PDA

View Full Version : New Mac Pro's being designed.



the8thark
24th April 2011, 08:58 AM
I also read that they are re-designing the Mac Pro case.
Apple Developing Narrower, Rackmountable Mac Pro Prototypes? - Mac Rumors (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/21/apple-developing-narrower-rackmountable-mac-pro-prototypes/)
They supposedly are redesigning the case so it's rack mountable. Cause with no more X-Serves they don't have a rack mountable server option anymore.

mattequalsmatt
24th April 2011, 09:59 PM
I'm not sure why they'd want to do this, hey. Mac Pros are for the desktop, rack mounts are for servers. If you're using a mac pro's as servers, seems to me like you're doing it wrong.. but at the same time, with no XServe, how are you meant to serve? Maybe if they make rack-mounting an optional add-on it could work?

I dunno about you, but if I was splashing out on a new fancy Mac Pro to show off to my mates, I wouldn't want ugly rails on the side.

mac_man_luke
24th April 2011, 10:35 PM
Id imagine the will just make them the right size so they can be turned on there side and a rack rail added

rav3n
24th April 2011, 10:41 PM
I imagine they need to. The mac mini isn't upto scratch for anything more then a small business server, and tower style servers certainly arent popular in server rooms and data centers. So with no rack mountable option apple are out of that market.

stewiesno1
25th April 2011, 07:42 AM
Hmmm. Thats an unusual twist.
Personally I think they should have continued the Xserve and MacPro in their current formats but just updated features. I'd like to see another line added to the model range though - something between the iMac and the Mini like a smaller MacPro. Currently if you need to add third party PCI cards for audio,video etc then the MacPro is the only model but they are power-hungry beasts. Something that has two drive bays and maybe two PCI slots so you could update or add drives , video cards etc would fit the bill perfectly for a lot of people.

Stewie

bartron
25th April 2011, 11:00 AM
The problem with Apple servers is they don't do a lot in the enterprise space that Linux doesn't do better. I'm not surprised they would want to unify the Mac Pro into a rack mountable case as it gives those that want to use a powerful OS X server to rack mount them (important for a lot of reasons) as well as sell Mac Pro's to people without having two separate product lines, one of which I doubt ever made Apple any money. They would have put a lot of effort into designing the 1U server only for it to be used rarely.

violaceous
25th April 2011, 12:17 PM
Who would want to waste 3U on a single server?

More to the point, it would be a complete waste of the depth of the cabinet, I can't quite see the rumored mac pro being 36" deep.


They would have put a lot of effort into designing the 1U server only for it to be used rarely.

I've seen a reasonably number of xserves around, I think you might be underestimating just how many apple actually sold

bartron
25th April 2011, 12:26 PM
Who would want to waste 3U on a single server?

More to the point, it would be a complete waste of the depth of the cabinet, I can't quite see the rumored mac pro being 36" deep.

I've seen a reasonably number of xserves around, I think you might be underestimating just how many apple actually sold

Depth of the cabinet isn't the issue. There are plenty of devices that don't utilise the entire cabinet depth (routers, patch panels, KVM's etc). As for height, 3U is nothing if you just want a handful of Mac servers. Height only becomes an issue if you want to create a server farm, then the less space taken up by a server the better (and for those, you get blade servers that can fit 6-8 servers in 3U of space)

It's a compromise because Apple weren't selling enough 1U dedicated servers to justify their existence (compare the number of x-serves to the number of servers from Dell, HP, Sun, IMB etc. I'd be surprised if Apple managed to get more than 1% of the market). The alternate is no rack mountable server from Apple.

The other thing hurting apple is that OS X is a ho-hum server OS for the majority of server related tasks (file, print, database...things that Linux does really well). Only really useful for stuff that only OS X does which ends up being special case only (like xgrid).

Steve_D
25th April 2011, 02:05 PM
I'd be surprised if Apple managed to get more than 1% of the market

Well said Bartron

I remember when they pulled the xserve and suddenly the internets was a flood with people cursing apple saying that they have destroyed their business and how could they stop making these servers etc.

The thing that makes me laugh is that if all these people ACTUALLY bought xserves then maybe Apple wouldn't have pulled the product.

Lets be realistic though when it comes to Apples servers, the Mini Server works perfectly well for what 80% of its customers need. With its basic print, web and file hosting.

Its the other 20% that are the niche market when it comes to servers and id have to say that out of that 20% approx. 95% of them just want the cheapest server they can afford, they are not brand loyal.
The 5% that are left out of that lot use things like xgrid and the likes for projects like Final cut etc. (again nothing a few Pro's couldn't do Thunderbolted together)

When you look at the bigger picture this last 5% would equate to very very few actual people. And even less money or profit for Apple.

All apple are doing is making it easier for that last 5% to house the servers they would have been buying anyhow.

Its not really as complicated as the internets fanbois and nay sayers makes it seem. (natural selection for computers)