Xserve Info?

Discussion in 'Mac Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Sep 9, 2003.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    Macbidouille references a previously mentioned but dismissed rumor about Xserve G5s being introduced at an informational session.

    Beyond this, they claim that the upcoming G5 Xserves will adopt many of the features from the PowerMac G5 (FW800, PCI-X, same bus, Serial ATA) with speeds of single and dual 1.8GHz G5s.

     
  2. macrumors 68040

    Powerbook G5

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    St Augustine, FL
    #2
    Yet another dual 1.8 GHz G5 rumor, oh goody!
     
  3. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Location:
    SF Bay Area/JHU
    #3
    This semms likely - but I am rather surprised that the Xserves will not go with 2 ghz chips - perhaps it is because of quanity/heat/price issues.

    anyway, this is a needed upgrade, and will prove very profitable for Apple.

    -imax
     
  4. iPC
    macrumors 6502

    iPC

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2003
    Location:
    East Windsor, CT
    #4
    Much needed

    Obviously the G5 is capable of scaling (VA), so it seems only logical that nobody will buy the G4 xServe anymore, unless it's for small office basic file serving use (which is something any desktop can do easily enough).

    This is when we find out if Apple is serious about the corporate market. Or the Hollywood market for that matter.
     
  5. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2001
    Location:
    NY
    #5
    This is a much needed upgrade from Apple. I also think if Apple is indeed serious about the server game, they need a central serving unit, not a rack mount, but a central server, Maybe utilizing the Power5 chip when it debuts.
     
  6. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2002
    Location:
    Muncie, Indiana
    #6
    It looks like MacBD's report is based on the other report ("G5 Xserve leaked?") which they now say may be a typo. The date given, Sept. 23, is a Tuesday, though.
     
  7. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2003
    Location:
    Connecticut
    #7
    So, what is more important right now: powerbooks, or xserve?

    --Waluigi
     
  8. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Location:
    Eindhoven
    #8
    For me it's Xserves, since I'm evaluating candidates for a new server. I like the server hardware of the Xserve. Things that are not available in a Desktop like 4 hot swap drives and cheap 4-hour turn around service contract etc.
     
  9. macrumors 6502a

    Wonder Boy

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    South Windsor, CT
    #9
    Yeah, but this time a dual 1.8 actually sounds plausable.
     
  10. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 19, 2003
    Location:
    Bristol England
    #10
    Update

    It seems they've noticed their mistake and corrected it, check the link.
     
  11. macrumors 68000

    Freg3000

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2002
    Location:
    New York
    #11
    Definitely quantity. There are too many orders on hold for Dual 2 GHz G5s. The wouldn't put another burden on themselves.
     
  12. macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #12
    Good news.

    I'd love to see these come out and kick some a--!

    :D

    Good CPU + Lots of Storage = very good.

    :D
     
  13. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 29, 2003
    #13
    I agree. They should also have a non-rackmount server like the Apple Network Server 500/700 numerous years ago. That would be especially great with a Power4 or Power5 processor.

    If they do use single and dual 1.8 GHz G5's, it will likely be due to small supplies of 2 GHz processors. When the current xServes were released, they were 1.33 GHz single and dual. That was not the fastest processor at the time. The Power Mac G4 had dual 1.42 GHz processors.
     
  14. macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #14
    this has probably been pointed out, but rm * would only delete files, not directories, and there are no essential files that can't be replaced at the root level of the drive...

    to be more anal, rm with the flag -r would remove the entire contents of a directory... so rm -r * would be the choice way to do this.

    carry on.

    :)
    pnw
     

Share This Page