Apple Blurs the Server Line With Mac Mini Server 557
Toe, The writes "Today Apple announced several new hardware offerings, including a new Mac mini, their (almost-literally) pint-sized desktop computer. In a bizarre twist, they are now also offering a Mac mini with Mac OS X Server bundled in, along with a two hard drives somehow stuffed into the tiny package. Undoubtedly, many in the IT community will scoff at the thought of calling such a device a 'server.' However, with the robust capabilities of Snow Leopard Server (a true, if highly GUI-fied, UNIX server), it seems likely to find a niche in small businesses and even enthusiasts' homes. The almost completely guided setup process means that people can set up relatively sophisticated services without the assistance of someone who actually knows what they are doing. What the results will be in terms of security, etc. will be... interesting to watch as they develop." El Reg has a good roundup article of the many announcements; the multi-touch Magic Mouse is right up there on the techno-lust-inspiration scale.
Bold claim... (Score:5, Insightful)
...call me skeptical on that one.
Re:Bold claim... (Score:5, Insightful)
I am a Mac Fan... (Score:1, Insightful)
But OS X for a server, is rather lame. OS X is a Desktop OS
Windows is kinda mediocre for both Desktop and Server but gets the job done.
Using Linux for normal desktop use for normal actives is just doing extra work... However it is perfect for a server.
Sure they can all do the Job as a Server and Desktop and they have their variants which make them a bit better at it. However OS X even being Unix Based doesn't make it a good server. It might make it a reliable server just as long as you do what Apple want you to do with it.
Re:For those who need a server... (Score:4, Insightful)
Bravo to the Mac Mini Server (Score:2, Insightful)
Great Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
I love the idea of a Mac Mini server for many tasks. If you just need a server for directory, file, and print stuff, this is a damn good idea, especially if you're constrained for space. Even if you're not, most small offices don't have huge IT setups... many just use a business-grade cable or DSL connection with a small router. This is the perfect kind of server for that kind of small office setup. I don't think Apple anticipates anyone running heavy SQL on this or anything. This is also a good way to test the waters to see how much of a market there really is for OSX Server. Bravo to Apple on this one. It's a few more bucks than a PC equivalent (no surprise there), but a typically elegant-while-useful idea that Apple is sometimes famous for.
Welcome to the party... (Score:4, Insightful)
Meh. Some of us already use boxes like this (or actual minis) in this sort of capacity.
Once you install a robust OS on a bit of hardware, the whole desktop/server distinction is entirely arbitrary.
Re:For those who need a server... (Score:3, Insightful)
I rather like the really small form factor. Given that it comes with OS X Server (which costs $499 by itself), I think it's a pretty decent deal for those who want an OS X Server machine for a small office.
Me too. I don't see this becoming hugely popular as any business with a large IT department can just throw together a small server if that is what they need but I can see that this mini server hits the sweet spot for a fair number of small businesses.
Re:Only posers would scoff... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Servers" generally have things that make it robust and easier maintain
and easier to put into a rack in a colo somewhere. This includes things
like hot swap drive bays, hardware RAID and multiple power supplies.
This is the sort of thing that separates a Dell "server" or a Sun "server"
from desktop machines.
I can take a clone crapbox and do the same thing with it (and have).
I can take a regular mini and load a server OS on it (and have).
If Apple didn't overprice their Server Distribution to begin with,
there would be really little point to this particular configuration.
Re:Bold claim... (Score:5, Insightful)
That is a recipe for disaster waiting to happen. I've been in the unfortunate spot of representing a consulting company called in to configure a Mac OSX Server purchased by less-than-knowledgeable employees. It was a small business, about 5-10 people, that did contract-based graphic design/marketing. They loved Apple stuff, and were suckered into a completely unnecessary Xserve system, complete with overpriced external rack-mount tape backup drive. Being young and mildly tech-conscious, they overestimated their ability to manage this thing, doubtlessly egged on by some "whiz" at a Genius Bar waxing their balls about how well they'd be able to run it on their own.
Wrong. Granted, it's not hard to someone like me who does this sort of thing for a living, but managing backups was way out of their league. The backups weren't even running, though they remained blissfully unaware of this fact, and setting up network shares/user permissions was beyond their capability. This ended up costing them way more than ever needed to spend to get what amounted to a file server up and running, and I blame this on bad marketing.
Oh, we tried to convince them to sell their ridiculously overpowered server equipment before it depreciated in value, but they were insistent on using it, because it's Apple.
Misleading marketing like this is exactly what drives the borderline masochistic relationship Apple nuts have with Apple. All I can do is shake my head.
Re:For those who need a server... (Score:4, Insightful)
Back in the day, any random PC could be a competent cvs/build server for a small development team.
I knew a guy that had a Linux box doing this job long enough without trouble that he forgot how he had set it up.
Smaller PCs are legion. Even cheap mini-sized systems are abundant now.
Once you contemplate all the other possibilities, and consider that you
may not need something terribly pretty, this thing isn't really that
exciting.
Apple should just drop the cliff pricing on the Server version of MacOS.
Re:Scoff? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, this thing could be a nice little Subversion/backup/collaboration server for a small iPhone development shop. With built-in CalDAV, email, wiki, svn, time machine, rsync, web server, etc., it's a nice little small workgroup server. It would be nice if they could have made it cost a little less, but having a small, quiet server in a home or small office is pretty valuable.
Re:Bold claim... (Score:3, Insightful)
The security-skepticism in the summary doesn't seem like it'll necessarily be borne out, either. It depends on how well Apple's thought through all the options, but a decent hand-holding interface to powerful software can often help ensure that the common case (the clueless user) ends up with a sane/secure setup.
Now they just need iPhoto server. (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine a small home/workgroup server like this, but with iPhoto support so that everyone can share a photo database.
OSX server includes an iCalendar server, Address Book server, Mail Server, iChat server... so they have every other server component that a Mac Centric office would need, why no iPhoto server?
Why scoff at calling this a server? (Score:2, Insightful)
This Mac mini has more power than most servers had a couple years ago. Is a HTPC serving all your multimedia needs in your home (mp3s, videos, pictures) a server, or do you also need to use it as a file server? Microsoft has been advertising the concept of a home server for a couple years. What is blurred here?
I got a 10 year old dsl router from ebay for 5 bucks to use as a print server. 10 of those things would have less computing power than my last cellphone (my current one actually has the same computing power as my last computer). And I call it a server.
Has the guy who wrote this ever typed anything into a command line?
However, with the robust capabilities of my butt I will surely find a niche on my couch...
Re:Only posers would scoff... (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait, Apple overprices their server distro? The cheapest version of Windows Server that I could find was 2003 R2 Standard, which is $1000 for five seats. OS X Server is $500 for unlimited seats.
Of course compared to a Free Unix/Linux box both are overpriced, but if spending five hundred bucks saves your sysadmin a couple of hours tinkering around (it may or may not - I have very little experience with OS X Server and no experience as a sysadmin), it's paid for itself.
Home server (Score:3, Insightful)
Yup, I'd agree with you. I consider myself a Linux guy, but I have a Mac Mini at home. I originally bought it so I could push stuff I purchased from iTunes to my iPod (and I still use it for that.) I have it plugged into my TV via VGA, and use a bluetooth keyboard/mouse.
Mostly though, it's a convenient backup server for the Linux laptops in our home, using rsync over ssh. It's great, and fits conveniently on a shelf next to my TV.
I think Apple hopes to do similar business with a Mac Mini Server. There's no optical drive, so I'm curious about that ... but if you want to set up a small server in your home, I'm sure Apple would love to sell you this thing. Small, fits on a shelf, great for home use.
I don't see this being used at the office, unless someone works in a small business (less than 100 people) that doesn't have their own server room, and wants to set up a small web server or file server.
Re:Scoff? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple already has a rank-mounted server called the Xserve for this purpose.
For the price of one Xserve you could get 3 Mini's loaded with 10.6 Server. So if you don't need a beefcake Xeon, why not?
Re:Only posers would scoff... (Score:3, Insightful)
Doing RAID without swappable drives is INSANE.
Have you gone inside of a mini? I have. I can't imagine
any of the pretentious types that would buy this sort of
machine would appreciate the experience.
I don't even like to go inside of "normal PCs" for
futzing around with drives. That why my "big boxes"
all have hotswap trays for the bulk storage. Even a
case intended to be worked on poses a potential for
disaster.
This is why "real servers" and storage arrays have
things like externally exposed hot swap drive bays.
This mini exposes the limitations of the current mini
form factor and highlights why they need something else.
A "double wide" mini with room for cardbus slots or the
aforementioned hotswap bays could be quite cool in this
respect without sacrificing much in the way of the current
visual coolness.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:For those who need a server... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that is the issue. What if one wants a server and all one has is a telephone closet. For 1K you can put a mini in there and probably won't need to worry about power, cooling, whatever. A thousand for a server. Back in the olden days, when I was putting the first servers in a MS Windows environment, the machines cost at lest twice that much, and were unreliable. Today, a growing business could probably live for a while just adding more servers. And at that price, one could keep an extra around. You now, a redundant array of mac minis.
I am not saying that I can imagine a real case where a mini server would make sense. I am just saying that discounting things like aesthetics and design in a what is clearly meant to be SOHO server is rather silly. Not everyone has the funds to hire an MSCE to run a server, has the need for a rack solution, or the ability to set up a *nix server from scratch. In reality, I can't imagine how this would be better than outsourcing, but I can appreciate how this is one of Apples cleaver ideas. I suspect MS might be pushing their xbox server next month
Re:Good be great (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you living in a communist country where competition is prohitibed by the government or something?
You must not be familiar with how the US govt works.
Re:Snow Leopard is not a "true UNIX" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bold claim... (Score:2, Insightful)
And profit? Doesn't seem so bad to me.
Re:I can see plenty of uses for it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Dual NIC woulda been nice (Score:3, Insightful)
Dual ethernet is pretty much a standard feature for a small office server, lets you set up firewalls, remote access and other public-side facing services. And they could have made space for it by removing a few of the USB ports, 5 USB ports seems kinda overkill for a machine that isn't intended for desktop use.
FWIW I haven't used OSX Server in a few years but last time I did the GUI config tools were okay but not amazing. Some of the services were pretty smooth to config, but the hard stuff was still hard. For example to setup Apache you still pretty much had to be an expert in httpd.conf arcana even though you didn't actually have to edit the files by hand (usually).
Ouch! (Score:3, Insightful)
Am I the only one that thinks that the pricing for the Mac Mini has gone a little insane? When they first came out they were for people who wanted to dip their toes into the Apple world but without spending a small fortune. Now the base unit is £500, hardly a drop in the ocean.
And yet again, nothing headless in the mid-range :( I can either go for the sexy (but hugely overpriced and underspecced) £649 Mac Mini or jump over £1200 to the £1,899 quad core beast. As the idea of paying to replace your monitor every time Apple make your old product obsolete sounds a little absurd to me - I'm not interested in the iMacs.
It's no wonder that some companies (*cough*psystar*cough*) and people are flirting with the idea of a Hackintosh. A £800 mid-range headless box from Apple would surely hit the sweet spot for quite a lot of people.
DC Power (Score:4, Insightful)
This is interesting for people considering a DC-powered server room. The Mini uses 18.5V DC with an external AC-DC converter. No hardware modifications required to run off a DC supply.
Re:Bold claim... (Score:3, Insightful)
From playing with a copy of Snow Leopard pretty briefly, I'd say that you can get some of the services up and running without knowing very much. For example, it's pretty dead simple to get apache running with Apple's supported weblog and wiki software. I wouldn't think DNS would be any easier for a new sysadmin on OSX. Either you know how to configure DNS or you don't. Mail setup seemed pretty easy, except you'll still have to know how to set up the DNS entries for a mail server to get it to be useful. I couldn't get iChat server to work, but couldn't figure out what the problem was either.
The real trick, however, isn't in getting services set up easily. It's the question of what happens if you want to do something non-standard. It'd be easy enough to configure an automatic install script for Apache on Linux, for example, if we assume a consistent configuration. The difficulty in setting these things up usually comes when you ask, "Well what if I want to do something off-the-wall and whacky?"
Re:For those who need a server... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I can see plenty of uses for it. (Score:4, Insightful)
So Honda announced a bunch of new Accords.
Cool.
I was looking at buying a Kia for $10k. Can I buy one of those new Accords for that price? I don't see any listed here or on honda.com.
Re:For those who need a server... (Score:4, Insightful)
Did I not say "small size and quiet operation"? Since when did "any random PC" fulfill those requirements?
Did I say otherwise? I said there are primary reasons other than aesthetics to use a Mac Mini. For iPhone development in particular, which requires MacOS X, the other systems are not necessarily suitable. If you have different needs and different solutions, that's wonderful too, but quite irrelevant to my point.
Who said anything about "exciting"? This is just a server in a small box.
My point was simply to reject that choosing the Mac Mini must primarily be for aesthetics, I'm not sure what yours is.
Re:I can see plenty of uses for it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Never mind development boxes, there are companies that specialise in Mac Mini colocation! I run a couple of these myself (although not colo), they're quiet, don't take up much space, and only draw 20 watts when idling. That said, I use second hand PowerPC Minis with Debian on them, because (as others have also commented) I find the £500 price tag for a new Intel Mini a bit ridiculous.
I'm kind of curious how they managed to fit two drives in, the ones I've opened up didn't have a great deal of space inside and storage capacity has always been a bit of problem because they only take 2.5 inch drives. While this isn't such a problem now, when I first start using a Mac Mini as a file server a few years back it wasn't possible to get a drive to store all the data I wanted.
With two drives I imagine there might be a bit of a cooling problem too, after several months of being on continuously the vents start to get a bit dusty - I know that shouldn't be such a problem in a properly managed server environment, but I can't imagine that's the market they're aiming at with this release.
Big deal - I've been doing this for years (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't see what the big deal is. I've been using a Mac Mini G4 as a server for more than 3 years. It doesn't even need X Server on it. Mine has been faithfully serving as a Apache HTTPD/PostgreSQL/Tomcat/Postfix/SFTP and music/file server just fine - and with only one HD too (which had to be replaced after 2 years) and only 1GB of RAM. Sometimes I even hook up an external HD and have even MORE space available. Oh my!!
Mine just sits on a bookshelf, headless, and I use ARD as and if necessary. I'm an Apple fan, but there is no news on this one - I dunno why anyone could be excited about it, especially at the price. Go get a used Mini for less than half the cost and use it for the exact same thing.
Re:I can see plenty of uses for it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Depends on your requirements, afaict the eeebox only supports a single internal hard drive (and I don't think it has esata or firewire either so you are left with shitty USB if you want a second drive for raid). This new server mini supports two hard drives (the previous gen mini could also be hacked to support this but it's nice that apple have made it official). The mini also has a much better processor (which you say is not important to you, fair enough doesn't mean it isn't important to anyone)
In terms of bang per cubic centimeter the mac mini is pretty hard to beat.
As always there are trade-offs, the eeebox is small and cheap but not powerful. The mini is small and reasonably powerful but not particularly cheap. A bottom of the range dell vostro has a price comparable to the eeebox and specs comparable to the base model mini but isn't small.
Re:Bold claim... (Score:3, Insightful)
People at the genius bar don't sell XServers. I have seen plenty of mission critical servers over the years with what their administrators thought were backups running when they didn't really have any. There is no reason a Mac savvy user could not run an XServe including those services you mention. Happens all the time. Your example of one does not prove otherwise. It just validates what you would like to believe about your own obviously low level low demand skills.
Show me any Apple marketing btw that says anyone can run an Xserve. Oh you can't? Yeah.
Apple does not push their server lineup much beyond their existing audience. Its not a market they care a huge amount about. Never have.
Re:I can see plenty of uses for it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bold claim... (Score:5, Insightful)
Being young and mildly tech-conscious, they overestimated their ability to manage this thing...
C'mon, who here on /. hasn't been there? If you haven't yet found yourself in such a position, you will eventually.
...but managing backups was way out of their league. The backups weren't even running, though they remained blissfully unaware of this fact...
This reminded me of my own worst IT disaster, back when I was young, green and waaaaaay over-confident. I learned from my mistake; who's to say that your clients didn't learn also? They at least had the common sense to recognize that they didn't know enough and therefore called you, right?
It seems to me that you are making an error that is all too common: ignorance != stupidity. There is no shame in simply being unaware of something -- everyone has something yet to learn. The truly stupid, however...well, they have a way of weeding themselves out of the gene pool.
As for the "borderline masochistic relationship between [Apple users] and Apple" -- I don't know about that. I've only used a Mac occasionally, but it seems like a far less masochistic relationship than that which exists between Windows users and Microsoft, or even arguably less masochistic than the relationship between Linux users and <insert name of favorite distro here> (and I say that as one who regularly uses Gentoo, so I'm neck-deep in masochism <grin>).
Re:Bold claim... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I've done this for years.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I got an original 1.25 GHz G4 Mini shortly after it was announced in early 2005. With the non-server version of Mac OS, it has been serving web pages via my DSL and doing other tasks 24/7 since March 2, 2005. It was also my main day-to-day machine for about 2 years until I stepped up to a used G5 and then a used Mac Pro. But it's still serving just fine, and now it's also what the kid uses to watch DVDs when he's in the room with me. (The kid is younger than the Mini, btw.)
ridiculously overpriced? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bold claim... (Score:3, Insightful)
or rather, that's how consultants make their money. Get hired, come in and install a convoluted system that only they understand and can run/support, and then are your support-until-death-do-we-part.
Re:scrambling for someone to fix problems... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, that depends on the last statement holding true for whoever sets up any given server in an office...
Re:Dual NIC woulda been nice (Score:3, Insightful)
Dual NIC would have resulted in a fair amount of changes. As it is (as someone mentioned earlier), they just stack in a second drive where the optical drive was. The only other difference is the case doesn't have a slot, and frankly they probably could have left that there too. Otherwise, everything is identical. Now dual NIC, you've changed the back of the case as well. More importantly, you've now changed the motherboard and are now designing 2 computers instead of just 1.
You probably won't get a massive market for this, but this is a simple and cost effective way for Apple to provide a basic server. Now if they'd only go the media center route, give me HDMI out and BluRay, and it would be sitting under my TV the second I could buy one. And really, DVI out is probably ok for that, so they could do the exact same thing and just offer me BluRay.
Re:I can see plenty of uses for it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh you mean you just let it sit on your desk as a shiny ornament?
I may be ignorant, but my suspicion is that there are a lot of servers out there that spend 99% of their day idling, waiting for an HTTP request to come in. They are left running 24/7 because you never know when somebody will want to access the data they hold, but nevertheless they are almost always idle.
For that kind of light-duty service, the idle wattage is significant. (of course an even better solution would be to merge a bunch of those services onto a single physical machine, but that's not always done because it can be complex and/or risky to do)
Re:Ouch! (Score:3, Insightful)
A £800 mid-range headless box from Apple would surely hit the sweet spot for quite a lot of people.
That it would. Although those aren't the people that Apple are looking for. If they provide a mid-range headless system, then why would people buy iMacs? A mid-range machine would eat into the (likely very profitable) iMac sales. Those that need more "oomph" than the mini have to buy an iMac -- and what a great value it is! Why look! You get both a computer and a monitor for that price!
And those that absolutely have to have an expandable machine are forced to step up to the Mac Pros, and they certainly aren't cheap. Apple makes you pay dearly for that privilege.
Apple has priced themselves out of the commodity market, and that's exactly their strategy. Macs are seen as chic, cool, and exclusive -- a luxury item. Sure, you can buy this cheap PC that will get the job done, but if you want to look cool while doing it, spend a little more for that Mac and be the envy of all of your friends.* Putting out a box that would compete toe to toe with a PC, which is exactly what an expandable £800 machine would do, would dilute their whole corporate image. They try very hard not to compete with PCs on an apples to apples basis, and that strategy seems to be working very well for them.
Mind you, I'm not defending them. I'm an IT director in an advertising and communications agency where I have to deal with the reality of owning and operating Macs on a daily basis. I'm looking at a desktop refresh in the next 18 months for our art people, and those are the ones that will need expandable machines. A headless desktop priced less than or even similar to an iMac would be a no brainer. Instead, I'm stuck looking at the cost of Mac Pros, which have actually gone up in price over the past year with the introduction of the Nehalem processors. And, unfortunately, we'll buy them because our art directors are exactly the kind of customers that Apple targets. So, while I can't defend their marketing and pricing strategy, I can certainly understand and even respect it.
*Note: I had a very hard time not making the obvious car analogy. I'll let the readers make that analogy on their own.
Re:I can see plenty of uses for it. (Score:1, Insightful)
Please link to me to a PC that is a Core 2 Duo 2.5Ghz or better (ie not an Atom) that is also the size of Mac Mini for under $600. I'd love to have one, but so far I haven't found anything from Shuttle or others that is small, reasonably powered and even a few dollars cheaper than a Mac Mini.
You want an ugly beige box that is noisy and cheap. Then go for it, get yourself a PC. But for me, and a significant number of others on slashdot, it's not what we're looking for.
Definition of a Server (Score:3, Insightful)
Undoubtedly, many in the IT community will scoff at the thought of calling such a device a 'server.'
I call something a 'server' if it is providing one or more services to other computers. It has nothing to do with the hardware or operating system used.
I've often redeployed old 'desktop' computers in server roles. At that point they become 'servers', whether or not they sport features like high speed, large capacity or redundancy.
Re:I can see plenty of uses for it. (Score:2, Insightful)