Reported Here First: MacRack Coming

ScottW

ScottW

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

i want to see some specs. (and a spy photo, of course!)
 
...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?
 
Why would it matter if the Rack came out 'til after Christmas? It's not for home users, it's for server admins :p (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!
 
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.
 
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!
 
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....
 
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.
 
... to give it a feature (must be easy to use) that can disable servercarateristics. There are many providers against servers.
 
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 :)
 
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... ;)
 
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.

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

What does it matter? What kind of family buys a server for Christmas???
 
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)
 
....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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top