Xserve gaining momentum? Read article here...

[GeneR]

Just went to the Apple.com site. In the Hot News section there seems to be an article about how XServe is now appearing to be picking up steam. Any IT people have any thoughts on that? I sure hope that's so. Thanks!

http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/01/27/04greyzone_1.html

 

[jaykk]

Xserve is the way to go

On a similar note, OSXZone reports about Xserve based hosting service - XrackHosting

"Finally... a Mac OS X-based web hosting provider that gives you the platform you want without paying a high premium! Even better, we are customer service driven... many say this, but few deliver. This means that we truly appreciate your business, and will do whatever we can to keep you happy!"

now u can host an mac based site on Mac OS X rather than Linux

 

[MrMacMan]

Re: Xserve is the way to go

Originally posted by jaykk
On a similar note, OSXZone reports about Xserve based hosting service - XrackHosting

"Finally... a Mac OS X-based web hosting provider that gives you the platform you want without paying a high premium! Even better, we are customer service driven... many say this, but few deliver. This means that we truly appreciate your business, and will do whatever we can to keep you happy!"

now u can host an mac based site on Mac OS X rather than Linux

if your refering to arn I think we have slightly higher bandwitch than what they offer.

the idea is good enough.

 

[ddtlm]

jaykk:

now u can host an mac based site on Mac OS X rather than Linux

Why would someone host a website on an needlessly expensive machine with a slow OS that priorities ease of use? Gimmie a cheap x86 Linux server any day, or perhaps one of those cheap Sun 1U servers, they are neat too.

 

[MacQuest]

Originally posted by ddtlm
jaykk:


Why would someone host a website on an needlessly expensive machine with a slow OS that priorities ease of use? Gimmie a cheap x86 Linux server any day, or perhaps one of those cheap Sun 1U servers, they are neat too.

Needlessly expensive? Maybe. Apple is not the Taco Bell of the computer industry and will likely never win at volume economics, or "price wars", as it is of a higher caliber in quality.

Ease of use would be appealing to any President or CFO of a company who would like to dramatically decrease IT expenditures or overhead.

Sorry if you're a net. admin. or in an IT department., but it's the truth.

I wouldn't expect people in these positions to be happy with the simplification, or dramatically increased need, of their services any more than I would expect an auto mechanic to be happy a way too reliable car.

What may be good for one person, may be the nemesis of another.

 

[ddtlm]

MacQuest:

Apple is not the Taco Bell of the computer industry and will likely never win at volume economics, or "price wars", as it is of a higher caliber in quality.

Oh sure, higher quality: often claimed but never demonstrated. I can list many episodes of quality problems people have claimed to have with Apple products, but I'll spare you.

Ease of use would be appealing to any President or CFO of a company who would like to dramatically decrease IT expenditures or overhead.

By buying more expensive, slower machines? OSX's ease of use does not translate to a trouble-free server or reduced admin time. In fact I should have never said "ease of use" because an experienced admin should find that the server-oriented features of Linux make Linux much more "admin friendly". OSX wastes its time with GUI nonsense and leaves the command-line environment lacking, compared to Linux.

 

[lmalave]

Originally posted by ddtlm
jaykk:


Why would someone host a website on an needlessly expensive machine with a slow OS that priorities ease of use? Gimmie a cheap x86 Linux server any day, or perhaps one of those cheap Sun 1U servers, they are neat too.

Maybe not a website, but it makes a fine file server - and it's not really that overpriced considering it has four hot-swappable drive bays. For example, the Dell PowerEdge 1650 with 3 hot-swappable drive bays configured with specs similar to the XServe costs $2400. And when you actually have it fully loaded the XServe actually costs about the same when loaded to maximum hard drive capacity. Example:

- A Dell PowerEdge 1650 with 3 hot-swappable 136 GB drives (408 GB Total) is $4542

- An XServe with 4 hot-swappable 120 GB drives (480GB total) is $4649

And is the XServe really that slow? Keep in mind these 1U rack-mount servers generally use Pentium III chips, for lower heat dissipation in a dense rack mount situation. For example, the PowerEdge 1650 I configured above has a 1.13GHz PIII, sure the GUI will consume some memory, but memory is cheap (XServe is expandable up to 2GB), and anyway you can use a less fancy theme than Aqua.


That being said, Apple really, really needs to get the 970s in these servers, and maybe knock down the price by $500. Then they'd have a clear winner...