8 ms·

It's not about the processing power for Apple customers. It is for most server buyers though. Apple should have targeted the Xserve as a seamless network tool f

It's not about the processing power for Apple customers. It is for most server buyers though. Apple should have targeted the Xserve as a seamless network tool for Mac labs, and later as an enterprise integration tool for iOS. Something only they can offer. Bottom line they didn't make it special enough. Instead they competed on pure specs. Something Apple has never done will.

gaius 16y ago
It's all about the processing power. Jobs should have known this from his days at Pixar. A compute farm based around GCD and OpenCL could have been a killer product.
- Supermighty 16y ago
  The iPhone is not about processing power, the iPad and the MacBook are not about processing power. The iPod neither. Jobs knew that if was to fight the how fast is it battle he would lose. So he changed the fight to one of ease of use and style. Changing the positioning of the Xserve is what Jobs should have done, he didn't. So yes in the end it was about the Xserves lack of speed and power. But you miss the point (Jobs too) that it never should have competed on speed and power to begin with.
  - gaius 16y ago
    Well you say that, but 3D on the iPad is very impressive. The XServe was a server product, its job was to sit quietly in the background doing work that for whatever reason desktops couldn't do, or would be suboptimal for. What to Apple desktop users with significant compute needs (e.g. movie makers, CAD users, scientific users) do? Maybe they can use Mathematica and submit the jobs to Linux boxes running the Mathematica back-end (or whatever) but why not provide the seamless experience?
- GHFigs 16y ago
  I am wondering if there is some point where a Mac Pro cluster with top-end CPU and GPU winds up with better compute density, at least for problems that OpenCL can address. i.e., in 5U you get 40 Nehalem cores with 5 Xserves but only 24 Westermere cores with 2 Mac Pros, yet you can fit the Mac Pros with a Radeon 5870 or a pair of Radeon 5770s each, compared to a GT 120 in each Xserve. Eh, probably not. But maybe.

gaius 16y ago

It's all about the processing power. Jobs should have known this from his days at Pixar. A compute farm based around GCD and OpenCL could have been a killer product.

Supermighty 16y ago
The iPhone is not about processing power, the iPad and the MacBook are not about processing power. The iPod neither. Jobs knew that if was to fight the how fast is it battle he would lose. So he changed the fight to one of ease of use and style. Changing the positioning of the Xserve is what Jobs should have done, he didn't. So yes in the end it was about the Xserves lack of speed and power. But you miss the point (Jobs too) that it never should have competed on speed and power to begin with.
- gaius 16y ago
  Well you say that, but 3D on the iPad is very impressive. The XServe was a server product, its job was to sit quietly in the background doing work that for whatever reason desktops couldn't do, or would be suboptimal for. What to Apple desktop users with significant compute needs (e.g. movie makers, CAD users, scientific users) do? Maybe they can use Mathematica and submit the jobs to Linux boxes running the Mathematica back-end (or whatever) but why not provide the seamless experience?
GHFigs 16y ago
I am wondering if there is some point where a Mac Pro cluster with top-end CPU and GPU winds up with better compute density, at least for problems that OpenCL can address. i.e., in 5U you get 40 Nehalem cores with 5 Xserves but only 24 Westermere cores with 2 Mac Pros, yet you can fit the Mac Pros with a Radeon 5870 or a pair of Radeon 5770s each, compared to a GT 120 in each Xserve. Eh, probably not. But maybe.