Would the WHT crowd be interested in having sub $300 dedicated xserves.
Of couse there would be some promo's of lower prices (same specs).

Generally I was thinking
1Ghz G4
256Megs of RAM (should we go 512?)
40-60 HDD
OS X unlimited license.
Bandwidth would be over 100gigs but under 400. Somewhere in between.

This would come with basic tech support.

I'm not very familiar with Mac OS X and was wondering what the benefit would be of purchasing a Mac OS X server opposed to another Unix based server which is much less expensive and equally if not more reliable and more powerful? I do know that Apple processors are apparently more advanced than x86 processors in some ways and that their clock speed does not determine how fast they are; however, can a 1GHz G4 compete with a Xeon or Athlon MP of comparable price?

This is in no way to be taken as a flame, I simply have little experience with Mac OS X, thanks.

Btw ... G4's runs a graphical unix actually right?
afaik is based on freebsd ...could be?

Maybe you could offer G4's loaded with FreeBSD or ...RedHat?
I also remember a Windows NT for MAC, does it still exist?

btw JonL ... G4's are risc cpu's, and yes, they are FAST... dunno how fast, but they are VERY fast.

Regards.

Mac OSX is just like using a any other *nix distro. But instead of a GUI like KDE or Gnome, you have Apple's Carbon interface with wonderful extras.

But it's still got the basic stuff like a terminal so you can run your command lines. And a lot of the usual software for a linux server can be installed if it hasn't already been included. So you could get some OpenSSH in there and what not.

It is based on Freebsd, but I think the hardware architecture prohibits other OSes from running correctly on a G4 or G5.

I myself, do not see any real need for an Xserve, as they are quite expensive, and don't provide any giant leap of reliability or speed. The G5s are quite nice, but I think applie computers are more of a workstation computer rather than a server. Just use the OS, you'll understand.

Windows NT used to run on the powerpc platform years ago, M$ has long since stopped that version. G4s can run Yellow Dog Linux and NetBSD.

Please keep in mind that there are two versions of OS X, client and server. It is similiar to Win2k workstation and server, they provide different services and serve different functions.

Darwin is Mac OS X's development end and is Open Source.

Originally posted by cascompany
Maybe you could offer G4's loaded with FreeBSD or ...RedHat?
I also remember a Windows NT for MAC, does it still exist?

OS X is based on BSD.

As far as dedicated Xserves... I personally have no interest, and don't think many people on WHT would.

However, Mac hosting seems to be a niche market, with plenty of people who insist on Mac hosting. $300 for an Xserve with a fraction of the transfer and such of a $99 RackShack box seems to be a steal. I think there's a potential to do well.

OS X, as like ten other people have said, is based on BSD. But there are G4s that came with OS 9, IIRC. OS 9 had nothing to do with BSD.

IMHO, offering Xserves with anything but OSX would be suicide. As I said, the Apple hosting market seems to be a big niche market of people who love Apple; I think the majority might see it as blasphemy to sell Xserves with RedHat on them. (And I'm not sure RedHat runs on PPC, does it?)

I only planned to run OS X on them, anything else would defeat the whole purpose. =)

Well... just want until CPANEL is available to OSX ... that could change some things...
But I also dont know what adventage could have a OSX over FreeBSD or RedHat ... or even Windows ... does it run any thing others dont? (ie. ASP, .NET, Java...¿other?)

Regards.

rofl - CPANEL ??? ahahhaah.

And whats the point in installing another OS onto a MAC?
It defeats the point - its not like the cpu is 5 times faster than a intel equiv.

Originally posted by wubwob

It defeats the point - its not like the cpu is 5 times faster than a intel equiv.

Unless it's one of the new G5s. ;)

OS X has support for filemaker and lasso DBs which are mostly mac specific however there are implementations on Linux. But its similiar to using ASP on linux, it works...sortive.

Maybe it's me...

But I just can't see the market for them. Most of what one would want to do with a server seems to be pretty much covered with the whiteboxes that a lot of folks are using, or the dells that (for example) rackshack have.

What specific features do you think these servers would have that would 'sell' them to hosting companies/customers? I can't think of any niche they fill off of the top of my head....

-David

Alot of users simply like to support mac whenever they can, the servers are ultra reliable and stable. Anyone who currently has a mac running OS X would feel very comfortable with them right off the bat. All the controls are right in front of your face, plus its based on BSD and can run almost any *nix based app that you throw at it.

Linux will actually run on a G3 amd G4 and I'm assuming G5 but cannot confirm that. I love Mac OS X as a home OS, it's amazing. But as a server OS, it really doesn't have any real benefit over other *NIX distrobutions as it's only the n00bs who would ever want that Apache service GUI and stuff with the green and red flashing lights :) On the other hand the Apple's are incredibly stable and I'd much rather have my data on one than a hybrid machine found in most DCs. It really jut depends on the market you're looking at. For a ~$300 machine with ~250GB bandwidth, it's not for the WHT crowd (well for some of us but if you look around most people here seem to be cheapskates), but WHT is never the main source of advertising (I hope, hosts out there).

Just my $.02

But aside from all that (which I understand)...

What are the compelling features of the osx software for hosting services? I'm genuinely curious - the last mac I've actually 'used' was a LC III ;)

-David

The quicktime server is another benefit.

Interesting FACT :

Adobe suggest Intel P4's when using there applications - as they are faster than mac equivelent.

There was a big stink on that on Slashdot. I don't recall the specifics, but I believe it was actually them just decided to stop supporting MacOS with Adobe Premiere because so many people used it solely on Windows or something. I could be combinging stories, but I'm fairly sure Slashdot ran an article about Adobe declaring Intel faster, but the actual link was just about how they were dropping further development of certain products because no one used them.

But again... I think the people who say "But x86 is cheaper/faster/better" aren't the target customers. I know a few die-hard Mac fans who would probably pay way more (if they needed a dedicated server...) to be on an OS X box if it was that or Linux on x86. Some people just won't have anything but Mac.