Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses

Would You Buy A Mac OS X Server? 41

Posted by Cliff from the well-...-would-you? dept.
waterbug asks: "Slashdot has had recent stories on NeXT, integrating Unix with the Mac OS, OS X and X11, old Macs as terminals, and PPC distros of Linux. While all these stories have elicited scattered comments on the topic, I haven't really seen a good, focused discussion of whether Apple would be a viable manufacturer of OS X-based servers." Do you think Apple will be able to pull this off? I guess only time will tell, but it would be interesting to hear what you think about this right now.

"Imagine the following:

  • A real server box with 2 or 4 G4's and easy access to all the hardware
  • Mac OS X with full SMP support and all your favorite tools
  • All the cool NeXT/OpenStep stuff that comes with OS X
  • Redundant power supplies
  • Hot-swappable SCSI RAID
  • Industrial design that kicked ass, so that you'd want it out in the open instead of hiding on a rack or under a workbench
I think Apple has demonstrated that it has the skills to build such a box. The question is whether any of you would buy it. Admittedly, you'd probably pay a modest premium over an x86 solution, but would it be worth it for the enhanced compatibility, usability and style? Does OS X make Apple a more credible vendor of industrial-strength systems?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Would You Buy a Mac OS X Server? More

Would You Buy a Mac OS X Server?

Comments Filter:
  • I'd buy any Mac if I could afford it. Macs in the UK still cost sh!tloads.

    Then again, I'd buy a new PC box to replace my antique 486 if I could afford it...

    Oh well.
  • If you write applications that people want to use, they will. It all comes down to courting developers. No developers means no apps, means no reason to buy the machine.

    Since OS X has a Unix basis, porting applications should be easy (that is, the non-graphical ones). Unfortunately, the money and following will be with the GUI apps.

    It all comes down to getting developers and making sure developers to not have barriers when writing their app. MS has done a good job in courting developers. They do a whole lot for developers because they know, the more programs which are written for Windows means the more likely someone will buy a Windows based PC.

  • From what I've read, MacOS X doesn't use X; but it's own display system. I can't remember if this is Display PostScript or something else.

    How hard would it be to write an X server that ran inside this display system? Much like Xnest allows one to run a window manager inside a "mini-display".
  • MacOS X server certainly has it's work cut out if it's going to succeed. It has two main problems. First is lack of applications. It's in a similar position that of Linux a few years ago. I expect Jobs to push Ellison quite hard to get an Oracle port. Without that, big businesses just aren't going to take it seriously for heavy duty server use. Being BSD based, we can assume ports of Apache and Samba will appear shortly (if they haven't already), but without a heavy duty database (and in the minds of most decision makers, that means Oracle, rightly or wrongly), it'll remain as a niche file/print/web server. Secondly, it has to show significant advantages over the competition, and thanks to Linux, the competition is in pretty good shape at the moment. I doubt OS X will win on performance, and it can't win on cost, so it has to rely on other areas if it's to succeed. The only way I can see it doing well is if it comes with some stunning easy to use remote management software. Getting the UI right has long been one of Apple's strong points, so perhaps it has a chance after all, but it's going to be a long hard struggle...
  • we can assume ports of Apache and Samba will appear shortly (if they haven't already)
    Yep, they have - Apache replaces the simple "personal web server" that comes with Mac OS 8/9.

    -dair
  • From what I've read, MacOS X doesn't use X; but it's own display system. I can't remember if this is Display PostScript or something else.
    It's something else - Display PostScript was the system under NeXT.
    How hard would it be to write an X server that ran inside this display system?
    Tenon [tenon.com] are working on "X for OS X", which appears to be exactly that.

    -dair
  • You're right in saying MacOS X (roman ten, not X-Window System) isn't an X server at all. It does use a type of display postscript (in that it's a resolution independant pseudo-vector thing). Here's some more information on MacOS X [arstechnica.com] (it's better than X, better than windows 2k, better than the old mac and BeOS, not as good as Berlin [sourceforge.net]).

    There was talk of a company already in the process of porting X to MacOS's Aqua. I tend to prefer native all the way though I guess it might be useful.


  • My friend, Macs cost a sh!tload eveywhere.
  • The trouble with Apple is that they don't seem to grasp the concept of Customer. The customer (or loyal user in this case) is going to freak when they see UNIX for the first time. IMHO, they care trying to capture a market where there shouldn't necessarily be.

    Linux (PPC) should be able to overcome MacOS X by leaps and bounds _just_ because LinuxPPC has more freedom for innovation. The key is education, (soft) marketing, dedication on the Admin part, and a little courage to introduce a Linux solution to the Apple platform.

    I say this because I have both MacOS X Server and Linux PPC installed. Linux performs better and though less intuitive, offers much greater flexibility to date.

    I guess I'm really soapboxing Linux, but from an experienced admin standpoint, I have to go with Linux.

    Now with that, I will challenge the LinuxPPC community to develope a more friendly UI to atalk administration. SAMBA has WASP (I think) an most all of MacOS X Server is admin through the Web.

    Curious point... unless they have changed the MacOS X chooser connection, I didn't see the MacOS X Server's AppleTalk name as a chooser item. You had to enter the IP AND have AppleshareIP Client !! A drawback for older systems running >7.6.1 .

    Hrmmmmmm.

    -Wes Yates
  • Yes Apache and Samba are out there, one of the things that Apple was bragging about is that Apache on OS X was serving more and running faster then a Sun box. Since Ellison is on the board I don't see a reason why Oracle wouldn't get relased.
  • >A real server box with 2 or 4 G4's and easy access to all the hardware

    my desktop has two cpus. servers need to scale. a 16 CPU machine out of apple MIGHT compete with my 10 CPU E4500 server.did i mention my 10 CPU machine has 64 bit CPUs, fibre channel and 20GB of RAM ? and connects to a hardware RAID array ? is apple 64 bit yet (essentialk for files over 2GB on the filesystem) ? does it support VxFS or equivalent log filesystems ? does it connect via fibre to a RAID array ? does it have 64 bit PCI slots ?

    > Mac OS X with full SMP support and all your favorite tools All the cool >NeXT/OpenStep stuff that comes with OS X

    a server needs no display postscript thing for a desktop. why should i waste CPU on displaying graphics ? what do i care for tools/GUIs etc as applications like webservers etc which are going to run without an interface anyway as a daemon.

    >Redundant power supplies Hot-swappable SCSI RAID Industrial design that kicked ass, so that you'd want it out in the open instead of hiding on a rack or under a workbench

    what use is that for a server ? its supposed to be dumped in a corner and forgotten about. redundant stuff/hot swap raid etc is already standard on all the machines i have including my desktop..you mean apple doesnt have that yet ?
    methinks you need a desktop and stop trying to wedge a desktop system into server space.
  • Personally, there are numerous reasons I wouldn't buy a Mac for desktop OR server use:

    Performance:
    The macs have great performance in a few key areas... I've never seen a better system for video editing. Other than that, I'm sorely disappointed with what they have to offer.

    Customization:
    The G3 line was a great leap in the right direction; pull a tab, and down swings the motherboard. Aside from these new systems (and even somewhat including,) there's just not enough room to get the parts you really want. Sure, there are a few obscure clones, but they're VERY obscure. Last one I heard of was a company in Germany 4 years ago. Building a PC, you can get every part from a range of vendors, and make something just right from scratch.

    Price:
    Ye gods! Apple must have a great towering ego to charge THAT much! Maybe it would be better if there were more choices for parts; more competition. For the price of a top-of-the-line Apple desktop, I could build 2 PCs that outperform it ridiculously.

    Marketing:
    This is a big point for me, and even if I liked the hardware/software, I'd avoid them for this.
    It seems that their marketing plan is:

    -Mudslinging
    From their very first commercial "See why 1984 won't be like '1984.'" all the way through "we apologise for toasting the Pentium in public." and up to the current ads. They're like a newsgroup troll that's latched onto someone and won't let go... like the JonKatz bashers on /.

    -Vague unprovable statements
    "Connects to a Microsoft network better than a Windows machine"
    "Why do I like Macintosh over Windows? You can put sideburns and a beer gut on a 50 year old guy, but that don't make Elvis." (huh?!)
    Also, does anyone have the current official specs on what makes a supercomputer? I'm fairly sure they've raised the bar, but I have no proof.

    -Boldfaced lies
    When they were claiming the iBook was toasting current Pentium systems on benchmarks, they neglected to say that the test they ran was written in C, and easily affected by compiler optimization, that it beat Pentiums in ONE category, and that other more standardized benchmarks made the iBook beg for mercy. "oops."

    -Stats
    (Good, useful advertising. Also hard to find. I have no complaint with these, I just wish they'd use them more.)

    (If Mac users are going to flame me for this, do the research first. Prove that I'm wrong. I'm writing this from memory so I may have made some mistakes, but "PeeCees suk, d00d!" isn't exactly going to change my mind on anything.)
  • Mac OS X brings all the reliability and customizability of UNIX together with the usability of a MacOS.

    There is a huge market for servers that "normal people" can configure. Right now only Windows NT Server fills the need. MacOS X is definitely better, in every way other than application availability, than the MS offering. That is the real market.

    It will not replace serious Sun machines, at least not for a while. But for small deparmental servers and company LAN's this is a serious contender.

  • What would you gain? (Score:4)

    by scotpurl ( 28825 ) on Wednesday August 16, 2000 @08:14AM (#852210)
    What can you get from an Apple server platform that you can't get elsewhere? Yeah, it'd be cool, but aside from that, what concrete things do you gain? Does cool hardware that no one outside the server room can see really mean better performance?

    I mean, if all I wanted was file sharing, then anything would work. If there's some sort of remote administration, or client-adminstration you gain from the server, like Tivoli/SMS, that'd be a neat add-on. But I'll bet you can buy 2-3 boxes for the price of one Apple server.

    My only hesitation is supporting a monopoly, be it Microsoft or Apple. Apple killed off all of their hardware competition, which was a shame, as I think some of their "competitors" were actually making better "Mac" hardware than Apple was (and at a lower price).

    But why do you want your server out in the open? People will play with it, unplug it, bump it, spill drinks on it (like the $300 DEC Alpha keyboard I toasted once), and have to listen to the @#!! RAID drives whining and spinning. Get that thing into another climate-controlled room with fire suppression, hidden wiring, and locked doors. If you want to play on the console, then you need one as a workstation, not a server. :-)
  • I think you are more interested in bragging about your machine than being serious about the value of Mac OS X systems.

    Mac's already have 64 bit PCI in all their tower systems.

    OS X has all the scalability of any BSD, that includes the ability to address 64bit file and memory spaces, on 64 bit hardware. Current Apple processors are 32 bit. Then again with a UNIX kernel moving to 64-bit should be easy.

    As to graphics, some people like to use them. It is nice to have several X terminals displayed on the same screen.

    Some servers have to be out in the open to impress clients that tour your facility. Some facilities don't have any use for large racks of servers. There are a lot of plcaes that can use the money you spend on racks to acquire another computer or two for use as a special purpose servers.

    If you have redundant hotswappable drives and power supplies in your desktop workstation, then you may be over spec. Are you doing some sort of batch processing that runs over 100 days per cycle ? If not maybe you should save a bit and get a couple of desktops next time around.

  • Yes, MacOS X uses an API based on Display PostScript, I do believe - but it's also based on the PDF format also, so basically you have one monstrous Adobe-supported graphics environment.

    On another note, there is work to add X server support to Mac OS X. In fact, I remember reading that John Carmack of all people was part of an effort to do just that. Also, as another has mentioned, Tenon Systems is working on an X server, so there should be a few options.

    -Smitty
  • Curious point... unless they have changed the MacOS X chooser connection, I didn't see the MacOS X Server's AppleTalk name as a chooser item. You had to enter the IP AND have AppleshareIP Client !! A drawback for older systems running >7.6.1 .

    That's because, as I understand it, AppleTalk is dead, it is not going to be a part of OS X. It's all AppleTalk-over-TCP/IP now.

    -Smitty
  • Oh come ON!

    You're pulling the Elvis line and the line preceeding it from an old "Why Mac" book that quoted various users when they were asked why they liked their Macs so much. These are some of the more obscure ones even - At elast mentions the stories people told in the book about having mountains of hardware all connected with no IRQ conflicts, etc - the real meat of the subject.

    So these 'Vague Statements' weren't even created by Apple, they just included what some USERS said in promotional materials.

    Also, about mudslinging - that doesn't seem very low-down-and-dirty to me. The '1984' commercial was more of a bandwagon technique - saying not to jsut go with the flow, be different, use a Mac.

    Pentium-toasting? That's more related to your 'specs' beef - and this is still nothing like the 'Pentiums aren't dolphin-safe' or anything liek that. geez...

    -Smitty

  • Sure. (Score:4)

    by Matthew Weigel ( 888 ) on Wednesday August 16, 2000 @08:52AM (#852215) Homepage Journal

    Based on the bitching and moaning (and relatively reasonable bitching and moaning) on the MacOS X mailing lists about the fact that Apple isn't selling MacOS X Server or their server systems right now, I'd say yes.

    And for those idiots who are claiming MacOS X will not have sufficient applications, I give you

    • Exhibit A: Classic.app -- run your original Mac apps with their Platinum interface in MacOS X!
    • Exhibit B: Carbon -- run some of your better behaved Mac apps with the Aqua interface in MacOS X!
    • Exhibit C: Cocoa -- run, with just a little porting, many of your favorite old NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP applications in MacOS X (sorry, requires source, or a vendor still around)
    • Exhibit D: Unix -- run your favorite command-line programs ported from BSD, Linux, or virtually any other UNIX, right in MacOS X!
    • Exhibit E: X -- being made available is an X Windowing Server for MacOS X -- port your favorite X applications, or run them remotely on that Onyx2000 and display them on MacOS X!

    And, for the record, if I got purchasing power in a small- or medium-sized network with UNIX servers after MacOS X is officially out, I'd certainly consider MacOS X as an option. Especially if NetInfo gets encryption like I've been hearing it would.

  • You're pulling the Elvis line and the line preceeding it from an old "Why Mac" book that quoted various users when they were asked why they liked their Macs so much. These are some of the more obscure ones even - At elast mentions the stories people told in the book about having mountains of hardware all connected with no IRQ conflicts, etc - the real meat of the subject.

    "Why mac" happened to be one of the peices of propaganda I had laying around. It WAS a customer quote in the book though. I don't remember seeing anything about having mountains of hardware without conflicts, though it might have been in there. Actually, a friend of mine has a G3, and he had to re-flash the ROM chip in his Voodoo 3 to make it work with a mac. It takes a fair bit of fighting to upgrade any hardware in his G3. (His ATI All-in-Wonder can't use it's own tuner box, and his CDRW drive is quite succeptable to radio interference.)

    So these 'Vague Statements' weren't even created by Apple, they just included what some USERS said in promotional materials.

    Could be, maybe not. You know the phone psychic ads with people going "Oh wow, how could you know something so specific about me? That's incredible!" They're an easy way to get away with advertising anything; just make it look like a customer said it, and it's no longer an official company claim.

    Also, about mudslinging - that doesn't seem very low-down-and-dirty to me. The '1984' commercial was more of a bandwagon technique - saying not to jsut go with the flow, be different, use a Mac.

    ...by showing the mindless legions of conformist IBM drones that all look alike, dress alike, and take orders from a big face on a screen. Believe me, I was into IBMs back then, and most of the users were the most unique people I know of (because computers in general weren't too mainstream.)

    Pentium-toasting? That's more related to your 'specs' beef - and this is still nothing like the 'Pentiums aren't dolphin-safe' or anything liek that. geez...

    No, I mean the commercial with the flaming Intel guy, and the fire extinguisher. I tried to find it on the Apple site, but I couldn't. (Jobs is right though, it does look tastier than the MS site. ;) ) It has nothing to do with specs. I also remembered the poster with the Pentium snail on it. Going to www.adcritic.com, I couldn't find a single IBM/intel/etc.. ad that mentioned Apple. (though I haven't watched them all, I checked out some intel ads.)

    Either way, my point is that Apple lowers themselves to things like that, and it still doesn't do them any good. Like I said in my original post, the Macs themselves are great for some things. My main problem is with the marketing dept. (I wouldn't care if the just insulted IBMs, but at least have some proof of superiority that can't be shot down.)
  • If you are comparing Mac OS X as a server to UNIX: NOT MUCH. You may even lose a little from the point of view of an experienced UNIX admin.

    If you are trying to build a network with limited staff resources and experience your only choice has been Windows NT. Apple is aiming squarely at Windows NT/2000 here.

    So, which one would you rather have in your network: BSD based Mac OS X OR Win 2K ? Given a real RDBMS I'll choose OS X every time. I trust those Unix guts to keep working. If they fail, I trust Apple's interface builders to have built something a brain dead idiot can figure out when I have to hire the eventual ASSE's (Apple Systems Software Engineers aren't here now, just wait, they may use a different name though.)

    To address the idea of why you want your server out in the open: marketing. When you bring the PHB-type investors and clients around your little internet start-up they look at rack systems and think, "What a mess, these systems look like junk, they must be out of date." Show the same morons (morons who happen to have your money) some pretty SGI or Apple servers and they think, "WOW- these guys have all this futuristic computer stuff. They must know what they are doing."

    Stupid but true.

    Another argument against racks: They cost money. If I have a few systems (less than 5) I'd rather stick each machine in its own case and leave work room around them. The stupid cases cost less money, and might look better.

  • Just to quickly try to open your eyes: servers are not only the big iron that you're talking of. The Sun you're talking of is a great machine, but there are many other categories of servers. Apple is not in the market to try to displace Sun, IBM, HP or others from the market you're thinking of. They are targeting what is often referred to as "workgroup" servers.

    I have no statistics on web server sales, but in terms of units, I guarantee that the single and dual-processor systems stemming from traditional desktop architectures are pretty considerable. Apple wants to be able to sell you the whole solution right now. Not only do they want to have an iMac or a G4 Tower on your desktop, but they also want some machine running OS X server as the file/web/print/mail/calendar/etc. server. It is comparable to the position that NT took when it first came out in a way.

    Also, with a dual or a quad-processor system, Apple will be able to gain market share in the web server market, especially to have a stronger platform to deploy WebObjects on.

    Anyway, work is calling, but please realize that your needs aren't everyone else's needs.
  • Apache was ported to OS X a while ago, but they won't be selling many servers if they have more bugs like this one [slashdot.org]. 32 simultaneous CGI requests would crash the server. This story was from 6/99. Did anybody hear when they came out with a fix for this bug?

    They also used some tricks to speed up Apache by running it in kernel space memory. Similar to what NT does with IIS.

  • Either way, my point is that Apple lowers themselves to things like that, and it still doesn't do them any good.

    Exhibit A: The iMac. It definitely does them good. Maybe not with you, but it works for other people.

    My main problem is with the marketing dept.

    I can respect that, though I do not agree with it. Everyone has a different idea of what is acceptable and what is not in marketing, I happen to beleive that Apple is comparing rather than mudlinging, I reserve that term for straight trash talk whose only point is to state that another product is crap. If you point out how your product is better, then it's compare and contrast.

    The last point I would like to make is that the reason Apple has to say "The G3 is faster" is because as far as your average Joe is concerned, the Pentium is the only thing ever invented for a processor. Most of the public is ill-informed, the best source of information they heve is their 11-year-old neighbor kid but they insist on following what the Intel ads and the Best Buy salesmen tell them. nevermind that AMD and Apple offer superior (IMHO) products.

    -Smitty
  • Excellent argument. If only the rest of the story comments were articulated this well.
  • The macs have great performance in a few key areas... I've never seen a better system for video editing. Other than that, I'm sorely disappointed with what they have to offer.

    Don't forget DTP and prepress. I've used Quark on a WindowsNT workstation machine and it's not fun. It's painful. And, oh, Photoshop has the tendency to run a bit better on the Mac as, iirc, Adobe is far more agressive with its Mac optimization than its Windows optimization

    ----
  • Actually, a friend of mine has a G3, and he had to re-flash the ROM chip in his Voodoo 3 to make it work with a mac.

    I have the same. The Voodoo3 came configured for PC use. Something about big-endian whatever. Anyway, it took a whole 10 minutes (ok, maybe 12 including downloading the ROM data) to convert it to Mac.

    It takes a fair bit of fighting to upgrade any hardware in his G3. (His ATI All-in-Wonder can't use it's own tuner box, and his CDRW drive is quite succeptable to radio interference.)

    How is any of this Apple's fault? ATI probably never got the all-in-wonder drivers right, and the CDRW drive probably isn't grounded (through the AC wiring) correctly.

    My G3 has never required any bit of fighting to upgrade. I've changed out hard drives (standard IDE), added RAM (PC100), upgraded the Apple ROM, added the Voodoo3, and even overclocked it with out a bit of trouble.

    Don't know what your friend's problem might be.


    --

  • Confusing Topic (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Mac OS X Server is an existing operating system (about two years old), and would be significantly different than a server running the soon to be released OS X.
  • Where MacOS X might have a niche as a server is for an organisation that is too small to have a UNIX Admin - I suspect that it's going to have a hugely better learning curve than UNIX, and be easier to do simple administration.

    I suspect that if you've got someone who can administrate UNIX well, then you'd be better going with a UNIX or Linux solution. MacOS X (which I assume this discussion is actually about, rather than MacOS X Server which has been around for a while) looks like it's going to be a great desktop and workstation environment, but doesn't AFAIK (I am not a server expert) offer much extra particularly aimed for serving (Web Objects is one such thing?).

    > My only hesitation is supporting a monopoly, be it Microsoft or Apple. Apple killed off all of their hardware competition, which was a shame, as I think some of their "competitors" were actually making better "Mac" hardware than Apple was (and at a lower price).

    Yes they did (in some ways, although I don't think the quality of many of the clones was as good). That was one of the reasons that Apple (arguably) needed to kill them. The argument as I understand it was that the clonemakers were taking the fruits of Apples R&D (motherboard designs, etc), putting faster CPUs in them (which they could do because they were working with smaller volumes, and were nimbler than Apple anyway), then undercutting Apple. This wasn't particularly sustainable - Apple doing a lot of the work, and others taking the profits.
  • I work with "normal people" and computers all day. If someone is familiar with windows servers for SOHO they aren't just going to up and go get a friggin MAC! NT has enjoyed sucess because it is a windows OS and people who use windows on the desktop understand it. People familiar with MAC OS on the desktop don't fool with servers (except for my brother in law...) as a general rule. The Motorola RISC processor is impressive, but what about ALPHA, or SPARC, or even an RS/6000 with that same Motorola! I seriously doubt that OS X is going to be taking admins of linux, sun, windows, whatever systems over to MAC OS, that's more or less a joke...
  • A long time ago it was called OS X Server 1.0.2 The latest Version is v. 1.2
  • Curious point... unless they have changed the MacOS X chooser connection, I didn't see the MacOS X Server's AppleTalk name as a chooser item. You had to enter the IP AND have AppleshareIP Client !! A drawback for older systems running >7.6.1 .

    That's because, as I understand it, AppleTalk is dead, it is not going to be a part of OS X. It's all AppleTalk-over-TCP/IP now.

    Actually if you set up AppleTalk properly, unless you are doing AppleTalk through a serial cable, it shows up just fine in the chooser. Heck my FreeBSD box running netatalk shows up to both OS X Server, DP4, and 9.0.4. AppleTalk isn't dead at all. It just isn't running over slow serial connections, but TCP/IP (10/100) and gigabit ethernet if you buy a dual G4.

    On a note about seeing UNIX... the consumer won't see the UNIX part AT ALL. There will be no BSD tools distributed with the OS. You will have to add them in after install from either Apple Downloads, OS X Server add-ons, or 3rd party. Apple will probably have bsd.pkg downloadable. Another note to consider is that the people at Macworld... even the grannies were goo goo gaga over OS X DP4.1 Kodiak, and that still has a command line since it's a developer system. Everyone realizes it's time for a change, they just didn't know what.

  • Aren't we talking about OS X, not OS X Server? The former is unreleased, the latter has been around a while.

  • Okay before I get flamed, I'll start right off with the fact that they said you will need 64Meg of RAM to run OS X (last I heard). If that is the case then as a server NO. As a desktop workstation YES. Servers need light compact OSes so that the applications can have most ofthe resources and the system should use little depending on the app. System calls can be expensive on the resource end.

    If OS X Server is what you are talking about and this is just another UNIX type OS without the GUI, then maybe. Lets see the benchmarks. Fact is that Solaris is probably the best thing for a web server around these days. FreeBSD on intel or Linux also works. So why not another BSDish UNIX like OS X.

    I think it is great that they are putting UNIX with Macish interface. It will make a stable and easy to use desktop workstation. Here is the thing about Mac. Tehy are and never were ery big on the networking world and it will take them time to catch up.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I don't want a lot, I just want it all ;-)
    Flame away, I have a hose!

  • There is a huge market for servers that "normal people" can configure.

    I work in tech support for a web-based email server product, and the customers who are "normal people" are the worst. They go out and buy Cobalt RaQs, because they hear those are easy to set up and easy to administer, but as soon as they have a problem that they can't solve through the web interface, they don't know what to do. This is major pain.

    I'm looking forward to OS X -- I think it's great that Apple is doing it. But when OS X encourages more underqualified people to become "sysadmins," because it promises to be easy, I'm not looking forward to what my tech support mailbox will look like then.
  • Yes, I stand corrected. Thanks.

    Wes
  • >If you write applications that people want to use, they will. It all comes down to courting developers. No developers means no apps, means no reason to buy the machine.

    Precisely, and pissing off developers isn't good either.

    BSD (should) being POSIX compliant, offers developers much more flexibility in their development... it cuts platform development down.

    Lets take Photoshop. Adobe already has a port for IRIX. This (seems) simple enough to move to MacOS X Workstation if needed, but how about all the rest of the Mac apps. How many developers are willing to suddenly switch gears.

    I realize Apple has Carbon (API??) to help the transition, and that's all good for big developers. But what about the small developer shops??

    Anyhow, I totally agree with the first paragraph. The hurdle will be taking the most proprietary company known and opening it up for development. I hope they (Apple) will stick to their (seemingly) commitment to Open Source.

    Wes Yates
  • When Steve comes down from the mountain with a quad G4 server running OS X, I will bow down before him. As long as we are talking about the year 2000, not 2003. Sheesh!

    I know this site is slow, but the server has a translucent case.

  • > I realize Apple has Carbon (API??) to help the transition, and that's all good for big developers. But what about the small developer shops??

    What makes Carbon only suitable for big developers? Its merely a subset of the MacOS API that will be compatible with MacOS X, if you write to Carbon, your apps will run on both MacOS 9 and MacOS X, and since its just a subset of the current MacOS API, all you potentially need to do is replace some of your system calls with ones that exist in Carbon.
  • Okay, that's enough bragging about a system that is a hell of a lot more powerful than my college of 10,000+ has for the central student server. (What the heck kind of business are you running that needs that kind of horsepower? I used to work customer support for mission-critical e-commerce and healthcare claims system that didn't have a third of that power.)

    Anyway, I'll address your questions:

    is apple 64 bit yet (essentialk for files over 2GB on the filesystem) ?

    Yes and no, in much the same fashion as NT handles 64-bit filesizes without being fully 64-bit compliant. You don't directly use 32-bit sized file pointers in the Mac OS. I believe, though I could be wrong, that the Mac OS does handle this with HFS+.

    does it support VxFS or equivalent log filesystems ?

    No, not yet anyway, but Apple isn't attacking the market that needs such things.

    does it connect via fibre to a RAID array ?

    Only with 3rd party expansion cards.

    does it have 64 bit PCI slots ?

    Yes, if by "it" you mean the G4 series. No, if you mean iMacs and notebooks -- and the Cube.

    why should i waste CPU on displaying graphics ?

    What kind of site are you running that's choking down 100% CPU usage on a regular basis? Most highly-loaded sites that I'm familiar with could've spared 5% or so average CPU usage for an inactive GUI except for the customers that were running their system far past what it was really designed to take.

    what do i care for tools/GUIs etc as applications like webservers etc which are going to run without an interface anyway as a daemon.

    Maybe you don't, but some people might like a less painful interface to those tools. I guess your needs are everyone's needs, though.

    what use is that for a server ? its supposed to be dumped in a corner and forgotten about.

    That's your opinion. Some people would disagree. It's not like you have to trade off performance for a decent appearance. Look at the Cobalt Qube. Some people have taste. (Heck, some people have shift keys.)

    redundant stuff/hot swap raid etc is already standard on all the machines i have including my desktop..you mean apple doesnt have that yet ?

    Okay, well that's just weird, because the majority of people don't need to hot-swap the drives in their desktop machine. So, no, Apple doesn't have that yet, as most Macs a desktop systems. I don't think it will be too long before they start entering a more serious server market, like the attempted to in the past with the AIX-based Apple Network Server. Nice machine with all the mid-range server niceties of the day.

    methinks you need a desktop and stop trying to wedge a desktop system into server space.

    Methinks you should try to understand that your server needs are not everyone else's server needs. You're obviously running some high-end hardware -- one of Sun's top of the line systems -- for special needs. Not everyone needs a god-awful UltraSPARC system like that, and the majority of users would consider your "desktop system" a low- to mid-range server. I've seen large banking and healthcare companies run all their transactions through systems with around %20 of an E4500's power just fine. A good, beefed-up Mac OS X system with the right kind of software support could serve their needs just fine and could do it without the need for the hideous, complex UI experience that funded my support job in the first place.
  • "(is apple 64bit yet?)" Idiot, lol. The G4 processor is currently 128bit, and Apple has multi-processor systems out... althought not 16 processors in one box, they are multiprocessor none the less...

Slashdot Top Deals

You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken

Close