This is ridiculous and for some reason makes me quite angry! If you are going to rack-mount kit, why on earth would you buy Mac Pros? They are just Intel based x64 architecture now-a-days. You can buy cheaper, better performing x64 hardware for this price that is DESIGNED to be rack mounted, and you can put OSX on it!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Sonnet Announces New 4U Enclosure to Rack Mount Two Mac Pros
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
After the Xserver didn't hit targets, they have left the field. Don't hold your breath.
----------
You got it!
I understand it. They *did* make a rack mount pro machine, and it tanked because it was expensive and niche.
Apple understands their market and has done a great deal of research about the sorts of environments the Mac Pro is used in, and the vast, vast, vast, vast, vast majority will be desktop setups. For the small number of environments where a rack mounted system is desired (for example, in OB environments, or small edit studios) a third party solution for the nMP would be the more cost effective solution - especially if Apple made the nMP small, which they did.
A 48 core rack mounted unit isn't even remotely close to being intended for the same market as the Mac Pro, never has been and never will. I can't even imagine why anyone would compare the two.
It's nice to see the speed at which this has been rolled out if only to prove to Apple that there's a valid market for OS X server hardware. Now, why they would re-orient the the thing to basically slow the process of heat venting I don't know. Hopefully, someone will release an enclosure that preserves the optimal vertical position for efficient heat venting as it was engineered.
While the point you make is an assumption, it is a relatively reasonable (if apologetic) one.
So I'll amend my statement by saying that I just don't agree with Apple's decisions sometimes (lately, most of the time).
Aside from aesthetics, the Mac Pro's form factor seems unnecessary. Why niche the product yourself?
Apple's aversion to expand their portfolio is good for their business (in the short term, at least), but it is bad for us. They limit our choices to either Apple's (limited portfolio) or its competitors. This puts a bad taste in the "pro" industry's mouth, and sends the wrong message to consumers too. I believe that can cause a snow ball effect in the long term.
Last edited:
If I remember correctly, Apple sold the G4 Cube alongside the Power Mac G4.
I think they could've (and should've) sold the Mac Pro "tube" along with a more conventional Mac Pro (perhaps in a mini tower config?) that would appeal to a different sector of the Pro market.
Again, I feel that Apple's portfolio constraint methodology is unnecessary, given their success in the market and their enormous amount of money. Apple is more successful now than ever before, so I feel the time to expand is now.
But alas, it's not about what I, (the consumer) want...
Last edited:
I'd be willing to bet that someone could make a mad cluster with about a dozen mac minis on some sort of thunderbolt backplane.
There are currently NO Apple servers or workstations that meet that criteria.
And Nobody in their right minds should ever be using a hackintosh in any legitimate production environment.
----------
http://www.sonnettech.com/product/rackmacmini.html
http://www.sonnettech.com/product/adapters/index.html
Sonet is allover this "rackable" idea
but... the Mini's... they just dont quite have the heavy CPU lifting power that the Mac Pro family has.
Ha Ha you said 'begs the question' when you meant 'raises the question'.
Noob!
http://begthequestion.info
2 cents
Perhaps I'm in the minority as well because I will order the single MP version with the 'migration config' the day it's released. I use an 'IsoBox Post' from 'SoundConstruction' in my studio where noise, heat and especially dust is a huge issue. This device is absolutely perfect for my purpose and although it may be pricy, it will be the cats meow for me!
Perhaps I'm in the minority as well because I will order the single MP version with the 'migration config' the day it's released. I use an 'IsoBox Post' from 'SoundConstruction' in my studio where noise, heat and especially dust is a huge issue. This device is absolutely perfect for my purpose and although it may be pricy, it will be the cats meow for me!
Our Kickstarter is live. If you're looking into another means of rack mounting the new Mac Pro, check out it out:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/381995824/mode-mount
![]()
If funded, we'll be shipping out in September.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/381995824/mode-mount
If funded, we'll be shipping out in September.
So it makes more sense to spend hundreds of millions if not more, when they didn't quite make out the first two times they tried it, designing, setting up manufacturing, marketing, and everything else that goes with selling and SUPPORTING yet another model?
NEWS FLASH: The market and people who require this setup don't care what the machine looks like, they care what it performs like.
"The market and people who require this setup don't care what the machine looks like, they care what it performs like."
Yes, you are right, professional setups don't have to be beautiful, although Apple did trot our their stellar design abilities with the new Mac Pro
So it would not matter if the computer is beautiful enough to have on a desktop, or functional (but not good looking enough) to put in a server closet. I do believe, though, that Apple could do well with a rack-mounted machine, even though they may not sell hundreds of millions of them, they would more than break-even, and they would foster the growth of their ecosystem, both in professional setups, and in enterprise configurations. The AppleCare warranty from the last sales of the XServe are expiring this year, so the time is right to release a replacement device.After all, many things happened since the XServe was cancelled. Steve Jobs, sadly, is no longer with us, Time Cook is the new CEO, Apple has a new leadership team, and Apple has found itself with a strong foothold in the enterprise, thanks in large part to the success of the iPhone and iPad. The future looks very bright for Apple.
----------
The issue is that building a Hackintosh is outside of Apple's licensing terms, and is not supported. So, while it may be technically possible to install OS X on non-Apple hardware, the legal issues make it prohibitive. You are right, though, that Apple uses much of the same hardware that PC manufacturers do.
----------
The killed the XServe for many reasons, one being that they did not understand the server market at that time. Another being that, without enough marketing, they tried to sell XServe machines to IT departments, who, at that time, were very reluctant to buy Apple technology. Things have changed dramatically since then, and now Apple finds itself in the enterprise like they have never been before. BYOD has changed the whole landscape, and now Apple is making serious efforts, with their mass-deployment programs, to sell their products to large enterprises. Apple needs to take another look at the server market, and begin selling server-class machines to large companies as well.
Imhotep397 is right, unless Apple let let people build "Hackintoshes," third party server hardware is not an option. Apple's best move would be to release new server-grade hardware that can be rack mounted!!
How is cooling handled? Is the top of the Mac Pro removed? Or is the computer room supposed to be kept to -19F, to compensate for how cramped the electronics components in those tiny cylinders are?
In a server environment, cooling is essential for racks of equipment...
It'd be fun to see some of those in action, but I'm skeptical...
In a server environment, cooling is essential for racks of equipment...
It'd be fun to see some of those in action, but I'm skeptical...