Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Desktops > Apple to stop selling xserve

Apple to stop selling xserve (Page 2)
Thread Tools
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2010, 12:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Would it not be possible to have OS X and OS X Server built as one package, configured as necessary? Or is that too much of a headache, esp. with consumers fiddling too much with server type functionality?


Out of interest's sake, why did they choose the Xserve?
I don't know if OS X Server uses a different kernel than OS X Client, but it would make sense for Server to use a more optimized kernel at least lacking driver support for consumer devices. If you are running a different kernel with different alterations, it's generally wise to treat it as a completely different OS.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2010, 01:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Maflynn View Post
What business sector was the xserve marketed for? I always considered that it was directed for the larger organizations.
Small business. The XServe is in no way designed for large companies in mind, unless they want to build a very large cluster out of cheap hardware Google style, in which case they'd probably do so with homemade boxes since this would make far more sense. Google can do this because they have the physical space and staffing, but to other large companies it probably be cheaper for the individual nodes of their clusters to be beefier to save costs in maintenance, electricity, physical space, software licensing, service contracts, etc.

The XServe was a nice low-end server, but even then it was pricey and not probably not terribly competitive especially towards the end of its life, especially compared to home-built servers. I've also heard some mixed reports on their service contracts from the Slashdot and similar crowd (i.e. non Mac faithful), depending on their locale. The 24/7 service and keeping every area of the country well staffed in order to maintain a strong reputation was probably also a huge liability for Apple.
     
l008com
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Stoneham, MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2010, 02:22 PM
 
This is kinda crappy, and also kind of weird. Replacing a rackmount server with a tower? I don't think the data centers are going to like being sent a giant mac pro. Plus the Xserve has to have the lowest R&D cost of any Mac. It only has ONE side, and that side hasn't changed significantly since day 1. They don't have to have jonathan ives coming up with ground breaking new designers. Every Xserve update is a speed bump. You probably break even from R&D costs if you sell 10 of these things. It seems very odd that they would ditch them, and instead direct you to a tower without redundant power supplies, that with a proper mounting kit, would take up 4u in a rack. $200/mo instead of $50/mo.

I have an older G5 Xserver set up as my web/db server and it's great. My next one will probably be a used intel Xeserve. But after that, It's going to suck going back to a tower.

AND ANOTHER THING. What is the point of OS X Server? Who is that OS for? It's marketed as the Server for the average Joe. But anyone who has ever used it, knows it is FAR FAR from that. Setting up Web service, File Sharing, DHCP etc are pretty easy. But everything else, like mail, and especially the calendar server... these are NOT do-it-yourself. Apple's whole Server philosophy seems to be lost.

Also, do you love how Apple is removing non-portable models while adding new portable Macs all the time. It's kind of insane. It SEEMS like Apple's dream is to be a laptop company, and for servers, just use cloud service.

.... and lastly, that is going to be the new Apple server. These data centers they are building. That's what I put my money on. Want a mail or calendar server? Don't buy a server, sign up for an apple 'cloud' server. But all the "cloud" junkies seem to forget that even a super fast 50 mbit internet connection is dog-slow compared to a gigabit lan connection. I don't like the way any of this is going.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2010, 02:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by l008com View Post
This is kinda crappy, and also kind of weird. Replacing a rackmount server with a tower? I don't think the data centers are going to like being sent a giant mac pro. Plus the Xserve has to have the lowest R&D cost of any Mac. It only has ONE side, and that side hasn't changed significantly since day 1. They don't have to have jonathan ives coming up with ground breaking new designers. Every Xserve update is a speed bump. You probably break even from R&D costs if you sell 10 of these things. It seems very odd that they would ditch them, and instead direct you to a tower without redundant power supplies, that with a proper mounting kit, would take up 4u in a rack. $200/mo instead of $50/mo.
I'm not sure if R&D costs were insignificant, but even if they were there was still the cost of running all of those experience service contracts.

I think that R&D costs were relatively significant *because* of those service contracts. It costs Apple money to send somebody out to replace a failed hard drive, so I'm sure they did a lot of testing of their components to find the most reliable in their lab tests because of this. Drive and RAM technology product lines and technology changes. There was also the technology that was unique to the server: the hot swappable drives, redundant power, etc. All of this requires testing too, and there is a software component to this too - how OS X notifies of a failing drive, the reliability and performance of software RAID during normal use and leveling, etc. All of these details were important to Apple in part because of their service contracts, but also because of the premium users paid in buying through a vendor like Apple rather than building a server on their own.

I have an older G5 Xserver set up as my web/db server and it's great. My next one will probably be a used intel Xeserve. But after that, It's going to suck going back to a tower.
Can I ask what draws you to using an XServe for running a website and database?

.... and lastly, that is going to be the new Apple server. These data centers they are building. That's what I put my money on. Want a mail or calendar server? Don't buy a server, sign up for an apple 'cloud' server. But all the "cloud" junkies seem to forget that even a super fast 50 mbit internet connection is dog-slow compared to a gigabit lan connection. I don't like the way any of this is going.
The tradeoff of some technological inferiority to a significant cost savings in small business seems to be a worthwhile one in the eyes of many, and there are instances where there is little to no tradeoff - even a gain.
     
l008com
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Stoneham, MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2010, 02:49 PM
 
Those service contracts you speak of, also cost a fortune. I doubt they are a money-loser but that's just an assumption.

I use my G5 Xserve for my websites because:
It was surprisingly cheap.
1U makes my database happy.
If a drive every fails, I can ship my data center a new one and they can so easily just pop it in.
G5 Xserve is very fast for a web server. Handles lots of traffic without breaking a sweat.
The only real alternative was an intel xserve/mac pro, which were still too expensive for my needs. Or a G5 tower, which lacks the expandability I want. And going with a rackmount server is nice.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2010, 03:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by l008com View Post
Those service contracts you speak of, also cost a fortune. I doubt they are a money-loser but that's just an assumption.
They could be. They require that somebody who really knows their stuff be available in every area within striking distance of all XServe customers. These are probably either salaried Apple employees or outside consultants that require a lot of resources to assess and evaluate. I'm not saying that Apple was losing money with these service contracts, but that even if they were profitable that they would still require resources to manage, and there is still the larger picture of how these relationships affected Apple's overall branding and reputation. None of this was insignificant, is my feeling.

I use my G5 Xserve for my websites because:
It was surprisingly cheap.
1U makes my database happy.
If a drive every fails, I can ship my data center a new one and they can so easily just pop it in.
G5 Xserve is very fast for a web server. Handles lots of traffic without breaking a sweat.
The only real alternative was an intel xserve/mac pro, which were still too expensive for my needs. Or a G5 tower, which lacks the expandability I want. And going with a rackmount server is nice.
No offense, but none of this sounds like anything unique to the XServe, and I don't understand the infatuation with the G5? Web servers require fast disk, memory, and a responsive/fast network, the CPU is not terribly relevant unless your pages are compressed on the fly, and even then there are many other CPUs that would be up to the task of not making this a bottleneck. Am I missing something?
     
l008com
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Stoneham, MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2010, 03:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
No offense, but none of this sounds like anything unique to the XServe, and I don't understand the infatuation with the G5? Web servers require fast disk, memory, and a responsive/fast network, the CPU is not terribly relevant unless your pages are compressed on the fly, and even then there are many other CPUs that would be up to the task of not making this a bottleneck. Am I missing something?
I'm not sure what your point is? That I should have picked up a G4 Xserve?

Also my pages ARE compressed on the fly, but this actually reduces server load, instead of increasing it.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2010, 03:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by l008com View Post
I'm not sure what your point is? That I should have picked up a G4 Xserve?
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you are justifying the value of the XServe, particularly G5 XServe in comparison to the alternatives that exist today? If you are just justifying the purchase of it at the time, while I might personally have been interested in something else, this sort of makes what I was saying irrelevant.

Also my pages ARE compressed on the fly, but this actually reduces server load, instead of increasing it.
No, it trades off network and disk usage with CPU usage. The end result is as you said - the server load is reduced, but only, and this is an important caveat, only if your CPU can compress all of those files at the volume in which you serve pages at faster than it would have otherwise taken to serve those larger files. For modern CPUs this is pretty much a given providing you aren't CPU bound with whatever you are doing.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2010, 04:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by l008com View Post
1U makes my database happy.
Why does your database care about the shape of the case?

Originally Posted by l008com View Post
G5 Xserve is very fast for a web server. Handles lots of traffic without breaking a sweat.
For non-trivial requests (trivial being redirects, etc) aren't you bottlenecked by bandwidth anyway? With a 10KB average file size you're limited by gigabit ethernet at just ~8k requests/second.
     
l008com
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Stoneham, MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2010, 04:08 PM
 
That was a typo, 1U makes my datacenter happy.
I've never tried to load test my server to it's breaking point, to see what the true bottleneck is. So I don't know. I can say the average file size is probably more like 3KB. And my web folder is run off a RAM disk, so I'm sure my server can easily handle whatever traffic my sites get.
     
boy8cookie
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: I'll let you know when I get there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 04:17 PM
 
This just folds into Apple pushing the consumer market rather than the creationist market they were once known for. Remember when the only people using Macs were graphic designers and video people?

I'm disappointed in this decision, mostly because it effects me directly. I manage IT for a production house running on Mac hardware. We've got 4 Xserves, and 14 Mac Pros, all running Xsan and OS X 10.6 Server. The workflow is pretty good, and doesn't require a lot of IT intervention (makes my life easy). It's not that it couldn't be done with a pure Mac Pro setup (it could), but I don't like Apple's movement away from this market.
     
egadsby
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 04:26 PM
 
Peace, Love, & Understanding,
Eric Thomas Gadsby
Goucher College’s Departments of Art and Science
[email protected]
     
l008com
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Stoneham, MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 04:27 PM
 
Hah, no bigger waste of time than that partition. If you want to change apple's mind, have everyone on that list BUY an Xserve. Then Apple will keep them coming. I love my xserve, but I bought it used. And my next one will be a newer, used one.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 04:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by l008com View Post
Hah, no bigger waste of time than that partition. If you want to change apple's mind, have everyone on that list BUY an Xserve. Then Apple will keep them coming. I love my xserve, but I bought it used. And my next one will be a newer, used one.

Why?

Couldn't you get newer and far better hardware under warranty from a different vendor and run Hackintosh on it if you really want to stick to using OS X Server? I also don't understand why you are so enamored with OS X Server for running a website and database, but I guess that's a whole other topic.
     
l008com
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Stoneham, MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 04:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Why?

Couldn't you get newer and far better hardware under warranty from a different vendor and run Hackintosh on it if you really want to stick to using OS X Server? I also don't understand why you are so enamored with OS X Server for running a website and database, but I guess that's a whole other topic.
Not for the $300 you can get a G5 xserve for. Plus I need the best possible reliability, as my server lives 1500 miles away in a data center. OS X Server on my Xserve has yet to crash. And if it did happen to crash, the server would reboot itself. I can also see if any of the internal components like the RAM, hard drives, power supply, and fans, are reporting any errors or malfunctions. Can a cheap generic server running a hacked version of OS X do any of that?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 05:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by l008com View Post
Not for the $300 you can get a G5 xserve for. Plus I need the best possible reliability, as my server lives 1500 miles away in a data center. OS X Server on my Xserve has yet to crash. And if it did happen to crash, the server would reboot itself. I can also see if any of the internal components like the RAM, hard drives, power supply, and fans, are reporting any errors or malfunctions. Can a cheap generic server running a hacked version of OS X do any of that?
Why on earth would you go with an old G5 XServe if you need the "best possible reliability" then? That makes little to no sense.

For starters: no console server for being able to reboot the server on your own (such as when it locks up), no OS support beyond what is there now, no easy way to replace a motherboard, power supply, or any other parts other than RAM or hard drives without doing some serious legwork to track this down since the proprietary Apple parts will be discontinued, a discontinued CPU and architecture that is no longer being supported, software that will probably eventually cease to work on this architecture, etc. If you are running Apache and MySQL, who knows whether these will compile or whether they will be maintained on the G5 - these need to be updated every once in a while to deal with security fixes.

Plus, you do not have the option of redundant power supplies (AFAIK this didn't make its appearance until the Intel XServe?!), and I'm not sure what the status of hot swappable drives are either.

There is software for RAM testing (although on any system for full RAM testing you'd want to be booted into a much tinier OS than OS X which is why these CD boot), likewise for hard drive testing, there is also the standard bezel lighting that indicates when there are memory, HD, or power failures managed by the motherboard, this is standard. I'm not sure about fan failures, but I'm sure this would be reported via the bezel as well under most systems - mine does.

There really is nothing all that special about the XServe, honest.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 05:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
there is also the standard bezel lighting that indicates when there are memory, HD, or power failures managed by the motherboard, this is standard. I'm not sure about fan failures, but I'm sure this would be reported via the bezel as well under most systems - mine does.
This much is rather useless, as visibility suffers some at 1500 miles.

Unless, of course, he sets up a Mac mini with a webcam to keep an eye on his server's status LEDs.
     
l008com
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Stoneham, MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 05:32 PM
 
besson3c makes lots of points that don't really hold water. But this thread really isn't about l008com's G5 Xserve. Is it? We can make it about it, if you want. It's been the best server I've ever owned. Much more stable on 10.5, than any 10.6 server's I've set up. 10.6's firewall still likes to block the server itself from getting an IP via dhcp. Nice 'feature'.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 05:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
This much is rather useless, as visibility suffers some at 1500 miles.

Unless, of course, he sets up a Mac mini with a webcam to keep an eye on his server's status LEDs.

Then get it to email home or send a page... What does the XServe do to notify?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 05:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by l008com View Post
besson3c makes lots of points that don't really hold water. But this thread really isn't about l008com's G5 Xserve. Is it? We can make it about it, if you want. It's been the best server I've ever owned. Much more stable on 10.5, than any 10.6 server's I've set up. 10.6's firewall still likes to block the server itself from getting an IP via dhcp. Nice 'feature'.

Suit yourself, just don't expect me to accept your "I need the most reliable server" rationale. There is indeed a reason why the XServes haven't sold better than they have, including the Intel XServe which could run any Intel based operating system. They are decent, but nothing all that special.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 05:37 PM
 
l008com:

In about a year and a half, though, it will be "unsupported" hardware, and you won't be able to get spares through Apple. That's a valid point.

Much of the rest of his argument stems from being the guy actually sitting in front of the rack, maintaining it, rather than being the guy who owns the server but pays somebody like besson to run it.
     
l008com
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Stoneham, MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 05:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Then get it to email home or send a page... What does the XServe do to notify?
Shouldn't you already know that, if you seem to already know that the Xserve does nothing special?
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 05:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by l008com View Post
Shouldn't you already know that, if you seem to already know that the Xserve does nothing special?
pwnd.
     
l008com
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Stoneham, MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 05:40 PM
 
Also understand that its 1500 miles away, so it doesn't matter if newer software doesn't support it. It's not getting newer software, it's going to run 10.5.8 for the 2-3 years it's in service, then it's getting replaced with a newer machine, and sold on ebay. Also I still don't see the reasoning why my G5 xserve is less reliable than a hackintosh. My hard drives are brand new. My ram is ECC and will report to me the minute it starts having any problems. You could argue the power supply, but you can get parts like that easily enough. The current xserves can have dual power supplies, so even that would be practically a non-issue. Mac Pros don't have an option for two power supplies
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 05:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by l008com View Post
Shouldn't you already know that, if you seem to already know that the Xserve does nothing special?
It was a leading question. Whether it puts up onscreen notification, logs something, or sends an email/page, none of this is unprecedented territory. What else could it do, call you on your cell phone?
     
l008com
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Stoneham, MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 05:41 PM
 
"I don't know how it works, I only know that it sucks"
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 05:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
l008com:

In about a year and a half, though, it will be "unsupported" hardware, and you won't be able to get spares through Apple. That's a valid point.

Much of the rest of his argument stems from being the guy actually sitting in front of the rack, maintaining it, rather than being the guy who owns the server but pays somebody like besson to run it.

I've been running several servers for a while now without physical access to the rack, and at my former job I admined gobs of servers that notified our operations center in the event of problems which in turn notified us - we didn't live by the racks.

There are lots of options for these sorts of things depending on the vendor. It is beyond ridiculous to think that only Apple would have thought about this problem and provided a special solution that is only available on the XServe while the rest of the industry remained in complete ignorance to this and decided not to buy XServes out of pure ignorance.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 05:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
pwnd.
How old are you, 15? Some of us are trying to have an adult conversation...

If this person is not interested in defending his rationale, I'll cut it out. That's his call, not yours.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 05:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by l008com View Post
"I don't know how it works, I only know that it sucks"

Better than "I'm just going to assume that because Apple told me so that no other product provides basic notification features and everybody else is just completely ignorant to this special Apple invention"
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 05:52 PM
 
l008com: I'm sorry for this, obviously you are getting offended by my debating this with you, so I'll stop... Whatever works for you!
     
l008com
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Stoneham, MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 06:19 PM
 
I don't even know where to begin.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 06:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by l008com View Post
I don't even know where to begin.

With continuing this line of debate, or with exploring alternatives?

I regret that this thread turned confrontational. I still suck at knowing how to prevent this from happening. I think part of it is my making the mistake in thinking that people want to have their technical decisions challenged for the purpose of making them better - whatever they pertain to. I need to learn how to get a better read on the situation, and I apologize for that.

I will gently point out that leaving aside the whole notification issue where this spiraled into head butting, there were other points that were made as to why a used G5 XServe may not be a good choice. On internet forums people seem to enjoy to look at one argument among several that were made and throw out the baby with the bathwater.

The software compatibility thing will be significant, as it is very easy for me to foresee Oracle or the Apache foundation slacking on making sure that Apache and MySQL (or PostgreSQL, lighttpd, whatever you use) build and work as expected on an obsolete architecture. There was also the point about buying replacement discontinued parts.

If you'd like some suggestions on alternatives, I will be happy to help as I can and I will try to be less jackassey about it
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 06:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
How old are you, 15?
Sometimes, yes.

Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Some of us are trying to have an adult conversation...
I expected better of you.

Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
If this person is not interested in defending his rationale, I'll cut it out. That's his call, not yours.
Sorry dad.

Those server racks sure are loud, aren't they? Get in your head, don't they.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 06:41 PM
 
Spheric: I'm not interesting in continuing this bickering with you. I don't know why conversations with you often devolve into this sort of thing, to speak my mind, it is annoying that you don't seem to have a handle over your own emotions so that we'd have a fighting chance of resolving these sorts of things - when we get to this point your posts always seem overly emotional to me. If that is not what was intended I apologize, but this might be the disconnect here because I don't get emotional at all about the actual subject matter. The bickering sometimes yes, but if I'm wrong about a particular point or my entire argument so be it. I don't see why when this happens we have to get into nose thumbing as oppose to just polite correction. This is not dogma for me.

All I know is that we often end up where we end up when we tread into subject matter that does not put Apple in a favorable light.
     
l008com
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Stoneham, MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 06:43 PM
 
*yawn* Let me know when you're done being the drama queen so the rest of us can continue talking about the Xserve.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 06:45 PM
 
I'm not stopping you.
     
l008com
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Stoneham, MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 06:45 PM
 
Well you kind of are.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 06:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Spheric: I'm not interesting in continuing this bickering with you. I don't know why conversations with you often devolve into this sort of thing, to speak my mind, it is annoying that you don't seem to have a handle over your own emotions so that we'd have a fighting chance of resolving these sorts of things - when we get to this point your posts always seem overly emotional to me. If that is not what was intended I apologize, but this might be the disconnect here because I don't get emotional at all about the actual subject matter. The bickering sometimes yes, but if I'm wrong about a particular point or my entire argument so be it. I don't see why when this happens we have to get into nose thumbing as oppose to just polite correction. This is not dogma for me.

All I know is that we often end up where we end up when we tread into subject matter that does not put Apple in a favorable light.
On this page, one of my posts pointed out a flaw in your example, one of my posts was defending a point YOU made against l008com, and a third commended l008com on a rather smart retort to a leading question from you.

You then decided to start bickering at me for being "15 years old" and somehow not "adult" enough for you, and now that the difference between us is that you don't emotionally worked up over this.

Pat yourself on the shoulder for a job well done.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 06:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
On this page, one of my posts pointed out a flaw in your example, one of my posts was defending a point YOU made against l008com, and a third commended l008com on a rather smart retort to a leading question from you.

You then decided to start bickering at me for being "15 years old" and somehow not "adult" enough for you.

Pat yourself on the shoulder for a job well done.

Passive aggressive much?

I'm done.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 06:59 PM
 


It's funny.

You're acting like I had *anything* to do with this thread.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 07:01 PM
 
Did you not write this?

pwnd.
Or attempt to mock me with this?

This much is rather useless, as visibility suffers some at 1500 miles.

Unless, of course, he sets up a Mac mini with a webcam to keep an eye on his server's status LEDs.
and this?

Those server racks sure are loud, aren't they? Get in your head, don't they.

What were you trying to accomplish here, if not provoke me?
     
Lateralus
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 08:12 PM
 
Everybody STFU.

Back on topic... I can't help but think that the death of the Xserve is a direct result of Apple's failure to use them as a means of carrying on the legacy of the multi-colored iMacs. Really though... IT guys have the same fickle personal preferences that any other normal human being has. How many might have pushed for an Xserve(s) had they been available in yellow, pink or an otherwise warm and inviting color to suit their magnanimous personality? Quite a few, I imagine.
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2010, 09:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
Everybody STFU.

Back on topic... I can't help but think that the death of the Xserve is a direct result of Apple's failure to use them as a means of carrying on the legacy of the multi-colored iMacs. Really though... IT guys have the same fickle personal preferences that any other normal human being has. How many might have pushed for an Xserve(s) had they been available in yellow, pink or an otherwise warm and inviting color to suit their magnanimous personality? Quite a few, I imagine.

Interesting point, but OTOH I've also met people that would probably be inclined to not buy a product *because* was available in multi-colors. I guess the thinking is that it's kind of hard to take a dalmatian colored server case seriously?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2010, 07:51 AM
 
Its an inevitable side effect of switching to Intel/x86. Using the same kit as everyone else has helped immensely in the consumer sector but Apple has gone from offering something different in the server market to offering the same as everyone else, albeit it better built but more expensive and not updated so quickly. I think I mentioned it before. Maybe they should bring back a PPC Xserve!

Here is another idea though. The Mac Pro and Xserve until the last MP update were virtually the same machine in a different form factor. The problem being that people who wanted workstations had no space for rack mounted units under their desks and would not put up with the noise if they did. People who want their power in racks are not going to waste space on the giant MP boxes in their racks, not to mention the likely stupid costs of whoever makes a rack mount kit for them out of meccano and charges a hefty premium on it.

Here is what I think Apple should have done:

Keep the Xserve alive as it for one more revision to bring it up to spec with its competitors. Then sometime Q1 or Q2 of 2011, combine the two products but more like the opposite way around to how they did it. Imagine this:

Instead of your nice designer office or studio with a bunch of massive grey workstation boxes taking up valuable space on or under desks, you put the workstations in the rack in the next room. All you have on your desk is your cinema display, keyboard, mouse and if you need one, USB DVD drive. And your Lightpeak hub.
Then you have nice fast connectivity, no noise from workstation fans ever (audio guys will like that one), no big lumbering metal boxes in your way. Its easier to secure one server room than try to find elaborate methods of bolting your Mac Pro to a radiator or desk. Even better, you can stick a spare workstation in your rack and run virtual OS of choice like a terminal server for the admin staff. You could run several admin or accounts machines just for Office or Sage from one Xserve (Its a much cooler name than Mac Pro, they should have kept it alive for that reason alone).

Thats how it should be done.

I suppose they could still do this if they wanted to. Lets hope eh?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2010, 03:40 PM
 
^^^ Rackmounting workstations in 2011 is just an exercise in inconvenience, esp. when Apple is the king of all-in-one designs.

---

So what is Apple gonna run their sites and iTunes off of? Mac minis? I think you can put four of them in a 1U rack.
     
l008com
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Stoneham, MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2010, 03:45 PM
 
I have a better question. All the people that run Xserves and send them to data centers, what are they going to do? My data center also happens to offer tower hosting, but most data centers do not. If you want to send them a mac pro, they'll charge you for 6Us. Or maybe 4U if someone makes a horizontal case like they used to make for G4 towers - but that would be harder to pull off with the Mac Pro. A lost of server admins are going to be very disgruntled.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2010, 04:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
^^^ Rackmounting workstations in 2011 is just an exercise in inconvenience, esp. when Apple is the king of all-in-one designs.

---

So what is Apple gonna run their sites and iTunes off of? Mac minis? I think you can put four of them in a 1U rack.


Whatever they run them off of now?

I *highly* doubt that they run their sites off of OS X Server. It's too expensive that way in providing hardware and electricity, and is completely pointless to boot.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2010, 08:02 PM
 
Rackmounting workstations is a great idea. Most of the people who use Mac workstations are either afraid to touch them or should never be allowed to.

You can have spare ones and never have to move anything more than a couple of cables around.
I think I already mentioned its more secure. iMacs are very tempting to thieves. Ask any school which has a significant number of them.
Apple doesn't mind businesses buying iMacs for admin machines, but they don't want them used for CS5 stations or FCP. They aren't going to stop you doing that, but the would prefer to sell Mac Pros. Otherwise there would be an iMac Server too.

I think we covered earlier in the thread that Apple makes some use of OS X Server since they use webobjects for some things.
I am fairly certain that Apple UK had some iTunes or maybe .Mac services running from Xserves a few years back since I know they did a massive refit of them and were re-purposing even the G4s which were well already out of date at the time. They had a lot of them too.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2010, 08:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
Everybody STFU.

Back on topic... I can't help but think that the death of the Xserve is a direct result of Apple's failure to use them as a means of carrying on the legacy of the multi-colored iMacs. Really though... IT guys have the same fickle personal preferences that any other normal human being has. How many might have pushed for an Xserve(s) had they been available in yellow, pink or an otherwise warm and inviting color to suit their magnanimous personality? Quite a few, I imagine.
You made everybody put aside their bickering and STFU for THIS ?

-t
     
l008com
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Stoneham, MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2010, 08:19 PM
 
If Apple wanted to move more xserves, maybe they should have made OS X Server BE what they advertise it to be, a "Take it out of the box, turn it on, and go" server. Instead of the "Take it out of the box, do an initial setup, fight with DNS services, reinstall OS and start over, this time using a different DNS name, do a few CLI hacks make the mail server behave properly, *surprise* Time Machine on OS X doesn't backup your mail spool" kind of OS.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:08 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,