MacPlus.org posted a rumor that Apple will be introducing Rack mountable machines in the near future.
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.
Upcoming Mac Racks?
- Thread starter arn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've been waiting for these since before the dualies came out. No matter how fast the new boxes are, they're always too slow from day 1 when you're doing broadcast animation and film compositing. It makes sense because nobody could do a film edit on the current Macs...it would be an exercise in futility. Well 8mm, yes. MAYBE 16, but highly doubtful in its native resolution. Not a chance in h*ll of 35mm. And with the new Cinema Tools...
And who can really afford a Flame system or Onyx in this market? More relevant, who really likes IRIX?
I really hope this is true.
And who can really afford a Flame system or Onyx in this market? More relevant, who really likes IRIX?
I really hope this is true.
Apple sure is cooking a big pie!
Two button mice..
G5..
Hypertransport motherboard with high speed bus..
Firewire II..
10.2 optimization..
and now Rack mount stuff!!!
Woohooo! This is gonna be a great year for Apple I think.
Two button mice..
G5..
Hypertransport motherboard with high speed bus..
Firewire II..
10.2 optimization..
and now Rack mount stuff!!!
Woohooo! This is gonna be a great year for Apple I think.
Happy coincidence, chance, know!
In the future Apples will fall in from out there many new regimes. Rack mounted systems a farmer of animations renderings could see.
Yep, nothing like the googlification ah, translation to really get you feeling warm and fuzy about all things Apple. This totally makes sense if Apple is serious about getting into high end animation (Hollywood).
I've seen rack mounted Apples before (XM Satellite Radio, for the sound studios) but that was a custom job. Yeah, spare no expense there. But unless they really lower the price of the machines, it still won't be a viable option when compared to the el cheapo PCs in a decent render farm.
In the future Apples will fall in from out there many new regimes. Rack mounted systems a farmer of animations renderings could see.
Yep, nothing like the googlification ah, translation to really get you feeling warm and fuzy about all things Apple. This totally makes sense if Apple is serious about getting into high end animation (Hollywood).
I've seen rack mounted Apples before (XM Satellite Radio, for the sound studios) but that was a custom job. Yeah, spare no expense there. But unless they really lower the price of the machines, it still won't be a viable option when compared to the el cheapo PCs in a decent render farm.
rodents? waiters?
gotta love those translations....just gimme the G5.
just please don't make it too expensive--if they're going after the flame market, cheaper doesn't mean affordable to me....but rack mounted macs have always been on my wish list.
gimme, gimme, gimme
gotta love those translations....just gimme the G5.
just please don't make it too expensive--if they're going after the flame market, cheaper doesn't mean affordable to me....but rack mounted macs have always been on my wish list.
gimme, gimme, gimme
Re: Happy coincidence, chance, know!
Let me try to clear it up...
A happy coincidence, maybe, but let's see! Certain friendly ears have heard interesting noises lately. Among these, it seems that Apple will release, in the near future, computers...that are rack-mountable! Actually, these will not be solely destined for the server market, as one might believe at first, but also destined for animation studios, notably those that need "cluster" technology. This seems fairly logical with the recent Maya news and purchase of "Nothing Real" by Apple last February together with the incessant drive by the Cupertino company to bridge, at last, the creative gap with PCs. With a solution in this field, Apple could impose itself more than ever before on a market that has been begging for it.
It's not great, but it's at least intelligible now...I think
Let me try to clear it up...
A happy coincidence, maybe, but let's see! Certain friendly ears have heard interesting noises lately. Among these, it seems that Apple will release, in the near future, computers...that are rack-mountable! Actually, these will not be solely destined for the server market, as one might believe at first, but also destined for animation studios, notably those that need "cluster" technology. This seems fairly logical with the recent Maya news and purchase of "Nothing Real" by Apple last February together with the incessant drive by the Cupertino company to bridge, at last, the creative gap with PCs. With a solution in this field, Apple could impose itself more than ever before on a market that has been begging for it.
It's not great, but it's at least intelligible now...I think
Re: rodents? waiters?
They have been around, but they have always been the cost of an existing mac, plus the cost to gut it, plus the cost of the new chassis, plus the cost of putting the old guts in the rack mount chassis, etc... often 150-200 percent the cost of leaving it in a tower.
If apple themselves were making the rackmounts themselves, they could make them, and sell them, for less than the cost of a comparable tower. And get a lot of customers they haven't had before, from render farms to digital AV studios, to web and network servers.
But all this is obvious.
They have been around, but they have always been the cost of an existing mac, plus the cost to gut it, plus the cost of the new chassis, plus the cost of putting the old guts in the rack mount chassis, etc... often 150-200 percent the cost of leaving it in a tower.
If apple themselves were making the rackmounts themselves, they could make them, and sell them, for less than the cost of a comparable tower. And get a lot of customers they haven't had before, from render farms to digital AV studios, to web and network servers.
But all this is obvious.
The 150-200% figure is totally wrong. gvstore.com offers rack mounted g4s in 2u or 4u configs. As I recall, the 4u dual gigahertz cost about $3299 - $4000 for different configurations. All professionally done, in good cases.
Oh yeah, the rack mount thing isn't just for servers or clusters... Think of musicians and their extensive rack gear. Many musicians love Macs, but we've gotten the shaft of late. Perhaps one or two major audio applications even run on OSX, and the others don't even run in classic. It doesn't seem like they are immediately forthcoming, either. It's a shame, I really like X, but if I can't be productive, what's the point? And people complained about photoshop, ha!
Oh yeah, the rack mount thing isn't just for servers or clusters... Think of musicians and their extensive rack gear. Many musicians love Macs, but we've gotten the shaft of late. Perhaps one or two major audio applications even run on OSX, and the others don't even run in classic. It doesn't seem like they are immediately forthcoming, either. It's a shame, I really like X, but if I can't be productive, what's the point? And people complained about photoshop, ha!
Hm, and yet another reseller who says G5's in July... I'm still skeptical but GOD do I hope it's true...
Here's that old, beaten thread: Reseller Says "G5's in July"
Re: Apple sure is cooking a big pie!
damn - i woke up in a cold sweat this morning, and not from the usual claudia schiffer - pants interface dreams....
i had this weird dream that come september it would *all* become apparent. In my dream, it was obvious that all these rumours of hypertransport and nVidia and ATi developing drivers for x86 were coming together because the 64 bit option was AMDs Hammer not a moto g5. It then came to pass that the hammer was the cheaper apple offering, whilst the motorola offering was being flogged as the pro version.... on wakeing i also remembered reading something about AMD having difficulty in persuading M$ to develop 64 bit code....
but then, hey, I had had a shedful of Guinness last night, and that always leads to pretty odd dreams.
damn - i woke up in a cold sweat this morning, and not from the usual claudia schiffer - pants interface dreams....
i had this weird dream that come september it would *all* become apparent. In my dream, it was obvious that all these rumours of hypertransport and nVidia and ATi developing drivers for x86 were coming together because the 64 bit option was AMDs Hammer not a moto g5. It then came to pass that the hammer was the cheaper apple offering, whilst the motorola offering was being flogged as the pro version.... on wakeing i also remembered reading something about AMD having difficulty in persuading M$ to develop 64 bit code....
but then, hey, I had had a shedful of Guinness last night, and that always leads to pretty odd dreams.
hmm..
i'd like to know how you'd place software like iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie and hardware like the 2001/02 iBook and the new iMac into that particular vision??
apple hasn't been this consumer focused in years.
You keep the server side hot and the consumer side cool. All flavors can co-exist- they aren't mutually exclusive. Besides, apps like iTunes iPhoto and iMovie have created a need for external storage like I never needed before... for workgroups, or home networks, a common server may be more efficient.
Re: Apple sure is cooking a big pie!
If this one particular post were true, or even mostly true, Apple would do alot of business in industrial, entertainment and server markets, SUDDENLY.
Its market share would go up regardless of the success of the retail strategy.
Rocketman.
Hello, Apple, are you reading this message?
If this one particular post were true, or even mostly true, Apple would do alot of business in industrial, entertainment and server markets, SUDDENLY.
Its market share would go up regardless of the success of the retail strategy.
Rocketman.
Hello, Apple, are you reading this message?
The percentages might be an exaggeration, but you are still looking at cost of tower PLUS 600 dollars.
Compared to a PC server market starting at a 900 dollar price point. Apple will not break into the server / rack market in any decent numbers until they make their own rack mount models. The economy of scale has to come from them, not some VAR converting retail towers.
I don't agree on the low price point.
Apple has never tried to compete on price with the low end generic stuff and I doubt they would with rack mount systems either. They are very competitive with name brand systems so I would look to pricing for IBM or Compaq to get a feel for where they would set price points.
Apple has never tried to compete on price with the low end generic stuff and I doubt they would with rack mount systems either. They are very competitive with name brand systems so I would look to pricing for IBM or Compaq to get a feel for where they would set price points.
The 900 dollar figure I quoted was Dells cheapest one unit rack mount server. (I guess thats generic enough...)
First of all, I think that rack-mountable Macs directly from Apple would be a hit. I'm sure major companies, small indepent companies, and even individual pro's would want them. Apple could make a baseline Dual G4/G5, tons of memory, hd space, and kick ass graphics card options. They could them make up to quad processor models. Then, Apple could make these so that you could hook up as many of these computers together as you want. Apple could even make a cheap, single processor G4/G5 really cheap to please people who can't afford a 2500 dollar system. Also, built in RAID hardware support would be nice...
I believe that this approach would satisfy the regular power user, who would just buy one, because that's all the power he needs, to the mega-multimedia 3d animation hollywood studios who could buy 32 of them, and hook them up, and have a 64/128 processor computer. With Mac OS X, this seems like a feasable idea.
As far as Apple's consumer models go, check out the lastest issue of Popular Science. They compare the iMac to a $3000 sony computer. The sony wins the approval of the author, but barely. The iMac held its ground, for nearly half the price. The only things that the iMac did poorly on, was DVD playback, and the such, but thnk about it. TV's are for watching movies and tv shows. Computers (with the exceptions of laptops, for their portablilty) aren't really for watching DVD's. They're for making DVDs and the such, and that's what Apple's good at.
I do believe that these rack-mountable Macs are a step in the right direction for Apple. As long as they're modestly affordable, I think that they will sell to major corporations and individual pro's looking for more power.
Just think, Maya running on a 128 G5 processor computer. I wonder how that would make CGI feel? Can you say "real time rendering..." Apple would also have to pack some awesoem GPU's into these things (maybe as an option, like a graphics bundle with at Graphics card, an audio bundle with a good audio card, an internet bundle, with a multiple ethernet/fiberoptic connections, and so on...)
I can almost taste them allready...
I believe that this approach would satisfy the regular power user, who would just buy one, because that's all the power he needs, to the mega-multimedia 3d animation hollywood studios who could buy 32 of them, and hook them up, and have a 64/128 processor computer. With Mac OS X, this seems like a feasable idea.
As far as Apple's consumer models go, check out the lastest issue of Popular Science. They compare the iMac to a $3000 sony computer. The sony wins the approval of the author, but barely. The iMac held its ground, for nearly half the price. The only things that the iMac did poorly on, was DVD playback, and the such, but thnk about it. TV's are for watching movies and tv shows. Computers (with the exceptions of laptops, for their portablilty) aren't really for watching DVD's. They're for making DVDs and the such, and that's what Apple's good at.
I do believe that these rack-mountable Macs are a step in the right direction for Apple. As long as they're modestly affordable, I think that they will sell to major corporations and individual pro's looking for more power.
Just think, Maya running on a 128 G5 processor computer. I wonder how that would make CGI feel? Can you say "real time rendering..." Apple would also have to pack some awesoem GPU's into these things (maybe as an option, like a graphics bundle with at Graphics card, an audio bundle with a good audio card, an internet bundle, with a multiple ethernet/fiberoptic connections, and so on...)
I can almost taste them allready...
i think you may have missed my point.
i was questioning a line of thinking that suggested apple was 'going pro' and that that would leave 'average' users feeling left out.
it seems to me that apple hasn't been more consumer focused since possibly the days of the Classic - if you're willing to ignore the price bump on the new iMac
apple may be 'going pro' but the two markets are not mutually exclusive.
out
Or perhaps supported your point? I said the markets are not mutually exclusive- apple can "go pro" and be Joe SixPack consumer based simultaneously. And pro customers are consumers too.
i was questioning a line of thinking that suggested apple was 'going pro' and that that would leave 'average' users feeling left out.
it seems to me that apple hasn't been more consumer focused since possibly the days of the Classic - if you're willing to ignore the price bump on the new iMac
apple may be 'going pro' but the two markets are not mutually exclusive.
out
Yeah, but no internal RAID!
I've written to Atto and Adaptec, and they have NO PLANS whatsoever (so they claim) of making internal RAID cards for OS X.
This even though Adaptec has RAID PCI cards for Unix.
How can Apple make a real Rack server without hardware RAID capabilities???
I've written to Atto and Adaptec, and they have NO PLANS whatsoever (so they claim) of making internal RAID cards for OS X.
This even though Adaptec has RAID PCI cards for Unix.
How can Apple make a real Rack server without hardware RAID capabilities???
What about just porting OS X server to Intel
I agree that porting the client version of OS X to Intel is losing proposition on a number of fronts, especially in terms of Apple's bottom line, but what about only porting the server version?
To me this makes perfect sense and allows Apple to enter a market that they don't seriously compete in. Although Apple's flirted with the server market in the past they've never been successful. I'm talking about rack mountable units with hot swappable drives, NIC cards, power supplies, etc. Without the server equipment they'll always suffer in the corporate world. Companies buy Intel based servers, load them with Intel compatible server software (read MS) and then put compatible clients on the desktop.
So lets say Apple ports OS X server to Intel. IT professionals gain a robust, UNIX based server package capable of running on readily available equipment (and an alternative to MS) and Apple gains the foot-in-the-door they need to start competing in the corporate world. Porting is simplified since the majority of consumer oriented applications and drivers wouldn't be run in a server setting. And (maybe this is just wishful thing) with OS X based servers in the basement it'd make sense to have OS X based clients on the desktop.
Although this would make an Intel version of Apple's crown jewel available to the general public, the price point of the server version would put it out of reach for the vast majority of home/casual users thereby not threatening Apple's current bread and butter. In fact at 1000 bucks a pop I'd venture that selling the Intel version might actually contribute to the bottom line. Of course this scenario assumes (and this may be the wrong assumption) that Macintosh hardware intended for server applications aren't a significant contributor to Apple's current sales.
I agree that porting the client version of OS X to Intel is losing proposition on a number of fronts, especially in terms of Apple's bottom line, but what about only porting the server version?
To me this makes perfect sense and allows Apple to enter a market that they don't seriously compete in. Although Apple's flirted with the server market in the past they've never been successful. I'm talking about rack mountable units with hot swappable drives, NIC cards, power supplies, etc. Without the server equipment they'll always suffer in the corporate world. Companies buy Intel based servers, load them with Intel compatible server software (read MS) and then put compatible clients on the desktop.
So lets say Apple ports OS X server to Intel. IT professionals gain a robust, UNIX based server package capable of running on readily available equipment (and an alternative to MS) and Apple gains the foot-in-the-door they need to start competing in the corporate world. Porting is simplified since the majority of consumer oriented applications and drivers wouldn't be run in a server setting. And (maybe this is just wishful thing) with OS X based servers in the basement it'd make sense to have OS X based clients on the desktop.
Although this would make an Intel version of Apple's crown jewel available to the general public, the price point of the server version would put it out of reach for the vast majority of home/casual users thereby not threatening Apple's current bread and butter. In fact at 1000 bucks a pop I'd venture that selling the Intel version might actually contribute to the bottom line. Of course this scenario assumes (and this may be the wrong assumption) that Macintosh hardware intended for server applications aren't a significant contributor to Apple's current sales.