[SirCastor]

I think Apple's doing some pretty sweet stuff. I like the way that Leopard is looking, and I really like a lot of these features.

I know that these really aren't all pure Apple, and Apple hasn't been creating purely new things all the time. In recent memory, Dashboard to me represents the largest rip-off that Apple has committed without credit where credit is due. Spaces is certainly a concept that has been around for a long time. I've even heard whisperings of Time Machine being pretty similar to other backup initiatives out there...

Is Apple really qualified to say that they're the innovators anymore? Are they just running their own 'photocopier' so-to-speak? Or are the changes and additions significant enough to warrant saying that Apple really is on the leading edge of innovation and creation?

[Peter]

Originally Posted by SirCastor

Is Apple really qualified to say that they're the innovators anymore? Are they just running their own 'photocopier' so-to-speak?

Yes.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

I said the same during the keynote. Pretty much of the 10 things in 10.5 they showed was not copied from something.

[mduell]

I'm happy to see OSX, Windows, and Linux copying the best features from each other. Anyone innovates and everyone benefits.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by SirCastor

I've even heard whisperings of Time Machine being pretty similar to other backup initiatives out there...

What is a backup initiative?

[SirCastor]

The backup initiative is a top secret plan to backup to world...

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

What is a backup initiative?

A local backup of teh intarweb on my 16k thumbdrive

-t

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by SirCastor

In recent memory, Dashboard to me represents the largest rip-off that Apple has committed without credit where credit is due.

Not really. Desk accessories were the grandfather(s) of all widgets, so if Apple copied anyone they copied themselves.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Not really. Desk accessories were the grandfather(s) of all widgets

They don't seem remotely similar to me. You might as well say that MacPaint was the grandfather of all widgets.

[Agasthya]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

They don't seem remotely similar to me. You might as well say that MacPaint was the grandfather of all widgets.

or that adobe ripped off apple for photoshop by copying macpaint.

[Chuckit]

Nah, I'd say Photoshop and MacPaint are more similar than widgets and DAs. DAs were most similar to what we nowadays call applications. For instance, the System Preferences application is actually fairly similar to what the Control Panel DA was like in the original OS. The only way DAs differed from any other app was that they allowed limited multitasking on a single-tasking OS.

[hickey]

I knew a guy 3 years ago that had something on his PC, called Time Machine, and did almost exactly what was demonstrated yesterday.

Still cool though.

[Chuckit]

I can't find any evidence of this Windows "Time Machine" software. Are you sure you're remembering right?

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The only way DAs differed from any other app was that they allowed limited multitasking on a single-tasking OS.

While there is some truth to that, I would say they have more in common that you are giving credit. Think about what the original DAs were- calculator and puzzle come to mind. While primitive multi-tasking made the technology possible, I would say it was an enabler and not the purpose. The purpose was to provide little useful or fun apps that were always available and complementary to other tasks, just like widgets.

I think calling them "widgets" and using similar look and feel to konfabulator was a bit cheeky, but both konfabulator and dashboard are the spiritual heirs of the original DAs.

[Paco500]

Time machine type software is pretty widely available- however the innovation here is brining it to the consumer level as up until now it's been pretty much limited to servers and SANs.

I think IBM had something like this bundled on their computers a few years ago, but it was clunky and only allowed you to keep the snapshots on the same disk you were using. Not too damn useful in the event of a complete HD failure.

It may not be a new idea, but looks brilliantly executed and will most likely make backupers of many.

[hickey]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I can't find any evidence of this Windows "Time Machine" software. Are you sure you're remembering right?

yeah, he could go back to previous sessions or something and find something that was lost, or go back before his system crashed.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Paco500

While there is some truth to that, I would say they have more in common that you are giving credit. Think about what the original DAs were- calculator and puzzle come to mind. While primitive multi-tasking made the technology possible, I would say it was an enabler and not the purpose. The purpose was to provide little useful or fun apps that were always available and complementary to other tasks, just like widgets.

Well, yeah, Calculator and Puzzle were DAs. And that program where you guided the mouse to the cheese was a normal app, while Control Panel was a DA. The point was multitasking, not really being a little fun app.

The point of both Dashboard and Konfabulator widgets is that they're small apps that can be built with technologies familiar to anybody who's tinkered with a Web page. To my knowledge, there was nothing at all user-friendly about creating a DA.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Well, yeah, Calculator and Puzzle were DAs. And that program where you guided the mouse to the cheese was a normal app, while Control Panel was a DA. The point was multitasking, not really being a little fun app.

I would point you to this page:

http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py..._Ornaments.txt

To sum up for the lazy:

"Bud Tribble was usually on an even keel, but one afternoon in the fall of 1981 he came into my office, unusually excited. "You know, I've been thinking about it. Even if we can only run one major application at a time, there's no reason that we can't also have some little miniature applications running in their own windows at the same time."

That sounded intriguing to me. "What kind of little programs? How are they different?", I wondered.

Bud smiled. "You'd want tiny apps that were good at a specific, limited function that complements the main application. Like a little calculator, for example, that looked like a real calculator. Or maybe an alarm clock, or a notepad for jotting down text. Since the entire screen is supposed to be a metaphorical desktop, the little programs are desk ornaments, adorning the desktop with useful features."

The people that created them seem to think multi-tasking was a means to an end, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The point of both Dashboard and Konfabulator widgets is that they're small apps that can be built with technologies familiar to anybody who's tinkered with a Web page. To my knowledge, there was nothing at all user-friendly about creating a DA.

While that has undoubtedly added to their popularity, I would guess at least 99.99% of Dashboard and Konfabulator users have never made a widget. Users like them either because they look cool or they find them useful. Kind of like DAs.

[Chuckit]

People may not make them, but that was certainly the entire idea behind Konfabulator and also the most striking feature of Dashboard.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

People may not make them, but that was certainly the entire idea behind Konfabulator and also the most striking feature of Dashboard.

Not to beat a dead horse here, but a quick perusal of Apple's Dashboard page:

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/dashboard/

hypes the fact that:

Dashboard is home to widgets: mini-applications that let you perform common tasks and provide you with fast access to information.

The only place it talks about making your own widgets is in one ominous black box to the right clearly marked "For Developers". Again, the people that actually created them seem to think the main point is that they are useful little tools, (kind of like how DAs were described above) not the fact that the everyman can make them for himself. But that is the Apple way of doing things- focusing on the user experience whereas you seem to be focusing on the technology. I don't think you are wrong, just kind of missing the forrest for the trees.

Although that certainly seems to be changing with Leopard. In six months or so.

[Chuckit]

If they were really not concerned with the technology, why did they specifically tie it to a Web technology interface rather than allowing you to use the existing app frameworks?

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

If they were really not concerned with the technology, why did they specifically tie it to a Web technology interface rather than allowing you to use the existing app frameworks?

Well I know I seem very smart and informed, but the sad truth is I wasn't there and I just don't know. Were I a betting man, I would bet it was done for a combination of reasons, primarily:

1. That's the way Konfabulator did it and that seemed to work well, so why not?
2. It was probably the quickest and simplest way to implement them.
3. Clearly they were looking for a community of Widget developers to coalesce and make the platform more useful and therefore more popular.

Again, I'm not saying you are wrong, just that I think you are missing the main point. Widgets are supposed to be useful little complementary apps, just as DAs were. The technology used to create them, while not irrelevant, is not the big picture. If it was just about the technology, it would be like so many Open Source projects- interesting to hard core geeks and the developers themselves.

This discussion we are having began because you asserted that there was little to no relationship between DAs and Dashboard because the technology is so different. My point is that in spirit and marketing they are very similar. To say there is little to no relationship just misses the boat.

I would like to say that I am not being an Apple apologist here. To claim that Dashboard was not inspired (at the least) by Konfabulator is just silly.

[Gossamer]

I showed the Spaces part of the keynote to my Ubuntu-using roommate, and he welcomed Apple to the 1980s (when Linux had this feature supposedly) until he saw that you could see all the desktops at once, and drag specific windows to different spaces. Apple may not have the newest ideas, but they take the ideas and seamlessly integrate them into a super easy-to-use gorgeous package. Time Machine makes backup automatic, simple, and perfect. Dashboard makes widgets extremely handy, useful, and integrated with other Apple apps (especially the new Safari > Dashboard feature in Leopard). Basically they make stuff make sense. It seems Microsoft sees how things are supposed to work through how Apple integrates them.

[Chuckit]

Erm…while you can't view all the windows live on all the workspaces at once, I'm 99% sure you can drag windows between workspaces in Ubuntu. (I'm not using it right now, but I distinctly recall doing so.)

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

I showed the Spaces part of the keynote to my Ubuntu-using roommate, and he welcomed Apple to the 1980s (when Linux had this feature supposedly) until he saw that you could see all the desktops at once, and drag specific windows to different spaces. Apple may not have the newest ideas, but they take the ideas and seamlessly integrate them into a super easy-to-use gorgeous package. Time Machine makes backup automatic, simple, and perfect. Dashboard makes widgets extremely handy, useful, and integrated with other Apple apps (especially the new Safari > Dashboard feature in Leopard). Basically they make stuff make sense. It seems Microsoft sees how things are supposed to work through how Apple integrates them.

I could not agree more. So much of the reporting around the keynote has centered on the fact that most if not all of the "innovations" shown have been available on other platforms (or even on OS X via 3rd party software) for some time. But the real brilliance is how they are taking existing ideas and making them better and more usable.

My personal favorite is the universal to do list. Yes to do lists have been around for ever and are nothing new, but to be able to highlight anything and make it a to do is so damn clever and useful. Pulling to do's from word docs, emails, spreadsheets, articles and keeping them in one place will help me organize my life to no end. Reading a review of a new CD? Add it to you to do list right there.

The one innovation I wish apple would steal from Google is the ability in GMail to put the same message in multiple folders without having to copy it. For those who do not use it. GMail does not use "folders" but rather categories for organization of your email, and an email can belong to multiple categories. In the interface, categories look just like folders, but I could put in email from my wife telling me to go to Home Depot and buy a saw in the "wife" folder and "home improvement" folder at the same time.

The smart folders in mail help somewhat, but they are based on data that exists in the message, and unless she wrote "home improvement" in the text, it wouldn't end up in that smart folder.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Erm…while you can't view all the windows live on all the workspaces at once, I'm 99% sure you can drag windows between workspaces in Ubuntu. (I'm not using it right now, but I distinctly recall doing so.)

I seem to remember that feature in RedHat in the late 90's, but it didn't look anywhere near as pretty.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Paco500

The one innovation I wish apple would steal from Google is the ability in GMail to put the same message in multiple folders without having to copy it. For those who do not use it. GMail does not use "folders" but rather categories for organization of your email, and an email can belong to multiple categories. In the interface, categories look just like folders, but I could put in email from my wife telling me to go to Home Depot and buy a saw in the "wife" folder and "home improvement" folder at the same time.

The smart folders in mail help somewhat, but they are based on data that exists in the message, and unless she wrote "home improvement" in the text, it wouldn't end up in that smart folder.

Smart folders would work exactly that if you could tag your emails with arbitrary metadata. What we need is MailTags.

[Judge_Fire]

Another point that supports the 'DAs were the original Widgets' claim is that the Desk Accessories were called up from a spesific, uniquely identifiable UI location - the Apple Menu.

You needn't traverse the disk hierarchy to your apps or create shortcuts on the desktop, you just entered 'The Fun Little Useful App Place'.

[Gamoe]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

...Desk accessories were the grandfather(s) of all widgets, so if Apple copied anyone they copied themselves...

And yet, until Apple officially supports widgets living on the desktop or a normal window layer, I'll have to say that DAs were much more useful, particularly speaking in historical context.

Also, widgets take significant time to load and seem to consume an inordinate amount of memory. For now, I'll do without widgets. We'll see if Leopard brings any more significant improvements in that area.

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Erm…while you can't view all the windows live on all the workspaces at once, I'm 99% sure you can drag windows between workspaces in Ubuntu. (I'm not using it right now, but I distinctly recall doing so.)

You can. Windows are represented by little squares in the virtual desktops bar, and you can drag these miniature windows from one "space" to another, which will result in the "real" window moving as such.

[Salty]

I think a lot of the things Apple's been up to aren't completely original ideas. They seem to figure out ways to build on other concepts. Simply because somebody else has done backup software doesn't mean Apple shouldn't. And besides if most people aren't regularly backing stuff up why shouldn't Apple provide something that will regularly keep people's data safe? Not to mention building it as a framework developers can work with? That's pretty cool!
As well virtual desktops, again Apple's not claiming to be the inventor of virtual desktops, they're just implementing them, and doing it well.
As for original things. No idea is entirely going to be original except for a small number of exceptions. Exposé that was pretty original. Using the GPU to offload UI drawing that was pretty original far as I hear. Other than that, Spotlight was just a take off from something done in Be long ago. The concept of Metadata is hardly new. Buying music on the internet wasn't new, the iPod wasn't a new idea. Though things like the click wheel were. Thing is Apple doesn't come up with the original idea normally. They take other rough ideas and refine them.

[OreoCookie]

Well, innovation is more than copying. I think the main feat of Apple is to integrate different parts of its apps and OS together. Time Machine is one example: the idea of backups is old, there are also applications that can do what Time Machine does (well, at least the automated backup part). Paul Thurrot pointed out `well, that's a feature of Windows 2003 server' and to a certain degree, he's right (afaik it's command line only or requires a third-party app to control).

But Apple integrated it in a way that an average user can use it -- which is their accomplishment (well, if it works that is ).

The same goes for iLife: each individual app is something that can be replaced by something else: e. g. you could use Movie Maker on Windows instead of iMovie. But there is no equivalent of this type of integration between the different iLife apps.

There are cases when Apple has blatantly copied ideas down to the UI (Dashboard, Fast User Switching and Sherlock for instance) or used very old ideas in a new way (Spaces: I could do that with fvwm2 (not sure about 1) already ). But again, it's not a bad idea. Ditto for Mail's notes feature: it's very similar to MailTags (which I currently use).

So I would say that you can innovate even if the feature as such isn't new. The fact that MS copies a lot of useful features from OS X should be seen as a homage. Plus, usually you don't know which feature will have the biggest impact on you. Tiger's #1 feature is Exposé for me. Spotlight for instance is less important than I thought it would be.

I think it'll be the same with Leopard: we probably won't know which feature will be the `most important' one to us, so I wouldn't judge just yet. I'm not really disappointed with what was shown during the WWDC, but I'm not hyper either. Existing features (such as Spotlight and the UI) will be refined -- which is a good thing™ for all of us.

[blackstar]

Windows Millenium had something like Time Machine, you could like revert the os to an earlier stage.
However it never really worked, and XP doesn't have it anymore!

[OreoCookie]

Windows XP does have that functionality for OS updates. Although I haven't heard of a single case when it really helped solve any problems with the OS

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by blackstar

Windows Millenium had something like Time Machine, you could like revert the os to an earlier stage.
However it never really worked, and XP doesn't have it anymore!

Yeah, they had restore points or something. But that doesn't let you go back to a specific date in time and retrieve a single file that accidentally got deleted. Apple knows how to makes stuff work, and to make it easy. Who would have thought making your own music, movies, and web pages would ever have been this easy? And to include all of it with every new Mac.

[ryaxnb]

Problem with system restore (which is actually pretty nice at removing gunk) is it is for the OS, not documents. Specifically, it doesn't touch your docs folder. Furthermore, it saves to the same drive as the OS. It is therefore a different utility with a different purpose.

[RAILhead]

I use Widgets all the freaking time. I love my Widget Overlords.

[::maroma::]

"There's nothing new under the sun."

There are many different ways to achieve innovation. It isn't just inventing a brand new idea. It can also be taking an idea that already exists and bringing it to a different level. Whether that be a completely new way of looking a that idea, or just tweaking the idea to bring it to a level where it can be much more easily grasped by the public.

The iPod is a good example of this. The basic idea of a portable music player has been around for decades. The idea of a digital portable music player had been around for many years as well. What Apple did was take that idea to a level where all the pieces that worked with the other players and concepts came together in one product, and all the things that didn't work were left out. What was left was an innovation. Its not a brand spanking new idea, but it was done in a way that no one else had done it before. And it was done right. That's arguably the most important aspect that Apple brings to the notion of innovation in their products. They not only offer great ideas, but they execute those ideas at such a high level of thought that it takes those products to the next level.

So the question was, is Apple still qualified to claim that they're innovators? Of course. They are still innovating at the same level they've always been. And just because we haven't seen any mind blowing new products in a while doesn't mean that Apple has lost its creative edge. I'm certain that they are working on some amazing stuff. Innovation takes time. "The next great thing" from Apple will still come, its just a matter of when.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by SirCastor

Is Apple really qualified to say that they're the innovators anymore? Are they just running their own 'photocopier' so-to-speak? Or are the changes and additions significant enough to warrant saying that Apple really is on the leading edge of innovation and creation?

innovate |ˈinəˌvāt| verb [ intrans. ] make changes in something established

IMHO, Apple is the definition of innovation. Perhaps you meant to ask "is Apple creating anymore?"

Regarding Spaces:
Sure, I've seen this in the Linux/Unix world... but OS X will be the first mainstream desktop OS to implement it... and to be honest, it looks very clean and elegant. We've been asking for it, and Apple has given it to us.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Nah, I'd say Photoshop and MacPaint are more similar than widgets and DAs. DAs were most similar to what we nowadays call applications. For instance, the System Preferences application is actually fairly similar to what the Control Panel DA was like in the original OS. The only way DAs differed from any other app was that they allowed limited multitasking on a single-tasking OS.

From a technological perspective you've got a point, but few Mac people in the days of System 6 knew or cared about that sort of thing.

From a UI perspective -which is, frankly, all that matters when talking about things like this- DAs were essentially small mini-apps that you could drop into from anywhere in the system, do a quick task (jotting down notes, a quick calculation, basic system configuration, and so on) and drop back out again. Widgets, be they Dashboard, Konfabulator, or otherwise, fill exactly the same purpose. From a UI perspective, they are the new DAs.

Was Dashboard inspired by Konfabulator? Frankly, I hope not, because I don't see how Apple could take a look at Konfabulator and then make such a horrible blunder as to have WebKit do the rendering, rather than building in a clean separation between widgets and a Web full of malware. Several times now, Dashboard has opened up security holes, and its use of WebKit is directly to blame. It's IE/Win with ActiveX all over again: the maintainer is more responsive to security holes, but the concept remains fundamentally flawed.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Was Dashboard inspired by Konfabulator? Frankly, I hope not, because I don't see how Apple could take a look at Konfabulator and then make such a horrible blunder as to have WebKit do the rendering, rather than building in a clean separation between widgets and a Web full of malware. Several times now, Dashboard has opened up security holes, and its use of WebKit is directly to blame. It's IE/Win with ActiveX all over again: the maintainer is more responsive to security holes, but the concept remains fundamentally flawed.

I'm not sure I agree.

Dashboard and Safari use WebKit... so naturally when WebKit has an hole, everything that uses it has a hole. I believe this is much different than integrating WebKit with say... the finder (as IE was fused into Windows).

Visit this link for a list of apps using WebKit:
http://wiki.opendarwin.org/index.php...s_using_WebKit

[besson3c]

Apple is the innovater in the Desktop space, Linux/OSS are the innovaters in the server/high performance computing space, where Apple generally does very little.

I know that the server space is not really Apple's bread and butter market, but perhaps Apple being the innovater in computing as a whole should be qualfied.

(Incidently, the XServe is quite overpriced by around $800.. just priced it in comparison to compariable hardware the other day)

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by besson3c

(Incidently, the XServe is quite overpriced by around $800.. just priced it in comparison to compariable hardware the other day)

The comparison that was done at WWDC wasn't accurate?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Apple is the innovater in the Desktop space, Linux/OSS are the innovaters in the server/high performance computing space, where Apple generally does very little.

Actually the different flavors of Unix (Aix, Tru64, Solaris) were driving the innovation in the server and hpc space, not Linux.

Originally Posted by besson3c

(Incidently, the XServe is quite overpriced by around $800.. just priced it in comparison to compariable hardware the other day)

I don't think so. Don't make the mistake of just adding up the cost of the components. If you have ever held server-grade hardware in your hands, you'll know the difference. The XServe is a regular entry-level rackmount server.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Paco500

I seem to remember that feature in RedHat in the late 90's, but it didn't look anywhere near as pretty.

You could position a window so it was half off the screen, and toward the direction of another desktop. You'd then switch to that desktop and the other half of the window would be there, then you could finish dragging it.

It's been around since the 80s on XWin/Solaris on Sun machines. My dad had one for work.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Actually the different flavors of Unix (Aix, Tru64, Solaris) were driving the innovation in the server and hpc space, not Linux.

I don't think so. Don't make the mistake of just adding up the cost of the components. If you have ever held server-grade hardware in your hands, you'll know the difference. The XServe is a regular entry-level rackmount server.

It is entry-level, but it is still overpriced. Check out this similarly equipped server from HP:

http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en...9-1121486.html

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

The comparison that was done at WWDC wasn't accurate?

Don't think so, see my reply to OreoCookie.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by besson3c

It is entry-level, but it is still overpriced. Check out this similarly equipped server from HP:

http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en...9-1121486.html

Have you read the specs? The 2 GHz standard config (which costs $2550, only the configuration with a single 1.83 GHz Xeon one costs $2250) has only one cpu. If you customize your config to add a second, you have to add another $750 (in the online shop). A combo drive sets you back another $150. To be fair I have subtracted $550 for the three-year extended warranty. So I got a total of $3,457.00 -- which is more expensive than the XServe.

So Apple's price-tag is very competitive and not overpriced.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Have you read the specs? The 2 GHz standard config (which costs $2550, only the configuration with a single 1.83 GHz Xeon one costs $2250) has only one cpu. If you customize your config to add a second, you have to add another $750 (in the online shop). A combo drive sets you back another $150. To be fair I have subtracted $550 for the three-year extended warranty. So I got a total of $3,457.00 -- which is more expensive than the XServe.

So Apple's price-tag is very competitive and not overpriced.

Ahhh.. you're right about the additional processor, I was reading this wrong. That does change things I guess.

Of course, even the cheapest warranty option includes some on-site support within 4 hours, so perhaps it's unfair to compare the two directly since HP is going for a whole other demographic in the enterprise market.


The XServe could make a pretty nice little server for small business or education doing non-mission critical things though.

[OreoCookie]

Well, for the price of HP's server you can add AppleCare (Premium) as well (it's $950 for the XServe G5).

The big difference is that Apple only has this one server while HP covers the whole spectrum. HP's service is good (and sometimes well worth it), but expensive. I'm not sure what constitutes mission-critical for you, but at least the server you compare it to is one of the most popular servers out there that have all the redundancies average businesses need. If you need anything more than what these two offer, you probably won't even care if it costs $2000 more or less.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Well, for the price of HP's server you can add AppleCare (Premium) as well (it's $950 for the XServe G5).

The big difference is that Apple only has this one server while HP covers the whole spectrum. HP's service is good (and sometimes well worth it), but expensive. I'm not sure what constitutes mission-critical for you, but at least the server you compare it to is one of the most popular servers out there that have all the redundancies average businesses need. If you need anything more than what these two offer, you probably won't even care if it costs $2000 more or less.

I guess it depends on how you classify average businesses? I guess the area in which so-called enterprise level stuff differentiates itself from XServe class servers is in hot-swappable parts (i.e. RAM, hard drives), number of processors, the usual sorts of CPU/IO bandwidth metrics and capacity, etc., and on-site support. Does Apple's premiun warranty thing offer on-site support? How quickly do they promise they can get there?

Some of the bigger server providers like HP have also developed some server-side software specific to that machine or service contract. Apple, of course, develops stuff for OS X Server, but most Unix sysadmins that I know of are not at all interested in running OS X Server in mission critical environments, rightfully so.