5 ms·
That's an expense rack. If the average MBP cost $1500, that's a total of $144,000 in the one rack. They must have some serious reasons to create something like
by adriancooney 11y ago
That's an expense rack. If the average MBP cost $1500, that's a total of $144,000 in the one rack. They must have some serious reasons to create something like this.
- taspeotis 11y agoIt would make sense to try the refurbished ones. I doubt you'd get 96 of the same model, though. http://www.apple.com/shop/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/macbook_pro http://www.apple.com/shop/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/macbo... Refurbished 13.3-inch MacBook Pro 2.7GHz Dual-core Intel i5 with Retina Display $1,099.00 Save $200.00 15% off
- mcintyre1994 11y agoTheir requirements apparently include "i7 CPU’s, 16GB RAM" so I imagine the selection of refurbished and good enough is limited at best.
- jeeva 11y agoThough in a business environment, if this is going to be used for any significant length of time, the (presumably) shorter warranty might be an issue.
- UntitledNo4 11y agoRefurbished Macs have the same warranty as non-refurbished.
- skuhn 11y agoThe refurbished machines are a decent deal and I haven't had any problems buying them for personal or business use in the past, but the big limitation is on supply at any given time and the configs offered. Refurbs are largely stock configs and you can usually only buy 5-10 at a time. There are big benefits to config uniformity and bulk purchases, so refurbs can be tough in that respect. Also, no one buying in this quantity should be paying list price to Apple, which cuts into the refurb discount considerably (if not outright eliminating it).
- Joeri 11y agoFor a full rack that's not a ridiculous price. Oracle will gladly sell you racks that cost in excess of a million.
- sspiff 11y agoAs will Cisco, or Dell, or HP.
- Artemis2 11y agoWith enterprise-ready hardware though, not consumers laptops that fail within a few years, even when they're not turned on 24/7.
- romaniv 11y agoAre there good reasons to believe that "enterprise" hardware is more reliable in practice? Anecdotally, most desktops I used lived much longer than most servers I worked woth. I know a Compaq desktop that worked as a server for 11 years. Still does. One hardware failure in that entire time. (Power supply.) Could be a result of lower workload, but still...
- Artemis2 11y agoI would say manufacturers try to stick to stable designs, select best components, offer guarantees, but I don't have anything specific to back that.
- IE6 11y agoIf you're spending a million dollars on a rack you're demanding considerably more what your old Compaq can do as a 'server' methinks
- scott_karana 11y agoReally?? ECC RAM and redundant PSUs alone should be unquestioned advantages over standard desktops. Not to mention hardware raid controllers, IPMIs, designs that allow fans and other parts to be serviced without downtime... :P
- batou 11y agoThat's not terrible. We have a couple of high end HP machines that are 4U and cost more than that each.
- masklinn 11y ago$1500 is the entry price for 4-way xeons, and that's before you factor in the chassis, motherboard, RAM and PSUs. You can easily find 4U servers more expensive than that, the rack seems to have a 32U capacity and could fit 8 such servers.
- jacquesm 11y agoVolume discounts?
- bgaid 11y agoWith such a large capital expense, it makes a lot more sense to rent dedicated mac hardware from a data center. You get simple monthly bills, guaranteed uptime, and the infrastructure is looked after for you.
- t0mbstone 11y agoIf you were trying to do automated software testing on native OS X machines (instead of virtualization), I suppose it could make sense. Or something.
- skuhn 11y agoA standard server rack (fully populated, just regular app or web servers) can easily be 400k+. Everything built to run in a datacenter is pretty expensive, even if you've done your negotiating work and aren't foolishly paying list.