Gotcha With That Xserve Curve
I expected Michael DeMaria's take on Xserve in "An Apple of Your Eye?" to be negative, or at least dismissive, and the article's start reinforced my expectation. Instead, DeMaria provided a nicely balanced report containing qualified praise alongside cautionary statements. Excellent -- though I must admit my opinion might be based on the fact that we are in agreement.
Both the desktop and the server versions of OS X have the potential to make serious inroads into the small-server market -- the low end where Windows NT, Linux and the bottom ends of Solaris, HP-UX and AIX are fighting it out. The new hardware is important because large server farms require rackmount units. Yes, you can rackmount the big Power Mac towers, but large IT departments don't find this solution pleasing.
The new form factor provides the credibility lacking in converted desktop boxes. The price is attractive even to people who are price-sensitive -- and they say Macs are overpriced! The OS is familiar to those who know Unix or Linux -- those who run the server farms. Is this enough?
No, not for a large segment of the market. People who have a Mac investment will find it all agreeable. People who are severely cost-constrained are likely to at least consider Mac alongside the Lintel alternative. Some rogues will get a few Xserves into their racks, if only in their testing labs. Initially, though, Apple will have to be happy with a small slice of the server pie. Five percent may not be enough to break even, but it's certainly a foot in the door if the systems offer decent performance for the cost. That must be proved before Xserve breaks into the double digits. Can it perform as well as other servers at a similar cost? Can it be supported by personnel already in place or readily available? These questions will be answered in a year or two.
I am a Mac advocate -- not a Mac fanatic, just someone who sees the balance of positives and negatives between Mac and Wintel as favoring Mac. I saw this -- at least on the desktop side -- even before OS X. Now I see it on both sides.
David Meyer
Production Analyst
Company name withheld on request
dlmeyer@mindspring.com
Mike DeMaria responds: I agree. Apple has little hope in the high-end market, but it's in a position to compete easily against Linux and Windows NT servers and clusters. Xserve gives Apple credibility as a server-system provider, and its new tech support finally puts the company on par with the top-tier PC manufacturers. It's about time, too. I run OS X on my desktop and find it much more stable and easier to handle than any X Window system I've used. And I like having cmd-w almost always close a window.
 |
Value-Addled Customers
I agree with Jonathan Feldman about the importance of expanding our horizons ("IT Burnout or Office Space Case?"). I've been on both sides of the fence and at one point felt like going to the zoo and seeing if I could train a monkey to reset the 5,606th password. I'm glad to say that now I'm working for a great company on a government contract that lets us cross-train in anything from SANs to clustering to Microsoft Exchange Server to Active Directory to Web portal technology. I saw the demand for Web experience and settled down here. Today, I lead a crew of Web engineers in building a Web portal for the military. I really enjoy it because there's always a new technology to learn.
Alan Simpkins
Director, Security Consulting
Equant
alan.simpkins@equant.com
|
They Killed Compaq
I've followed HP's purchase of Compaq since it was announced and am very saddened by it. Compaq was the best -- the Cadillac of server vendors. People used to say that no one ever got fired for buying IBM until the microchannel came along. Now, they'll say no one ever questioned a Compaq purchase until HP bought the company. I've had such a bad experience with HP that I feel there's no chance for any Compaq products to survive.
You may say I'm just one person and my opinion doesn't represent that of the masses. But I have more than 20 years of experience in the IT business and have recommended the purchase of more than 1,000 servers -- all Compaqs, from the ProLiant 1500 right up to the DL380. IBM was always knocking on the door with its persuasive business practices. I don't know how many times I had to convince upper management that IBM wouldn't save us money in the long run. We stuck our necks out and put our reputations on the line for Compaq.
I'm now working for a major financial institution that had a large collection of HP's LH, LS and LX Netservers when I came on board. Coming from a large Compaq shop at the time, I could feel a big difference with HP servers; it was like dealing with a newborn named PageNet. Whenever I asked my HP rep about finding a feature of a Compaq server in Netserver, his response was "it's coming." After about two weeks of calling the HP rep to ask why he didn't have rack conversion kits for HP servers, right down to why HP didn't have RIB boards, he finally told me to stop comparing HP with Compaq. He then said he'd had this account for a long time and didn't intend to lose it. That was the last time we talked, and I felt great joy when I decommissioned the last HP server a year later.
It's not just the corporate accounts that bother me. The small shops, those with 25 to 100 users that looked to me for direction, hurt the most. I led them to Compaq, and now I feel I've betrayed them. I have to recommend a name brand, so what are my choices? I never thought I'd say this, but maybe it's time for me to take a serious look at Dell. As far as my present institution goes, IBM came knocking again, and no one was there to put up a fight for Compaq -- or should I say HP?
Richard Willdigg
IT Consultant
Independent
Rich@willdigg.com
|
Tell Us How You Really Feel
Send e-mail to editor@nwc.com, fax to (516) 562-7293 or mail letters to Network Computing, 600 Community Drive, Manhasset, NY 11030. Include your name, title, company name, e-mail address and phone number. All correspondence becomes the property of Network Computing.
RSS
