Mac Rack?

I don't know. I rather doubt it. A couple of month ago I read an article at ThinkSecret saying something similar, that Apple is developing a rack-mount server, but I am sceptical.

Why should Apple? I mean, Apple's server system were always (well, not quite. Network Server 500/700 were different) built for small businesses or networks. Only one time Apple released a large-scale server: Network Server 500 / 700 and both failed completely. I just don't see Apple trying it again.

Why? I think on the Mac market there is no need for such machine and to compete with the major server manufacturers is rather risky...

Aple did buy out that education software thing resently and the movemnt in the education sector to go centralzed computing is ganing momentum. An iBook on every desk, Mac rack mount server in the closit, Students could take online exams from any place in the school via air port. Its possible that Apple is moving in this direction. Mac's are also favorets for clustering. Many Universties have big Mac clusters for big number crunching. Aslo... with the popularity of large scale digital movie making growing... a Mac cluster running Maya... would really do the job. Shrek was made with Maya on a Linux cluster of 2U servers. OS X is built on UNIX. A great envionment for small, to large scale servers and clustered systems. Also... Apple has been kicked out of the IT world (in busnes). Real servers could help them to get some space in that sector. An OS X server should beable to serve up files, applications, print serve, ect. to Many pratforms. Any one know if OS X server can talk to Linx, UNIX, and Windows?

Now that Apple has an actual server capable OS it makes sense, to a point. The $899 price is what's got me, are these going to be G3 servers? if so, what's the point? The only way Apple stands a chance at surviving in the server market is to make something better than the current lot. OS X has the potential to do this, it's an NT like (and I stress LIKE) GUI built on a *nix core. Everyone and there grandparents know that *nix makes the best server platform. The hinderances to other *nix OSes is the interface which scares most businesses away from it. "You mean I have to type stuff? I think I'd rather run a bloated UI before having to type..." So, OS X makes setup and admin much easier than say a Linux or BSD system. Though, if you have a competant admin the UI shouldn't matter, but competant admins are few and far between. Apple has a server version of OS X, what the difference is (besides price) goes beyond my comprehension. The Open Source community is drooling over OS X (Fink, GNUOSX, etc...) so you can find plenty of software out there for free. Not to mention, OS X is by far the best Java development environment available, IMHO. The only downside to using OS X in a "server farm" is the case...

Repackaged, rack mounted or hardened Macintosh computers have been around for a long time.
The story seems to describe a server configuration aimed squarely at enterprise or acedemic users, possibly musicians or artists, but not consumers. I humbly disagree. Rackmount component systems are seen in home theatre and audiophile systems. A Racked Mac would drop into many of those component stacks quite nicely.
Take the rack ears off the box and you've got an almost invisible computer with a large footprint, not unlike Ye Olde pizza box-ish LCs. Assuming it's got an optical drive and full Mac I/Os and it formed the base of a flat panel display, you'd have the iMac2. Sort of.

david

The price tag is a bit low to be a G5 server but the rack design will probably be used for those eventually... I think it was on this bulletin that I read about Cisco promising to buy g5 mac servers when they're released. Could be a move to shore up that end of the business.

I think it was the register that mentioned Cisco's interest in the G5 chip, but not neccessarily the box it comes in.

I think it is a great idea for Apple to enter the server market with a low end workstation. Most likely if it comes out now, it will probaly have like 700-800mhz G3's in them, or maybe 500 G4's, but then again, who knows? I think it would be a great becasue it would really make Apple an all around player in the PC sector. Me personally, I would like to see some nice Apple workstations connected to a large scale Apple server. I think it would also be a good idea to rerelease a large scale Apple Server. It didn't pay for Apple before becasue Mac OS's only really worked with Mac's, but know they work with everything, so technically speaking, A large Mac server could work with Pc's in a large company. It is something to think about. Apple is not really to developed in the Server market, I think it would be key for Apple to eneter the server market.
Remember this could happen becasue Apple is trying to become an all-around computer company, and an all-around computer company needs good servers.

Originally posted by Mirus
Now that Apple has an actual server capable OS it makes sense, to a point. The $899 price is what's got me, are these going to be G3 servers? if so, what's the point? The only way Apple stands a chance at surviving in the server market is to make something better than the current lot. OS X has the potential to do this, it's an NT like (and I stress LIKE) GUI built on a *nix core. Everyone and there grandparents know that *nix makes the best server platform. The hinderances to other *nix OSes is the interface which scares most businesses away from it. "You mean I have to type stuff? I think I'd rather run a bloated UI before having to type..." So, OS X makes setup and admin much easier than say a Linux or BSD system. Though, if you have a competant admin the UI shouldn't matter, but competant admins are few and far between. Apple has a server version of OS X, what the difference is (besides price) goes beyond my comprehension. The Open Source community is drooling over OS X (Fink, GNUOSX, etc...) so you can find plenty of software out there for free. Not to mention, OS X is by far the best Java development environment available, IMHO. The only downside to using OS X in a "server farm" is the case...

the price is.. a bit silly.. I mean.... I spend $30k on each Sun server I buy for work. Then again.. they handle a bit more than your average 2U server... even so.... a good 2U Linux server is like 2k.

i am in networking and this field has not grown like we thought it would...where are those wired houses of the future which should have already littered the american landscape...and i live smack in the middle (or near) this technology in northern california

business alone will never warrant enough need for apple to put out that type of server (remember most business in america are still small proprietorships and partnerships...and micro corporations)

now, if this were compaq or dell, then i could see the expenditure making a difference but we are talking about apple, with a still 5 percent of the market

anyway, i would love to see an ultra-thin rackmount mac because i have been lusting after a compaq 1U server ever since i first saw it, there no need for oversize desptop tower/servers anymore...except the rackmount stuff still costs a pretty penny

i would like one day to have an invisible computer that i could mount inside the wall with the sheetrock and just boot it up by saying "computer on" and save files by saying "save to disk" and finishing by saying "defrag,, scan for viruses, and shutdown"

and the only hardware i would see would be a 20" inch flatmount screen mounted in the wall of the apartment/house

that way, i could get my work done while i cooked, shaved, or was on the potty (one of those aquatic models, of course)

drool...a computer with an actually intuitive and intelligent user input interface. If you think about it, the keyboard is about the worst interface imagineable. It's actually designed to slow you down! The mouse is better, but still not up to that. Some day Jef, some day.