# Reported Here First: MacRack Coming



## ScottW (Nov 26, 2001)

*Rumor News from MacOSX.com:* 

_We Post, You Decide_ 

Coming to a 19" rack near you. Rumors are buzzing about a new Macintosh model, yes you heard correctly, for the rack. This new, 19", 1U chassis is set to blow ripples through co-location waves, with prices starting at $899. Compare this to other "low-end" 1U Intel based systems running Linux or Windows, at around $1299.

The lower priced model, brings everything Mac OS X Server provides, while one smart additional piece of software. The "Configurator" which allows for a GUI (browser based) interface for managing the system.

The focus of the system is speed & performance. Although, not expected to be a instant winner, it will open eyes as current Mac consumers start pushing these machines into co-location centers at a significantly lower cost. This allows users who may normally have to splurge for a 1U Linux based Intel box for co-location services, can now purchase a Mac, the platform they love, and at a lower cost. By using the 1U size it also lowers the cost of co-location especially from companies who charge by the rack space.

As these systems feed into the channel, they will be a instant success and will be a driving force for price conscious consumers & businesses, looking for more power at a lower cost. 

The new rack model is set for release in January if everything goes as planned. Of course, as expected, these machines, although built for speed not for flash, will still have a little "creativity" on the front so they stand out in the rack farm.


----------



## Klink (Nov 26, 2001)

Hmmm, sounds like someone's been beta testing.


----------



## rinse (Nov 26, 2001)

sounds cool, but i just don't know bout that...

i want to see some specs. (and a spy photo, of course!)


----------



## scruffy (Nov 26, 2001)

...but even according to the rumour, they don't come out till after Consumermas.

Anyway, seems a bit dodgy to me - it's not like Apple has been playing up OS X server a lot, coming out with a rackmount mac seems a bit odd.

Maybe they're going for musicians though.  A Mac in the rack, among all the amps, effects boxes, etc.  Why not?


----------



## AdmiralAK (Nov 27, 2001)

sounds very cool 
Lets see intel be blown out of teh water now


----------



## dricci (Nov 27, 2001)

Why would it matter if the Rack came out 'til after Christmas? It's not for home users, it's for server admins  (although I wouldn't mind waking up with one under the tree!)

I think this would OWN all Racks! They have NT 4.0 and 2000 Racks.. Please. eww. People who run servers on Windows are nuts... Linux and Solaris ones are *nix based, but run on the same hardware as the NT ones.. so that's eww too.. We need some G5 Racks out there to give intel a run for their money  And plus with the ease of the Mac OS to configure these things, man that'd just be the best ever! Say goodbye to long ssh sessions and say hello to point and click server setup!


----------



## dricci (Nov 27, 2001)

Also I just remembered, I believe some Florida or Texas based company has been putting the guts of G4s and G3s into racks for some time now.. but I think they have been since before OS X Server was a public thing.. What good would an OS 9 rack be? I think Apple would hit a home run with their own.


----------



## Soapvox (Nov 27, 2001)

get a quad g5 rack with 2gigs+ of ram and we can take on any large hosting situation for a lower over head because these admin if they know linux, OSX should be an easy fit, (said in the tone of reviewers that used to claim the death of the mac>>)Sounds like the death of windows to me 

This is exactly what the mac needs though is that highend server to run thier amazing os on, and if rumors are true, it will be a hard fight to get those it guys to listen, but its a fight I will gladly take on!


----------



## hazmat (Nov 27, 2001)

Sounds interesting, but silly.  I think it's a waste of resources to have a GUI running for a server.  I am sure you can get similar priced 1U Intel-bases systems, and even the new Sun Netras for $1k and under, install whatever UNIX you want (our main server is OpenBSD), and you have a great server.  Having a GUI running takes up too many resources, and ssh is just fine for adminning a system.

Just like Mac OS X or WinNT/2k, it's great for strictly a desktop, but not a server.  Right tool for the job, as they say....


----------



## dricci (Nov 27, 2001)

The Rack wouldn't run a GUI. It'd probably be mostly the Darwin/BSD command line with all the OS X server features running on a G4 or G5 chip. For administration, there could be a OS X app that connects to the server or a web browser interface that could *look* like Mac OS X server, and be just as easy to configure, however, it wouldn't be an *actual* gui running on the server side. Sort of like that webmin (sp?) configure servlet thing you can get for most POSIX systems, including OS X, that runs in a browser and lets you set up the system.


----------



## hazmat (Nov 27, 2001)

Cool then.


----------



## tagliatelle (Nov 27, 2001)

... to give it a feature (must be easy to use) that can disable servercarateristics. There are many providers against servers.


----------



## .dev.lqd (Nov 27, 2001)

Big buyers of this: academics who have to configure hundreds of macintosh machines in labs that are stewn throughout a building- just grab a unlimited license osx server and have really good, centralized configuration. Also- design firms who use AFP as groupware but also need a low-end webserver that they can administrate themselves. Simple, quick solution that can scale with them as they grow. I'd be really interested to see some powerful parallel computing/renderfarm applications using this kind of environment. Rackmounted quad G5's in triplicate-- oh yeah  I also see it having some really cool applications with distributed client/mainframe computing: ie. the ever-looming ultralight client machine (display and input) with the computing being done on big, powerful rackmounted systems. This would be fabulous for business systems, where all they want is cheap, consistent, and functional. light clients @ $500 x 50 + 1 mainframe @ $5000 or $10k < 50 machines @ $1000 or $1500 each- not to mention better access control, configurability, and replacement costs should a system fail. This model also has huge benefits for the academic model as well. Couple it with airport and you could really save some money- forget your 100bT networking w/cables and expensive switching/routing: just get a couple of base stations and conserve the IP address space/management.

Anyways- just thinking out loud


----------



## kenny (Nov 27, 2001)

I'd feel better about this if there were a bit more detail/sources/specs posted. I'm guessing that the base config will be something like G4@800/256/20GB, with all the other usual players - USB, FW, 10/100/1k ethernet, etc. 

If, as someone else mentioned, one of the target markets is musicians' racks, it should also include line-level audio in/out's as well as SPDIF/TOSLink..

Then again, it's all conjecture, and this post is probably a waste of time...


----------



## Captain Code (Nov 27, 2001)

> _Originally posted by scruffy _
> *...but even according to the rumour, they don't come out till after Consumermas.
> 
> Anyway, seems a bit dodgy to me - it's not like Apple has been playing up OS X server a lot, coming out with a rackmount mac seems a bit odd.
> ...



What does it matter?  What kind of family buys a server for Christmas???


----------



## kenny (Nov 27, 2001)

Mine...


----------



## Soapvox (Nov 28, 2001)

My wife bought me a G4 server last christmas


----------



## paulsomm (Nov 28, 2001)

as much as I love the mac, this won't significantly displace intel or sun or anyone else. MacOS, even X, just doesn't have the performance of, say, Solaris or Linux.  Even on the same box, LinuxPPC is much faster.

Honestly, I doubt this rumor completely.  Apple has never gone after the server market in any way other than with a system for managing Macs (MacOS X Server)


----------



## tenneck (Nov 28, 2001)

....anyone expecting a G4 would be pretty far off base.  First, it would be awful hot for a 1U rack mount.  Second, why would you even need a G4 for a server?  AltiVec is pretty useless for serving.  Third, G4s are expensive.  Awful expensive for a $899 1U rack.

Nope, If I were a betting man, I'd say 800-1GHz G3s.  Cheaper and cooler.


----------



## Matrix Agent (Nov 28, 2001)

Altivec wouldn't help running the server application, but it would help the system that was running the application, thats why altivec is important.

er....mabey application isn't the best word, but its all i've got right now.

Personally, I find it hard to believe that this isn't true. For many rumor-loving mac users this is the first time they've heard of or visited MacOSX.com Why would Admin base the credibility of his entire site on a rumor that wasn't true. His site would be dammed forever by thousands of laughing mac fans.


----------



## dcmartin (Nov 28, 2001)

The key aspect of this item is the configuration and management of multiple nodes for grid computing.

The open-source foundation of Darwin across PPC and X86 architectures enables differentiation only in the human interface -- always a strength of Jobs' enterprises -- evident Darwin and Aqua and the integration of Darwin's power with Aqqua's usability.

The challenge and opportunity is to bring the same level of usability to the development of a grid computing solutions that are both enterprise capable and peer-to-peer enabled.

I believe Apple will have some competition in this space: note IBM recent statements supporting grid computing and Sun's hyperbole on their home page.  Microsoft will continue to morph the Wintel platform: increasingly open in form, but patented in function.

Look for Apple to develop tools for the distribution and management of software developed on a MacOSX box and deployed to a cluster.  The open source community will have much to contribute and to gain.  However, division over LINUX vs. Darwin may be reminiscent of BSD vs AT&T.

The most interesting aspect will be the relationship between Microsoft and Apple.  With the Office platform firmly entrenched in Aqua and Darwin, how long until Microsoft considers the separation of Explorer from NT5.


----------



## automatonjohn (Nov 29, 2001)

I'd say it's a dubious move for apple to take, but if they're going for that much I'll certainly sell off most of my hardware and fill up my pad with rack mounts 

however, assuming that any amount of information here is correct, can we expect something with a full video export and complete gui, or are we looking at something which is only configurable via a web browser? because, to be quite honest, I'd prefer the current os x server admin utility more - but more than that, I'd prefer to edit the text conf files without crapping out the whole system 

and if we're getting a full video out on these it seems apple might be losing a portion of the more expensive iMac market to people with a bit more know how and the inconvenience of having to rig up some stuff for a cheaper, powerful system.

and for $900 I can't see this shipping with a full version of os x server - maybe a hacked down one?


----------



## Rain Man (Nov 29, 2001)

I'm sure a rack mounted Mac would catch the eyes and ears of many musicians/studio owners.  Most who are seriously into music use it for that purpose only, stripping down extensions sets to the bare minimum needed to reduce CPU cycles and conflicts.  An audio I/O isn''t really a requirement as most use third party multi AD/DA convertors.  MP is almost a must as more and more programs are designed to take advantage of this.  Faster FireWire and perhaps DDR SDRAM would also be an asset particularly with interfaces being designed around 1394.  A "Mac in a rack" would also permit an easy way of moving a system from studio to studio in a safe and convenient manner along with I/O interfaces and mic pres etc.  I would imagine that many many pro producers would quickly adopt this practice as many of them already bring a few racks of preferred gear.  It makes alot of sense from a musician/recording point of view.


----------



## zerorex (Nov 29, 2001)

> _Originally posted by scruffy _
> [B
> Anyway, seems a bit dodgy to me - it's not like Apple has been playing up OS X server a lot, coming out with a rackmount mac seems a bit odd.
> [/B]



Actually, given the nature of netinfo, pushing OS X server and a machine built spacificly for server duties would seem to be a logical step.  This is something apple needs to do if they ever want to be concidered a serious contneder in the corprate network arena.  Thats what I would see apple providing rack equipment to be.  And it is also perfectly logical to put out a smaller lower end server first... build off of your current customer base, and eventually once you have proven you can provide rack based server solutions, maybe companies with major network environments will concider you in their next upgrade cycle.  

It makes sence to run a corprate network on apples.  In todays co. environments, userfriendlyness in a nessesity.  Not everyone on your network using your computers is nessisaraly a techie.  Thus the need of the IT department.  With technoligies like netboot and netinfo, a mac basied network would easily bipass Windoze networks in the areas of portable user profiles and transparency of technologie.  The only networks you see running on mac equipment now are usually graphic design houses.  I live for the day that I come to work and see an apple flat screen on my desk


----------



## pixelcort (Nov 29, 2001)

I use Mac OS X Server as my main OS. And I don't even host anything. (Mainly for personal development work, and just because I like the words "OS X Server" at startup!)


----------



## swoolverton (Dec 3, 2001)

Marathon Computer makes all kinds of rackmounts for all kinds of Macs.

http://www.marathoncomputer.com


----------



## paulsomm (Dec 3, 2001)

> _Originally posted by zerorex _
> *
> 
> Actually, given the nature of netinfo, pushing OS X server and a machine built spacificly for server duties would seem to be a logical step.  This is something apple needs to do if they ever want to be concidered a serious contneder in the corprate network arena. *



Netinfo is nice, but to content with corporate systems there needs to be interoperability with the two major directories already established in businesses: NDS and ADS.  Otherwise it'll never make it beyond fringe useage in, perhaps, small mostly audio or video shops.



> *It makes sence to run a corprate network on apples.  In todays co. environments, userfriendlyness in a nessesity.  Not everyone on your network using your computers is nessisaraly a techie.  *



I love Apple, and say what you will about MS, but they have the "user friendliness" locked up in the small to mid-size server environment.  Any moron who can use their Win95+ desktop can look at an NT/2000 server and figure out what to do. Of course not correctly or efficiently, but usually enough to "get the job done."  And for larger environments Novell's GUI is super simple from an interface standpoint.  Yes, user friendliness is important, but apple no longer holds the title of being the only or most userfriendly.  From a systems engineering standpoint, you'd be hard pressed to offer me a good reason to implement OSX as a server unless the shop in question was mostly macintosh.  I'd be more inclined to use MS products for small workgroup file sharing, Novell for large corporate networks, unix/apache for web serving, etc etc etc

If this rumor is true, I'd bet it'll be pitched more as a netboot server or a quicktime streaming media server  or an audio/video processing station.


----------



## macdotcalm (Dec 4, 2001)

It's good news (or rumor) if it's really true that Apple is taking the server market seriously. 

But anybody who thinks it's important probably already knows that there's a company named Marathon Computer (www.marathoncomputer.com) that's been making rackmount retrofits for Mac for years. They have a 1U rackmount for the older iMacs, and one for the DV iMacs is supposed to be out around Christmas. A fellow told me that they're also working on 2U server boxes for G4 Macs, but they haven't announced them yet.

macdotcalm@mac.com


----------



## paulsomm (Dec 4, 2001)

I think it'd be great to be able to order Apple parts and build your own mac.  But, that would definitely go against the Apple grain of complete control over the box . . . but Marathon Computers is great, just requires the purchase/aquisition of an actual Mac as well


----------



## duckunix (Dec 4, 2001)

In order for Mac OS X to gain serious attention in the server field, Apple needs to drop netinfo as the primary DS.  While it was far better than what was out there when NeXT first introduced it, it is a little long in tooth, and nobody else supprots it.

NDis and ADS are good, but there is a serious amount of NIS out there, and LDAP is coming on strong in the rest of the server market [ADS is nothing more than LDAP with some extensions].  Until Apple supports an industry standard instead of netinfo, Mac OS X will be a quaint experiment doomed to be a niche OS.

As for a reason why Apple may be introducing rack mounted servers (besides the music angle) is the fact that there has been some serious work done on Macs for graphic rendering, and let's not forget about WebObjects (IMO the real reason for Apple to introduce a rack mounted machine).

Me


----------



## sheepguy42 (Dec 6, 2001)

> _Originally posted by pixelcort _
> *I use Mac OS X Server as my main OS. And I don't even host anything. (Mainly for personal development work, and just because I like the words "OS X Server" at startup!) *


When digging through package contents of everything in the System and Library directories, I found that the consumer (non-server) Mac OS X on my cube has the Mac OS X Server splash screens, login graphics, etc. I'm sure you could use these using the same instructions other people have used to change the splash screens of their systems. I am at school right now, and even when I am at home, I need to be studying for finals, so maybe in a week I can get time to try this m'self


----------



## tagliatelle (Dec 6, 2001)

In Belgium Apple has the greatest marketshare. I own the case with a loosy front of Ometra(an original Belgian case of a bankrupt Belgian computerassembler - after iMac it's second). This sounds like music I think.


----------



## rinse (Dec 6, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Hervé Hinnekens _
> *In Belgium Apple has the greatest marketshare. I own the case with a loosy front of Ometra(an original Belgian case of a bankrupt Belgian computerassembler - after iMac it's second). This sounds like music I think. *



you are one strange guy... wtf was that?


----------



## blb (Dec 6, 2001)

> _Originally posted by sheepguy42 _
> *
> When digging through package contents of everything in the System and Library directories, I found that the consumer (non-server) Mac OS X on my cube has the Mac OS X Server splash screens, login graphics, etc. I'm sure you could use these using the same instructions other people have used to change the splash screens of their systems. I am at school right now, and even when I am at home, I need to be studying for finals, so maybe in a week I can get time to try this m'self *



Heh, try this in a Terminal window:


```
sudo cp /System/Library/CoreServices/SystemVersion.plist /System/Library/CoreServices/ServerVersion.plist
```

then do *About this Mac* or observe the login panel.


```
sudo rm /System/Library/CoreServices/ServerVersion.plist
```

to put things back.


----------



## rinse (Dec 7, 2001)

> _Originally posted by blb _
> *
> 
> Heh, try this in a Terminal window:
> ...


*

ha, i like it. i'm keeping it that way. i dig it the most!*


----------



## jsepeta (Dec 9, 2001)

y'all are missing out on 3 big markets that are/should be important to apple:

TV: think about making your tv newstruck the ideal remote studio, with standard 19" rack components.

Hollywood: when you do blockbuster video effects, you want racks of power for cutting down production time

Animation: doesn't Pixar want to dump Sun & SGI and become 100% Apple based? It was only a year or 2 ago that they dropped all their pc's for desktop apps. Now come the Render Farms...


----------



## Matrix Agent (Dec 9, 2001)

Smart guy.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Dec 9, 2001)

This must be THE most read thread in the site 
wow...so when are the rack mounts coming our way  ?


----------



## ScottW (May 6, 2002)

**** I TOLD YOU ALL SO ******


----------



## dricci (May 6, 2002)

omg and slashdot laughed at this!
AHAHAHAHAH LONG LIVE APPLE!

<SUPER HAPPY MODE>

LETS ALL SING AND DANCE!


----------



## googolplex (May 6, 2002)

Well you got the date wrong


----------



## simX (May 6, 2002)

Yeah, I noticed that too.  You said January 2002.


----------



## ScottW (May 6, 2002)

Better late than never.


----------



## fryke (May 6, 2002)

Hmm... [First reported here: Apple will release updated rackmount servers!] --- I think I will be right. Or else I'll never point to this thread again in the future. *grin*


----------



## BlingBling 3k12 (May 7, 2002)

> _Originally posted by swoolverton _
> *Marathon Computer makes all kinds of rackmounts for all kinds of Macs.
> 
> http://www.marathoncomputer.com *









and you want me to believe that sorta thing on the left is SAFE!?

lol... imagine if there was a loose screw and they all came tumbling down...


----------



## .dev.lqd (May 7, 2002)

It's no less safe than the one on the right. Marathon's stuff is good... it's too bad that Apple is potentially going to DESTROY the market for their products. I mean... I'm glad we're getting mac racks... but Marathon has been doing really good business.


----------

