to run all their recently purchased highend software?

ReggieX · Nov 23, 2002, 06:42 PM

POWER4 is too pricey and too hot for an Apple machine of any kind.
If anything, it'll be and 970.

suhail · Nov 23, 2002, 08:27 PM

I can imagine a $10,000 highend Mac. I paid $6,000 for mine!
Apple has some serious highend software on its side that will always be power hungry. Software like: Shake, OSX Server, MAYA, Web Objects, etc.

I think if Apple pulls off a move like that, it will gain more respect as a highend company, and more highend apps would appear for the Mac.

But maybe the POWER4 does not do 32bit to begin with

D'Espice · 08:51 AM

There's actually a reason why there are no 1U servers with Power4 microprocessors available: They simply consume too much power, it's kinda impossible to cool a Power4 1U server.

As ReggieX said, the PPC970 might be the best and only possibility of "powered by IBM" in an XServe.

suhail · Nov 23, 2002, 10:27 PM

I heard that liquid nitrogen has dropped in price

Axo1ot1 · Nov 23, 2002, 10:41 PM

So why does it have to be 1u? Why can't they make a 3u srever that is like xServes daddy?

BrettJB · Nov 23, 2002, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by suhail:
I can imagine a $10,000 highend Mac.

So can I: Mac IIfx

I don't think we'll see it either. As mentioned above, it would seem unlikely this ship would wind up in a 1U form factor, due to power/heat concerns. Apple appears to be concentrating on providing a modular, flexible computing platform that can be densely packed in a standard 72" cabinet. Great for building farms!

Also, keeping the price of the Xserve down is, I think, critical for Apple to remain in this market. Eventually, that farm is going to need to add capacity, and I've always found it's somehow easier to justify to management multiple purchases of cheaper servers, rather than one or two �berboxen. I don't really know why this is, as often times the dollar:computing power ratio favors the more powerful box, but I suppose it's a subtle, psychological thing.

I suppose it all boils down to the question: does Apple want to try to compete in the midrange to high end server market?

--Brett

suhail · Nov 23, 2002, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by Axo1ot1:
So why does it have to be 1u? Why can't they make a 3u srever that is like xServes daddy?

That's right!

Also how about a POWER4 desktop, if I was to buy Shake, I would consider an SGI or a SUN before I'll begin to consider a Mac. Shake requires some serious processing power.

Avon · Nov 24, 2002, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by suhail:

That's right!

Also how about a POWER4 desktop, if I was to buy Shake, I would consider an SGI or a SUN before I'll begin to consider a Mac. Shake requires some serious processing power.

Quite frankly id reach for multiple Xeon processors if I needed raw horsepower. I hate Intell more than anyone on the planet but a FreeBSD machine with multiple Xeon processors is the fastest thing a mortal can hope for...

beb · Nov 24, 2002, 01:44 AM

How about turnabout, maybe an IBM Power 4 server running Mac OS X...

-Nah, dumb idea nevermind

suhail · Nov 24, 2002, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by Avon:

Quite frankly id reach for multiple Xeon processors if I needed raw horsepower. I hate Intell more than anyone on the planet but a FreeBSD machine with multiple Xeon processors is the fastest thing a mortal can hope for...

OK� now, would you buy a Xeon box running FreeBSD, or a Power4 Mac running OSX ?

Nebrie · Nov 25, 2002, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by suhail:
I can imagine a $10,000 highend Mac. I paid $6,000 for mine!
Apple has some serious highend software on its side that will always be power hungry. Software like: Shake, OSX Server, MAYA, Web Objects, etc.

I think if Apple pulls off a move like that, it will gain more respect as a highend company, and more highend apps would appear for the Mac.

But maybe the POWER4 does not do 32bit to begin with

From what I remember, it's $10,000 just to buy a Power4 chip.

suhail · Nov 25, 2002, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by Nebrie:

From what I remember, it's $10,000 just to buy a Power4 chip.

Uhh� No!
it's more like $4,000

clarkgoble · Nov 25, 2002, 08:11 PM

The Power4 or the forthcoming Power5 are simply too worried about failure resistance to be cost effective for Apple's needs. They really are aimed at a very narrow market that needs extreme reliability.

The 970 is the way to go. Rumors are that Apple is actually preparing 4-way and 8-way 970 based XServes. I don't know if that is true. Given the connection with Pixar though I could see this. If they can keep the price down that might be a killer application server.

Also coming down the line according to various stories on the net is the 980 which is basically to the new Power5 what the 970 is to the Power4. Who knows when that will be out though. However I wouldn't be surprised if Apple does try to move into some of the more narrow rendering farm business if it can get cost effective hardware.

suhail · Nov 25, 2002, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
The Power4 or the forthcoming Power5 are simply too worried about failure resistance to be cost effective for Apple's needs. They really are aimed at a very narrow market that needs extreme reliability.

The 970 is the way to go. Rumors are that Apple is actually preparing 4-way and 8-way 970 based XServes. I don't know if that is true. Given the connection with Pixar though I could see this. If they can keep the price down that might be a killer application server.

Also coming down the line according to various stories on the net is the 980 which is basically to the new Power5 what the 970 is to the Power4. Who knows when that will be out though. However I wouldn't be surprised if Apple does try to move into some of the more narrow rendering farm business if it can get cost effective hardware.

I see a contradiction

How can the POWER4 be a "failure� to be cost effective" but the 8-way 970 can not?

Also, I read in a few forums that the 970 does not multi-process, and if it did it would be a dual only. Is what I read correct? Can someone enlighten us that?

Cipher13 · Nov 25, 2002, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by suhail:

I see a contradiction
How can the POWER4 be a "failure� to be cost effective" but the 8-way 970 can not?

Also, I read in a few forums that the 970 does not multi-process, and if it did it would be a dual only. Is what I read correct? Can someone enlighten us that?

With the Power4, you pay more for the processors incredible reliability and lifespan than you do for its amazing speed. That kind of redundancy is not necessary. An 8-core or 8-processor 970 machine would be more cost effective; so long as Apple can get their ass into gear to feed these mofo's.

Being brethren to the Power4, I can't imagine why they'd make the 970 unable to multicore or do SMP...

Superchicken · Nov 25, 2002, 09:39 PM

IBM makes thier own cash on the power 4 why would they sell it to apple?
Apple will compete in the same markets that their software is good for. I don't see them bringing the Xserve above 1U until they really need to, haha maybe a Yserve

the 970 will probably be buddied up with more than 2 sooner than you'd ever see a power four in an apple comp. Until they get beyond 16 proccessor Xserves I wouldn't expect apple to start using IBM's high end chips.. infact I never expect apple to use IBM's high end chips.

Avon · Nov 25, 2002, 11:24 PM

Originally posted by suhail:

OK� now, would you buy a Xeon box running FreeBSD, or a Power4 Mac running OSX ?

Well see, I bet I can afford a Xeon machie. If wishes came true I would certainly have one of thoes multiple processor Power4 machines runing the new 64 bit Mac OS X.

But if you want to crunch some numbers right now fairly inexpensivley an multiple Xeon machine really woops ass.

clarkgoble · Nov 26, 2002, 04:54 AM

A couple of Xenons running Linux would be nice. (BSD doesn't multiprocess, does it?) They'd be even nicer running an optimized x86 version of OSX, of course. But we all know that ain't going to happen any time soon, no matter how much we may wish otherwise.

It's kind of sad. I think Apple has an OS that kicks both Linux and XP's butt. Yeah for some things Linux is more efficient. But Linux has a crappy UI. XP is better than most Mac folks want to admit, but OSX is simply far superior. The problem now is the hardware doesn't keep up.

Look at it from a server point of view. You can get better RAID systems for a PC motherboard. You can get much faster system thoroughput. And it is considerably cheaper. Once you move to the desktop the PC have better video cards, better digitizers, and better sound.

Don't get me wrong. I love my Mac. I'm excited about the 970. I just hope that my next system can also be a Mac. . .

Thain Esh Kelch · Nov 26, 2002, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by beb:
How about turnabout, maybe an IBM Power 4 server running Mac OS X...

-Nah, dumb idea nevermind

HmmmmM.... Someone knows...

clarkgoble · Nov 26, 2002, 02:03 PM

I think that IBM wouldn't even bother with having their Power4 servers run OSX. Too much work and too narrow a market. That market really doesn't care about the eye candy.

On the other hand their new 970 servers are purportedly going to run Linux. Now I know that they've optimized their Linux and are going fairly heavily Linux. However it is also possible that they could license OSX and then apply a lot of that stuff to the Darwin code.

I'm not saying this would happen. In fact I can think of reasons why it wouldn't. (IBM wouldn't want to be beholden to Apple) However OSX has a much better GUI than Linux. It supports X11 for those apps. Further it might allow IBM to make a move for expanding their market. It would be something like the clones, but in a much narrower focus.

I think it would be a win-win situation. However it really wouldn't be worth it for servers alone unless Apple starts bringing some serious software advantages to OSX Server. Right now I don't think it offers that.

JNG · Nov 26, 2002, 03:08 PM

Man, it'd be cool if they made a sort of super-Xserve with four or eight PPC 970s. I would buy one as my personal Mac, put on a pair of ear plugs and one of those cooling suits race car drivers wear, and enjoy!

I really would, though. I'd love to see IBM make PPC business machines that can run OS X. A very limited form of cloning. I think in the end the bonus to PPC as a whole would outweigh any drawbacks for Apple or IBM. (Ok, ok...I really just want a Power5-based server as a personal Mac...you know, to check my email with.

)

asaturno · Nov 26, 2002, 03:13 PM

IBM selling their new 970-based servers running OSX is not so crazy an idea. IBM is all about selling technology services these days. Their Global Services revenue last quarter was 8.9 billion; hardware revenue was 6.8 billion.

They would then be offering the top 2 UNIX-based Operating Systems out there to potential customers. With their expertise, they could even assist Apple in making OSX Server even more attractive to business customers, if Apple so desired. It gives Apple more credibility if IBM is fully behind OSX as well.

It wouldn't really be competing with Apple since Apple just sells the equipment, but not the techonological services. Customers who go to IBM looking for UNIX-based solutions would probably have never looked at Apple in the first place. So potentially its a win-win for both IBM and Apple. And by expanding the OSX server base, perhaps more imacs and powermacs would be sold as home machines.

clarkgoble · Nov 27, 2002, 03:05 AM

The point is that for the typical server the interface of the Macintosh doesn't add much. Further if you have a service provider then you have technical staff maintaining the servers. That kind of staff knows Unix well enough that Linux will suffice.

Put an other way, what value to the server does OSX offer over Linux? To the small user or non-technical user a lot. To those who want consistency with Macintosh alot. If Apple gets a price/performance equally Dell or Sun, then OSX isn't even the issue.

To the clients buying IBM Power4 systems and likely those buying 970 systems it offers nothing.

Now if IBM on its lowend wanted to sell OSX clones to the same markets Apple is after that is one thing. Perhaps had Apple a larger marketshare there would be more value to OSX. However right now Linux seems to be cheaper and more reasonable.

Eug · Nov 27, 2002, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
The point is that for the typical server the interface of the Macintosh doesn't add much. Further if you have a service provider then you have technical staff maintaining the servers. That kind of staff knows Unix well enough that Linux will suffice.

Put an other way, what value to the server does OSX offer over Linux? To the small user or non-technical user a lot. To those who want consistency with Macintosh alot. If Apple gets a price/performance equally Dell or Sun, then OSX isn't even the issue.

To the clients buying IBM Power4 systems and likely those buying 970 systems it offers nothing.

Now if IBM on its lowend wanted to sell OSX clones to the same markets Apple is after that is one thing. Perhaps had Apple a larger marketshare there would be more value to OSX. However right now Linux seems to be cheaper and more reasonable.

A friend of mine is a Unix WAN admin. If his boss would let him he'd get a few to play around with. He says the GUI isn't necessary, but it'd sure save him a lot of time in certain situations, IF everything else was in place and working properly.

Avon · Nov 27, 2002, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
A couple of Xenons running Linux would be nice. (BSD doesn't multiprocess, does it?)

Yes FreeBSD does. A better multiprocessing Kernel is due next year in 5.0 though...

suhail · Nov 27, 2002, 11:14 AM

I think interface is very important, even to UNIX users.

Many mid-sized comapnies spend thousands of dollars for NT servers, they could've easily spent that money on UNIX servers instead. But thier IT people only know how to use NT, that is what they learned in school/college/institute because it was easier to teach.

If Apple fixes and adds some features in OSX Server, and encourages institutions to teach OSX Server by offering certifications, then UNIX will be an even bigger threat to MS.

Something like that�

Knock knock knock, BANG BANG BANG, SMASH, BREAK!!�

Whose at the door? Oh hi Mr.Gates?!!�

tatatata�tatata� "It's people like you who ruin my MS topia, damn you" tatatata�

"allright boys, clean up the mess�"