G4 Cases Holding Back Clustering Acceptance?

Mr. Quick writes: "An article at Wired talks about how Mac hardware is well-suited for clustering, but is being held back by the sexy cases. This follows closely on the heels of Apple releasing an optimized version of BLAST. Producing rack-mount *blades* is not in Steve's vision of world domination, but the opportunity exists. I, for one, hope that apple seriously considers developing a rack mounted dual-G4. Quad G4 maybe?"

Practical Macs?

[Perdo]

Never happen. Apple will never go back to generic looking cases. The beige cases almost killed them and the flavored macs (and microsoft) saved their butter.

Re:Practical Macs?

[TheAJofOZ]

I would have to disagree - Apple will never go back to beige on the desktop, because beige on the desktop almost killed them. They need to plan it carefully and it will have to wait until OS X is firmly seated into the Mac world but they can maintain a dual appearance - colour for the consumers and small-form for the servers.

Apple is currently building up their main business plan but rest assured they will spread into a range of areas once they have that plan running smoothly. Timing is of the essence.

Re:Practical Macs?

[foobar104]

Apple will never go back to generic looking cases.

Apple doesn't have to go back to generic-looking cases. A one- or two-rack-unit case doesn't leave a ton of room to be creative, but it's still possible to make 'em distinctive.

Look at the SGI Origin 300 [sgi.com] and Origin 3000 [sgi.com]* for an example of a rackmount system that's distinctive and cool.

* Underneath the rack skins, the bricks in an Origin 3000 are 19-inch rackmount components, between one and four units high. SGI racks come with extra hardware in the back for managing all the cables the system requires, but other than that they're not special.

After-market conversions

[trollbot]

Of course, it is possible to refit a Mac [marathoncomputer.com] in a new, rackmount-friendly case [pointinspace.com].

However, it would be possible to have a decent-looking (ie non-wacko), slimline design differentiated from Apple's normal consumer kit. This might be a niche market, but that is usually where Apple thrives.

Re:After-market conversions

[wundabread]

Hell, make it wacko looking as long as it fits a single unit rack-mount. Apple has a shot at selling a lot of systems and gaining some prestige in the scientific computing world, and I really think they should go for it.

A new case and some DDR memory and they would be a force to be reckoned with in the rapidly expanding realm of genetic research.

Re:After-market conversions

[Person 112375793]

I don't think anyone is going to disagree with you. There would a great deal of demand. But what if Apple couldn't supply enough machines? I'm sure most people remember their past supply problems. Be it because of poor chip yields or some other reason, Apple has to consider that having high demand is not beneficial if they can't supply. --Ed

Server cases?

[Anztac]

Why that would be function over form!! ::Gasp:: Jobs would never go for it. ;)

Already available

[dair]

3rd party rack-mounted cases are already out there - from Marathon [marathoncomputer.com] or GVS [gvstore.com]. Given how important style is to Apple at the moment, I doubt they're going to branch out into purely functional cases anytime soon...

-dair

Re:Already available

[navywife]

3rd party rack-mounted cases are already out there...

Good call--The GVS systems put dual 1GHz in a 2U case, which would give UC-SC the (theoretical) 160 processors per rack frame they wanted, all running OS X. I hope Apple/GVS's salesmen are calling the people mentioned in the Wired article for a big sale...

I doubt they're going to branch out into purely functional cases anytime soon...

Apple shouldn't be spending time on 2U or 1U Macs when others already are. They've worked hard to make the Apple brand mean "stylish" and 2U clustering boxes will just mix that up. Let the 3rd party developers put them out there under another name...Because these are actual Power Macs w/ Macintosh ROM, Apple is making some coin from them regardless.

And if the day ever comes when it makes more sense to have that business inside Apple, Apple buys them out. What Apple should be doing is promoting the bejeezus out of these things to their scientific/visualization customers...

Re:Bad math

[navywife]

...which would give UC-SC the (theoretical) 160 processors per rack frame they wanted...

Or maybe my math is just really bad, it would be half (40) as many processors per rack, not double. The ability to put Apple's latest and greatest in a 2U space is still very attractive...

Another idea

[khaladan]

Only one button... only one menu bar... why more than one computer? That would just be making things too complicated!

They are half way there already..

[mallie_mcg]

A bold statement i know, but if you go to the apple store you can see that they have a "Server" section, which is basically a PowerMac with OS X Server. How hard would it be for apple to add a tick box for rack mount kit, perhaps even allow downgrading to OS X as the OS.

Personally I think that apple SHOULD change the look of the systems that they are trying to sell as servers, have a look at the Sun E250 or E450, they are not butt ugly, but rather well engineered cases (and not too bad machines, albeit old now). If apple took an approach like that, simply making a machine they sell to be a server look like one, and havit it available as rackmount, they would have it made.

Fancy Rackmounted Boxes anyone?

[Big Sean O]

The Google Search Appliance [google.com] isn't a drab beige rackmount. I suppose Apple could do something along that line, of course it would have a neon tube in the front that changed color as server load changed, or something.

The one thing Uncle Steve won't do is build something noone will buy. Sure, it has to be 'cool', but it also has to sell. Since Darwin's cli is so similar to Linux, I think Apple-branded servers won't have any perceived benefit to the unwashed masses (who always complained that Mac hardware was too expensive).

Never!

[twiztidlojik]

As explained before, Apple's form factor is a major differentiator between their product and a beige box. Beige (or black!) boxes don't get nearly as much attention as, say, the new iMac or even the old iMac. I've never seen a Newsweek with, say, a Dell insert in it explaining the features of the new Dell or Dell-branded MP3 player. Apple's marketing department's really on the ball selling the computer's form, and selling a boring old rackmount server isn't in Apple's little four-square Plan For The Future. The rackmount server goes against everything Jobsian in design, such as: the original iMac, the cube, the next cube, the iPod, the new iMac, and the G3 case design family (B&W G3, graphite G4, Quicksilver G4).

Re:Fancy Rackmounted Boxes anyone?

[wundabread]

They will have the distinct benefit of lower power consumption and lower temperatures, which for running rooms of rackmount servers is a pretty big advantage.

For an application like BLAST, a bunch of systems with a few older G4s (just to pack in the Altivec units without having to buy the newest processors) would be a very attractive and cost-effective option.

Re:Fancy Rackmounted Boxes anyone?

[foobar104]

The Google Search Appliance isn't a drab beige rackmount.

No, it's a drab yellow rackmount. Spray-painting a standard aluminum OEM case doesn't suffice to make it cool.

Re:PowerBook based

[belg4mit]

The form factor of the board is not the issue.
My former employer makes (x86) 1U boxes and
there are two issues.

Height of CPU(namely the heatsink) and RAM.

Heat, you only end up with 19*2 inches on either
end exposed. And you have to pull air through
that (around the contents) to cool everything.

You are not going to get 4 boards in one box.
Well okay, maybe 4 boards but nothing else to
speak of.

Sun Cobalt Raq?

[pvera]

Apple could easily make a drawer like the Sun Cobalt Raq. Nobody ever compares a Cobalt Raq to the looks of a Compaq Proliant drawer.

Re:there will be an Apple rack-mount soon

[acaben]

Apple generally builds up demand to a feverish pitch and then releases the product to the world and because of the heavy demand the product usually is snapped up in droves.

Hmm...I think I'd have to disagree with that. Take the iMac, for example. Before the first iMac was introduced, no one knew they wanted one. In fact, when it was first released, the media was fond of saying that no one would ever buy one.

The iPod is another example. It wasn't expected at all, and generally downplayed and dissed by a lot of the media (including my site), because we didn't think it would be successful. Apple proved us wrong.

Both of those cases are examples of Apple doing something unexpected, as opposed to building demand for something expected.

What is the problem?

[yancey]

We have a rack-mounted G4. It sits in our rack on its side and has been running just fine for months. I do not see Apple's case design as a significant impediment to rack mounting... just people's desire to have every little thing done for them!

A.S.O Serves No Purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

So far there have been 9 stories posted in Apple.Slashdot.Org. Of those 9 stories, 6 have been covered at MacSlash [macslash.com] before they were seen here. They were on M/ at least a day before they were seen here, but in one case, M/ beat A.S.O to the punch by a month. And the signal to noise ratio and comment quality generally seems to be higher there, too.

Repackaging news from another mac web site and then insulting Apple users by ending each department name with "for dummies" is not an impressive start for this new section.

Re:A.S.O Serves No Purpose

[Doktor Memory]

Repackaging news from another mac web site and then insulting Apple users by ending each department name with "for dummies" is not an impressive start for this new section.

Remember, a.s.o is from the same drooling morons who have ended each and every story in the last three years about new Apple hardware announcements with the exact same lame gag about one-button mice. That malda still thinks this is funny pretty much says everything you need to know about him as a person (ie: monomaniac, idiot) and the intended purpose of this section of slashdot (ie: "get those damn stories about a company succeeding with unix on the desktop off the front page, we need more space for linux kernal point revision announcments and Sun press releases!").

Re:A.S.O Serves No Purpose

[jamie]

"Remember, a.s.o is from the same drooling morons who have ended each and every story in the last three years about new Apple hardware announcements with the exact same lame gag about one-button mice."

Why do you say that? Go look at the bio for Pudge [slashdot.org] who has posted most of the stories in apple.slashdot.org. He's been coding Slashdot for a while but this is the first time he's posting stories. He's done most of the stories in the new Apple section.

I've been a Mac user since 1987 and am typing right now on my trusty G4 (with a zero-button mouse). Timothy wasn't much of a Mac fan until he actually used one... now I think an iBook is his main machine. And Rob likes Macs except for little hardware quirks (and if his mentioning three-button mice twice a year really bugs you that much, you're a bigger Slashdot fan than most, I tip my cap to ya).

The Slashdot crew as a whole doesn't agree on much, but we all appreciate good technology, and most of us appreciate the Mac.

"get those damn stories about a company succeeding with unix on the desktop off the front page"

Don't worry, we'll continue to have some Apple on the front page (there's one today in fact).

Re:A.S.O Serves No Purpose

[Lars T.]

How is that different from Plain.Slashdot.Org? Almost all articles there have been posted somewhere else already.

Sun

[jsimon12]

Sun puts out large purple boxes with GIANT Sun logos on the side and 30+ flashing lights. So I can't see much diffreance between that and the Mac case. I personally think the thing that holds Mac's back from the server market is honestly few people view them as servers, least in my experiance. What upper level manager wants to say he has a rack full of Apples? The mere mention of that sounds odd. The uninitiated want to say they have a rack full of Sun's, IBM's, Dells or Compaqs, not Fruit.

Embedded chips?

[LeapingGnomeArs]

Aren't G4's primary use from Motorola for embedded devices? I think this would make it very easy for the chips to fit into a small space with low power consumption and low heat. If Apple decides to go after this market it should not be difficult for them to fit 4 chips in a 1U case. BTW, all you guys posting the Marathon links, did you even read the article? They state the Marathon cases only allow 80 processors per rack, where comparable PC cases allow 160 processors.

Yellowdog makes 'em

[TexTex]

For the power of the G4 mixed with linux and stacked serves or a rack mount option, Yellow Dog Linux makes the briQ.

It runs on amazing little power and you can cram 8 of them in a 4U rack.

http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/products/briQ/ br iQ.shtml

Uncool!

[fm6]

If Steve Jobs ever authorized a product that didn't have a high Cool Factor, he'd remove the one thing that distinguishes him from the great mass of technology moguls.

Does this sound like trollish sarcasm? Perhaps, but I'm deadly serious. Apple's design innovations are all supposed to be about making computers more usable. But they're the darlings of those who thing form is everything and function is nothing. When the new iMac came out, NPR intereviewed a prominent design consultant. Here's a relevent excerpt

BLOCK: I guess some of this boils down to that old question of, you know, `Does form follow function?' You do see, in the Apple publicity, they're talking about the Pentium-crushing power PC G4 processor. And at the same time there are lots of pictures of how great this thing looks. What do you think is motivating consumers here, or will motivate buyers?

Mr. DZIERSK: Well, listen, I'm on a soapbox here. I mean, this is- -none of that matters. None of that matters at all. The only thing that matters is design right now: how big it is, how fast it runs, how much power it goes isn't useful to 90 percent of us, maybe even 95 percent of us. You know, in the '70s it used to be marketing. In the '80s it was all this financial merger stuff. The '90s, distribution; the Wal-Marts happened, the Kmarts happened, Targets happened, you know, the Internet happened. But now all that's leveled out. If things work relatively the same and they cost about the same, design is the only reason to buy a product. And that happens when products reach commodity. And computers, in many ways, have reached commodity status. Think about a running shoe. It's only about design. Or even a toothbrush.

BLOCK: What about, say, the PT Cruiser, when that came out?

Mr. DZIERSK: Oh, it's fantastic. I mean, risk-taking, interesting and a huge success. And, you know, this is what I'm so angry about is why--how does it take so long to get it, you know? We have folks we know who bought their daughter a new Beetle, and the only reason the car is parked in the garage is because the door to her bedroom isn't big enough to drive it in. See? Design's about love. It's about falling in love with your product. And all these business types are about metrics, you know. These designs are universal in that everybody can use them. They have better designs and the elevate the level of dialogue and you don't go back.

Here's someone who's already clustered G4 Cubes

[klieber]

Here's a story [macworld.com] about a guy who has successfully clustered some G4 Cubes, bypassing the heat problem by adding some fans and removing the computer from the plastic casing. Sure, it's not quiet any more, but it apparently makes for a decent cluster.