Should Apple release OS X SERVER for x86?

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by ChrisH3677, Oct 15, 2004.

  1. ChrisH3677 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2003
    Location:
    Victoria, Australia
    #1
    I was thinking about the success Linux has had in the backroom. One of the main reasons for it was us nerds and geeks could experiment with it without having to cut out the pizza budget.

    As much as I'd like to try OSX Server in my org, I can't because the entry point is several thousand dollars.

    If Apple had OS X server for x86, I could easily justify giving it a crack.

    If it didn't work out, I'd only blown a few hundred, if it did, I could then justify buying Apple's own servers.

    Also, software would be more easily ported - such as Lotus Domino which IBM have a Mac client of (Lotus Notes) and a Linux server version but not the other way round.

    As well OS X Server would then get the same halo affect that Linux has (where it's starting to pick up desktop market share).

    All that said, I don't believe OS X desktop needs to be x86.

    What do others think?
     
  2. ChrisH3677 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2003
    Location:
    Victoria, Australia
    #2
  3. MisterMe macrumors G4

    MisterMe

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    USA
    #3
    You're not fooling anybody. If you were a professional computer administrator, you would not buy your snacks out of the company till. What's more, Linux-based servers are more expensive than the Xserve, not less so.
     
  4. RacerX macrumors 65832

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #4
    Running Mac OS X Server on x86 isn't going to make porting software to it any easier. NeXT and Apple had x86 versions of OPENSTEP/Rhapsody, that didn't spur on any developers to port software... Infact Rhapsody on PowerPC made many long time OPENSTEP developers drop x86 hardware altogether (which contributed to the demise of Rhapsody for x86).

    Further, it doesn't cost that much to setup a Mac OS X Server system. I had a client with extreme financial limitations that was in desperate need of a replacement server (for a Blue & White with hardware problems running AppleShare IP 6.3 which was also unstable). I got Mac OS X Server 10.2.3 (10 client) and an eMac (and a Firewire drive). The thing has been running flawlessly for a year and a half now. As I recall the setup was about $1500.

    The thing is, Apple is already making inroads with the Xserve. The single processor version is about $3000 and comes with Mac OS X Server unlimited license (which is worth $1000 on it's own).

    And if you really wanted to try Mac OS X Server, you could get it on ebay for a good price. And the 10.1 and 10.2 versions will run on Beige G3 hardware (which is under $100 now).

    The point is, there is little (read as none) advantage for any one to have Apple bring out Mac OS X Server for x86. Odds are it would be pirated a ton anyways. At least the way it is now, you have to have Apple hardware (which is what Apple makes their money on) to use their software... It is sort of a hardware key to the software.
     
  5. ChrisH3677 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2003
    Location:
    Victoria, Australia
    #5
    heheh - it's funny u should say that coz one of my counterparts at a neighboring council actually has a pizza budget in their IT budget! We all hate him for it. :D

    The thing with Linux tho is I can install it on any old PC lying around, it costs nothing to download (or nicks for a CD) and then if I find something I like I can consider a production system for it.

    I'll look at what RacerX said tho and maybe pick up an old g3 or early G4 and find a cheap version of OS X server.

    All the same, that's more expensive than playing with Linux - and our budget is so tight this year, I got grilled for buying someone a new mouse!

    PS Ours is a Windows environment plus 3 Linux machines - 1x Firewall, 1x Content filtering, 1x PDF generation and file serving and I'm always looking for altrernatives to Windows (and Linux)
     
  6. 7on macrumors 601

    7on

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2003
    Location:
    Dress Rosa
    #6
    The thing with OSX Server is that it is the same as the client. Except with a few extra apps in the "Utilities" folder. Porting it to x86 would also lead to people running OSX on their desktop x86s - pirated.

    Apple bundles their OS and hardware together mainly so that people never have to bother with hardware-OS incompatibilities. I have never had to "update my drivers" or so they say. If drivers need updating, Apple puts them in a 10.x.x release. I actually think this is wonderful logic and wish Windows would do the same (like make Windows only for Dells). Get rid of all the vanillas, or OEM.

    Anyhoo, if you do get Xserves, even if you can't get OSX working right for whatever reason you can always install Linux on them. There are Linux distros for the PPC and they work fine on Mac hardware. http://yellowdoglinux.com/ even sells Macs pre-installed with yellow Dog linux (A port of mandrake i believe).

    EDIT: Hell one Xserve G4 could do the work of those 3 Linux serves. File serving, PDF creation, Firewall? Content filtering I have no idea about. But the other things should be handled easily.
     
  7. Duff-Man macrumors 68030

    Duff-Man

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    #7
    Duff-Man says....I think the whole OS X on x86 argument, be it server or client, has been done to death 1000 times over on every Mac message board out there.....oh yeah!
     
  8. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #8
    If Apple sold specialised x86 hardware and tailored Mac OS X Server to only run on that, sure, it would be a good idea.

    Trying to handle everyone's generic x86 hardware, there is no way that they should do it.
     
  9. Nermal Moderator

    Nermal

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #9
    It's a port of Red Hat (4.0 is a port of Fedora), not that French rubbish.

    French: It has some interesting quirks, such as 'package cannot be installed, do you agree?' that are likely due to the developers not being native English speakers.

    Rubbish: It's buggy.

    I'm not trying to imply that everything French is rubbish :eek:
     
  10. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #10
    I was interested in the Mandrake distribution, simply because it was up to date compared to SuSE and YDL at that time, but backed away. I should probably put an early release of Darwin on my PPC604e machine.

    As for French software, I was pretty impressed with Intego's NetBarrier--less impressed with their customer service.
     
  11. jeremy.king macrumors 603

    jeremy.king

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Fuquay Varina, NC
    #11
    Yes they should. They should also start making PCs and drop the high priced hardware too.
    :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :eek:
     
  12. Apple Hobo macrumors 6502a

    Apple Hobo

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Location:
    A series of tubes
    #12
    Here's a question: what's been done to death more, the "MacOS on x86" or "Apple should make a two-button mouse" argument? :D
     
  13. iMeowbot macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #13
    That's a $200 headless x86 Mac with a two-button mouse and Radeon 99998XLZPRO++ with extra cheese, right?
     
  14. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #14
    Sure beats the "Who has a better billionaire hairstyle, Donald Trump or Bill Gates?" argument. ;)
     
  15. kronos2611 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    #15
    Personally I'm not convinced that Mac OS X Server should be released on x86. The x86 market is already flooded with Windows and Linux systems that it's unlikely that Mac OS would be able to make much headway - that is given the cost of maintaining an OS on multiple architectures for Apple.

    I can see it being useful for some people as a test bed, but doubt that Apple could ever be persuaded to put the money into such a venture. They don't have too look far for failures in doing such things. After all, Sun Solaris is huge in back offices and Internet Providers the world over, and most of it (I would guess around 99%) is running on SPARC, not x86.
     
  16. 5300cs macrumors 68000

    5300cs

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2002
    Location:
    japan
    #16
    NO

    Now can we just drop it already?

    1. Will Apple port OS X to x86?
    2. When will Apple make a 2-button mouse?
    3. Why doesn't Apple make cheaper computers?

    I'm sorry, but these 3 questions are leading to premature balding on my part.




    Seriously though, in terms of servers and playing around with them, Linux is going to be your cheapest alternative. OS X Server is prohibitively expensive, thought it is really easy to setup and get running. I wish it was cheaper too, but that's the way it's going to be. Why not look on eBay for cheap versions of 10.1 or 10.2 Server? I was lucky to get 10.1 Server with my Xserve, but I've seen 10.2 Server on Yahoo! Japan auctions for $100 or so.
     
  17. SiliconAddict macrumors 603

    SiliconAddict

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #17
    Ummm bull****.
     
  18. iCreate macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2002
    Location:
    Near Insanity
    #18
    I would rather see all software efforts go toward the PPC platform so that it may see further advancements in the PPC CPU and supporting architecture.
    I find it all far more interesting than anything on the x86 side.
     
  19. MisterMe macrumors G4

    MisterMe

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    USA
    #19
    No, Dell Computer.
     
  20. MacsRgr8 macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #20
    Or: "should Apple make a headless iMac?" :D
     
  21. tomf87 macrumors 65816

    tomf87

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2003
    #21
    I can get an HP DL380 G3 with dual 3Ghz procs, 2GB of RAM, and 3 72GB drives for around $5,000 USD. An XServe G5 with similar spec's is $6,300. It does have a little more disk space, but it's drive bays are full while the HP has 3 more left.
     
  22. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #22
    And a DL380 is a good machine, not like those craptastic Dell PowerEdge things :eek:
     
  23. tomf87 macrumors 65816

    tomf87

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2003
    #23
    Not sure what that was supposed to mean... Anywho, my point was that an x86 Linux server is actually cheaper out of the box than an XServe. ;)
     

Share This Page