Apple not planning specific cluster node Xserve

“Contrary to a report by CNET News.com yesterday, Apple is not planning a distinct Cluster Node version of the Xeon-based Xserve,” MacNN reports.

“Both ZDNet and CNET News.com, which ran reports yesterday on the October introduction of Cluster Node version of Apple’s Intel-Xserve, have pulled their respective articles without any correction notice or explanation. However, MacNN has learned that Apple has no plans for such a configuration, instead as the base model, full-featured dual-dual core Xserve is almost the same price — only $200 more — as the old Cluster Node model,” MacNN reports.

Full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: CNET still mentions a cluster node Xserve is coming in the articleto which we linked earlier today here.

Related MacDailyNews articles:
Apple shows off new Xserve with Quad 64-bit Intel Xeon processors at LinuxWorld – August 17, 2006
Bear Stearns: Apple’s new Mac Pro, Xserve pricing well below comparable Dell systems – August 09, 2006
Apple introduces Xserve with Quad 64-bit Intel Xeon Processors – August 07, 2006

19 Comments

  1. The Cnet article states that the cluster node is PowerPC, not intel. It also says they are due to be replaced by woodcrests but I think it was supposed to mean that the Xserve line is moving to Intel, not that the xserve cluster specifcally is moving. It’s not necessarily inaccurate, it could just be a case of bad writing.

  2. It’s reasonable to assume that the next logical step for Apple to take would be to create a cluser node X-server.

    But the fact is Apple doesn’t expect to sell a whole lot of X-Servers now that they are based upon Intel processors which can be gotten from just about anywhere, unlike when Apple was the only source for the G5 based servers.

    So since Apple’s target market has shrunk considerably, there is no need to diversify to better meet the demands of large orders.

    Apple is now competing against HP, Dell, and Lenvco (whatever) and no longer has the processor advantage anymore. People will buy X-Server for Mac OS X Server (yuck) or price, which on price alone isn’t enough.

  3. @Linux guy

    It’s called an Xserve. I don’t think the Xserve’s market has shrunk considerably. You could argue that it hasn’t grown very much because it doesn’t have the kind of price advantage over other companies like the Mac Pro does, but I don’t think it’s market has shrunk.

    Despite the fact that OS X server is not as optimized for certain server functions as most other server OS’s, some people still prefer OS X Server. It is easy to use and licenses are much cheaper than for Windows Server. Linux is of course cheaper still, and some will choose Xserves for linux servers because they are well designed and are at competitive prices, but for Apple centric businesses the ease of Mac OS X Server may be more important than the fact that Linux is many ways a better environment for some server application. Apple won’t lose those customers.

    Other Xserve customers are cluster builders who will likely continue with the platform because Apple has done several large high profile cost effective clusters. They are good at that market and taking care of those customers.

    Finally, last time I checked, Apple’s RAID solutions were a much better value than that of any competitor. That may have changed but for some markets that alone is reason to go with Apple.

  4. Linux Guy:

    You forgot to add “You know what I’m saying” throughout that mess of a comment which resembles English… somewhat.

    Your comment is flacid (that means soft). The Mac Pro just debuted with comparable processors and hardware for less than a comparable Dell. Apple has smaller market share compared to Dell. So based on your weak theory, Apple won’t be able to comptete with Dell desktop? The current G5 dual processor machine is $3999. The new xServe will be $2999, plus it will have dual cores! for a $1000 less!

    Price comparison for servers:
    Dell PowerEdge with 2 Dual core Intel Xeon 5150 processors and 4GB DDR2 400 MHz with SUSE Linux (you will need to do the install yourself)
    If you want Windows 2003 server, the price goes way up because you will need to purchase client licenses
    $4,754.00

    Apple xServe
    xServe base price (when available)
    Currently, comparable upgrades for RAM would be $900
    $4,899.00

    Both machines will require hardware and software maintanance.

    Does that pricing seem comaprable to you guys? Sure there are cheaper servers, but I have worked with an xServe G5 and they are a snap, and easy to configure.

  5. > So since Apple’s target market has shrunk considerably, there is no need to diversify to better meet the demands of large orders.

    I don’t get it. There may be specific cases where the previous X-Serve was chosen because it was PPC (not Intel), but overall, the change to Intel will expand Apple’s “target market” (because it is Intel)… just like the change to Intel expanded Apple’s market in desktops and laptops. Plus the machine itself is significantly better with the dual dual-core Xeons. The previous best was two single-core PPCs. And it now has a redundant power supply, made possible due to less heat from the CPUs. If there is sufficient demand, I’m sure Apple will make a “cluster node” version.

  6. What is there not to get? Are all you MacHeads idiots?

    With G5 X-Serve clusters Apple had the monopoly on the fastest processor available, they were bought in droves to build supercomputers and sure as hell didn’t run Mac OS X Server.

    These people bought X-Clusters because of the processor in them, not really too much about anything else. Price for performance is what these large order people were concerned about. Mac OS X server was not even shipped on these machines.

    So fast foward to the present, Apple now uses commonly gotten Intel based processors. So where is the huge demand now? For Mac OS X Server? What a frigging joke, Linux is much more customizable and streamlined. Even Pixar uses Linux for their renderfarms, like many others.

    Windows Server is compatible, it will be used regardless of it’s price.

    Apple offer’s nothing. Expect the stock to drop.

  7. >With G5 X-Serve clusters Apple had the monopoly on the fastest processor available

    “had” is the correct tense. “So fast foward to the present”… FOUR cores. Soon to be EIGHT when the four-core Xeons roll out. A monopoly on yesterday’s best technology is worthless.

  8. A monopoly on yesterday’s best technology is worthless.

    Exactly, where is Apple’s processor monopoly now?

    Yea, shared with Dell, HP and the rest of the Intel monopoly.

    Apple uses Dual Cores, Dell copies

    Dell uses Dual Quad cores, Apple copies.

    Intel has one pricing structure for all, what is left to compete with?

    Dell boxes Windows license

    Apple boxes OS X Server license.

    Windows is more commonly used

    Linux is doing a heck of a great job and increasing

    Mac OS X Server is the least used

    Why is this you ask?

    Because with Microsoft it’s a operating system monopoly.

    With Apple it’s a hardware and operatining system monopoly

    Now you know, I made it very plain to you.

  9. Linux Guy bloviating on something he really knows nothing about said:

    “These people bought X-Clusters because of the processor in them, not really too much about anything else. Price for performance is what these large order people were concerned about. Mac OS X server was not even shipped on these machines.

    According to the Virginia Tech System X Terascale Computing Center, the operating system of the 1100 xServes that make up the supercomputer is Mac OS X.3.9. This was from a webpage copyright 2005… so I suspect they may have upgraded to OS X.4 buy now.

    Virginia Tech Terascale Computing Facility

    According to CNet “Colsa will use Mac OS X as the primary operating system” on the COLSA Mach5 supercomputer (1566 xServe Macs). (June 21, 2004)

    Linux Guy, would care to retract that “not even shipped on these machines” claim?

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.