Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Badd Brainz
10279 Followers
Russ Smith
18390 Followers
Redsfaithful
5953 Followers
BeShirtHappy
13460 Followers
zonk3rNov 6, 2010
Crazy idea:
The deal Apple made with Unisys for iPhone/iPad corporate support will result in Unisys Xserve server support too.
blue_kNov 6, 2010
It looks like although the Xserve hardware is dead, the OS X Server OS will live on with the Mac Mini and Mac Pro.
trodemasterNov 6, 2010
Screw apple Xserves let us virtualize OS X server!! I just want to run my mac s**t on our existing vmware infrastructure and we will pay for the licenses.
jhourcleNov 7, 2010
Provided it lets you throw all of the hardware's resources at the virtual host -- Parallels had a limit (2 cores, 2?4?GB RAM) when I tested it to see if it'd help me clone machines for our cluster, do testing, etc ... unfortunately, I've got a few machines (database servers), where I don't mind a little overhead for convenience, but only being about to assign a small fraction of the 32GB of RAM, and 2 out of 8 cores makes it worthless.
Jase_whiteNov 7, 2010
Totally agree, for faster adoption of OS X Server on our corporate infrastructures. Apple server should be virtualised on a VMWare EXSi host. No need for Apple to make Server Hardware at this stage. But it would join a Windows domain as a member server. Just providing Apple server services to departments on need them...
But many of it's services are already in place by microsofts products. What clear advantages or services does OS X Server bring?... Podcast Producer, Wiki Server, iChat server?
You could say OS X Server is faster, more stable, better designed and solid underlying UNIX (XNU) Kernel.
ricksiteNov 6, 2010
I wonder if Apple would certify OS X server to run on other intel based hardware in the future. Perhaps Oracle/Sun hardware?
IchiroANov 6, 2010
I can see Apple eventually allowing OS X Server in a virtual environment on any x86 server (VmWare ESX..etc) There really is no need for Apple's industrial design when it comes to servers.
charlotte_webNov 7, 2010
It would make a lot of sense for Apple to cut a deal with VMWare, but I don't see it happening.
canadianmacfanNov 7, 2010
I would love to see Apple come out with a blade for the IBM systems. Will never happen though.
iwankalotNov 7, 2010
Oh ya and what a great Enterprise strategy they have. Brought them in as they were trying to sell us a boat load of the servers and when asked about 4 hour onsite fix were advised to buy spare servers to stock and rip parts from in case of failure. Leave Enterprise to the hardware makers who know their stuff.
ap0geeNov 7, 2010
Not enough money in it for them in the end, after all they have to support their products and being different isnt a great thing when your dealing with scaling and adapting current environments to their hardware.
stevenc317Nov 7, 2010
RIP Xserve
9a110wayNov 7, 2010
My god .. The spammers are out in force today .. 7 so far .. more than I've ever seen on 1 article
Jase_whiteNov 7, 2010
Have you seen the OS X Server 'Updated' Software capabilities now. Apple are really must be throwing loads of talented developers at the it.
http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/features/client-management.html
I can see now that if you have a fleet for Apple hardware products / accounts in your company including iMacs, Macbooks and iOS devices. You can now centrally manage them properly. And control software updates and application configs etc. This leads nicely in to the iPhone becoming the new Blackberry for companies, with iPhone deployment tools & mobile access server.
Good Jobs Apple !
schneidz101Nov 7, 2010
this is the first time i'm even hearing about apple making servers. (how expensive is it ?)
why wouldnt someone take a 'regular' mac and install apache, mysql, and php/ perl on it (or better yet, just install fedora on it ) ?
TomHanks4Nov 8, 2010
because real servers are not at all the same as a regular PC.
for one, they must be 19in rack mountable. they typically include things not found in a home PC such as redundant hot swap power supplies, hot swap raid disks, vastly superior cooling designed to work in a 19 inch cabinet, and (most importantly to me) remote consoles.
basically, for a machine to be taken seriously as a server, it must provide 24/7 operation with a good deal of fault tolerance. it should also provide complete remote management (such as hp's ILO or dells DRAC). there should be rapid response tech support availablle (4 hour on site response time/parts delivery).
home computers just won't cut it as servers.
schneidz101Nov 20, 2010
i dugg you up for your comment but i still believe that if an organization is persistant enough they can get a lot of mileage from 'regular' pc's and hire/ train server admins.
i know it is not the same but i run fedora from my $200 acer revo so i can ssh in and grab movies/ pics/ songs when i'm on the road.
so you cant say it couldnt be done.
TomHanks4Nov 20, 2010
Well, yes you can certainly run server software on a home pc and for personal use or non critical tasks in some business roles be just fine. The reasons proper servers are designed differently than a home pc is that most businesses cannot afford to have them offline. If you are losing hundreds or thousands of dollars in employee wages, lost sales, etc every minute a machine is offline, you need a "real" server. I've seen small businesses attempt to skimp on costs by using home pcs as servers and they generally wind up regretting it, but in some cases a home pc does make sense.