Psystar puffs out its chest, introduces off-license OS X servers

Apple hasn't sued Psystar yet, so it's no surprise the company is pushing the envelope as far as it can -- it's just introduced two rackmount servers that come with OS X Server pre-installed. The OpenServ 1100 and 2400 are both configurable with 2.5 GHz Xeon processors and up to 16GB of RAM, with the 1U 1100 sporting four drive bays and the 2U 2400 rocking six. Just like Psystar's other products, you're on your own (or at the mercy of Psystar) for service and support, since Apple won't help you -- and considering Psystar kept sending us support tickets for that DHCP issue but never actually called us to resolve it, that might make enterprise customers a bit wary. On the other hand, with prices starting at $1599, we're certain some desperate render shop will take the plunge.

[Via Information Week]

[NG @ Jun 20th 2008 9:51PM]

oh.. nice
might go get one of these bad boy

[Kaiser-Machead @ Jun 20th 2008 9:55PM]

I'm certain that a "desperate" render shop would rather build their own system and just use Windows or Linux, since they are going to be on their own anyway. Mighty impractical that the OS disc can't be reinstalled if need be, and this totally defeats the purpose of buying a prebuilt in the first place.

[nak @ Jun 20th 2008 9:57PM]

It's actually not that good of a value.

An OpenServ with a 2.66GHz CPU and OS X Server comes up to $2724.99. I guess the value is in that it comes with 4GB RAM and a 750GB drive... where as a genuine Xserve has a 2.8GHz CPU but 2GB RAM and an 80GB (!) drive for $2999.

[Joseph @ Jun 21st 2008 1:06PM]

so you're saying apple's hardware is cheap?
you heard it here first.

[Bryan @ Jun 21st 2008 5:16PM]

I think you're doing it wrong. Equipping the 1U server with dual quad 2.66GHz, 4GB, and 1TB comes out to $2579.99. A comparable XServe (with dual quad 2.8GHz, 4GB and 1TB) is $4249.

Yes, the Psystar system is 5% slower (2.66 vs. 2.8), but it costs about HALF of what the XServe costs.

And I know, the support blows, but heck -- you could just buy two of the Psystar systems for about the price of a single XServe and have a spare server in case of failure! How's that for a support plan?

[nak @ Jun 20th 2008 9:57PM]

It's actually not that good of a value.

An OpenServ with a 2.66GHz CPU and OS X Server comes up to $2724.99. I guess the value is in that it comes with 4GB RAM and a 750GB drive... where as a genuine Xserve has a 2.8GHz CPU but 2GB RAM and an 80GB (!) drive for $2999.

[Jeff Snugglebutton @ Jun 20th 2008 10:09PM]

Yeh and like NO SUPPORT

[Encoding @ Jun 20th 2008 10:33PM]

do these things work with OS X software update?

also, since when do servers need support, the occasional rebuild, etc? oh right, usually during the times of serious crisis...

[Reid @ Jun 20th 2008 11:53PM]

Yeah, but does anybody use software support?

Trying to get ahold of Microsoft is useless, and I barely trust Sun with hardware support.

I've never tried to deal with Apple server support since we only have a couple XServes.

Speaking as an agent of an enterprise that spends large amount of money with both vendors.

[ethana2 @ Jun 20th 2008 10:26PM]

Dude, OSX has a nice desktop, but as a server i would think it would be at quite a few different disadvantages to linux, and probably even BSD...
Need ZFS? OpenSolaris.

Seriously, what the heck is even the point of this?

[ethana2 @ Jun 20th 2008 10:30PM]

Oh yeah, almost forgot:

Engadget: So much in love with apple related stuff, it's unnatural

[Harold Kim @ Jun 20th 2008 10:46PM]

@ethana2 mixing up gizmodo and engadget? it's important to deliver your jokes correctly for them to be effective.

[Jason @ Jun 21st 2008 1:54AM]

Yeah, Harold's right: Engadget's obsession with Apple is really only up to the level of a modest oddity.

[Hotrod @ Jun 21st 2008 2:18AM]

No one is forcing you to read the apple related pos... ahhh I give up.

[Joseph @ Jun 21st 2008 1:07PM]

sounds like you have done your research on OS X Server.
/sarcasm

[Chris @ Jun 20th 2008 10:58PM]

I think this is a little to far, I liked the original idea, make a cheap OSX desktop but if they put OSX on more and more products, Apple will eventually say that's enough and shut them down.

[KEROLiUKAS @ Jun 20th 2008 10:59PM]

Who in their right mind would want a server to run anything made by Apple?

[Siva @ Jun 21st 2008 2:29AM]

Before you bad mouth the x-serve, why don't you read professional reviews of OS X server software and hardware.

[Lamp @ Jun 20th 2008 11:47PM]

someone who uses osx for visual or musical projects maybe?
but no, too outrageous.

[BB Sting @ Jun 21st 2008 11:48AM]

Or Microsoft for that matter.

[ef15e @ Jun 21st 2008 2:02PM]

Um...the military for one... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/31/us_army_mac_attack/
Think before you speak.

[Darkroom @ Jun 20th 2008 11:09PM]

apple will only sue psystar if they make an iPhone clone... they couldn't get a shit about their macs anymore, which sucks.

[Minilap @ Jun 20th 2008 11:31PM]

What does "to not get a shit about" mean?

[Jason @ Jun 21st 2008 1:55AM]

Usually it's associated with a bit of noisy discomfort.

[Derek @ Jun 21st 2008 2:27AM]

Yeah right, that's why you never see an Mac ads, or them pushing the Mac at the stores.

[Ed @ Jun 20th 2008 11:38PM]

From experiance Apple in no way provides enterprise level support for their server platform. Do yourself a favor and DO NOT use Apple for any mission critical server deployments.

[Ron @ Jun 21st 2008 6:04PM]

that being said, you shouldn't use psystar for anything mission (non)critical either

[Matt @ Jun 21st 2008 12:29AM]

Why not just get a regular rackmount server and install the free version of Darwin? Although the Wikipedia page apparently says Apple no longer releases free images. Maybe just go with BSD instead?

[Hamidxa @ Jun 21st 2008 12:44AM]

An Apple server....

Now I've seen it all.
April Fools was over 2+ months ago.

[toxicpiano @ Jun 21st 2008 6:40AM]

You know xserve was first released in 2002

[Hamidxa @ Jun 21st 2008 11:46AM]

It still doesn't make it right.

[Kaiser-Machead @ Jun 21st 2008 1:11AM]

They didn't.

[zargon @ Jun 21st 2008 3:39AM]

Who cares, Apple servers are pretty much a joke and unless you are a complete Apple shop, are almost completely worthless.

With rack real estate at a premium, wasting it with low end Apple or Apple knock off servers just is not going to cut it. I don't even want to think of running our VM infrastructure on countless low end servers like these. The HP ProLiant GL58x on the other hand, now there is a real server!

[oZ @ Jun 21st 2008 11:41AM]

Huh, looking at those ProLiant servers (which I assume you mean DL58x), they look to be very similar spec-wise to the XServe. And the same amount of money if not more.

Are you saying the HPs are better because they come preinstalled with a different operating system?

[ef15e @ Jun 21st 2008 3:51AM]

Its easy to make stupid claims before you know what your talking about... beside being a superior server they have actually been selling quite good, and these are 2007s numbers 2008s are even higher...

http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/06/04/apples-xserve-sales-take-a-big-jump-in-q406

Also here a a review of their xserve... "the Xserve delivers a turnkey server environment that offers out-of-the-box productivity difficult to match with enterprise PC servers."
http://www.serverwatch.com/sreviews/article.php/3738761

[ef15e @ Jun 21st 2008 3:55AM]

Its easy to make stupid claims before you know what your talking
about... beside being a superior server they have actually been
selling quite good, and these are 2007s numbers 2008s are even
higher...

http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/06/04/apples-xserve-sales-take-a-big-jump-in-q406

Also here a a review of their xserve... "the Xserve delivers a
turnkey server environment that offers out-of-the-box productivity
difficult to match with enterprise PC servers."

http://www.serverwatch.com/sreviews/article.php/3738761

[ef15e @ Jun 21st 2008 3:56AM]

sorry for the double post

[Andrew @ Jun 21st 2008 3:59AM]

Still waiting for Apple to XServe them with a lawsuit.

[dan2600 @ Jun 21st 2008 9:29AM]

apple servers are a joke...

seriously even windows servers are better.

Personally, i think, if you are running a server with a "pretty" GUI, that shows your first problem (shouldn't your resources be dedicated to something useful?)

if you don't know how to run a server from a command prompt, you probably should be considering a different career.

oh, and 3d shops i know don't use macs, unless your in Japan.

[Lamp @ Jun 21st 2008 10:25AM]

which leads me to ask,
how many 3d shops do you know?
personal experience of "shops dont use macs"
isnt exactly proof unless you have actually seen a majority of shops.

[Magallanes @ Jun 21st 2008 11:25AM]

i don't get the term "3d shop", is it to be used as a render farm?.or just for modeling?. Anyways, in any case is fairly cheap to buy a CERTIFIED linux render node for use houdini, maya and c4d, and for 3ds you must buy a PC box (and still cheap rather a osx server).

[oZ @ Jun 21st 2008 11:33AM]

Spoken like someone who has never utilized an OS X Server. Listen, all of my servers are running either FreeBSD, or a few running Linux. I had to admin OS X Servers in the past -- the kernel is great, the memory management is good, and it certain beats the pants off of Linux when it comes to I/O.

You do realize that once the GUI is up and running, it takes a little RAM, and negligible active CPU time, right? You know that it's about the same amount of CPU time as MySQL takes listening for connections, right? You know that's why Windows servers actually achieve any performance at all, and OS X has the added benefit of not having the UI layer in the kernel, right?

Yeah, thought you didn't.

[Joseph @ Jun 21st 2008 1:13PM]

I'm with Oz.

Your logical fallacy of, it looks good so it must be inferior is ignorant.

[Michael @ Jun 21st 2008 9:41AM]

Can they be sued by Apple? I mean it was a different story back in the days of powerPC where the hardware needed to be licensed. But now that OSX can run on standard intel hardware with a couple of software tweaks can Apple really win a suit against them? They are using full priced legal versions of OSX. Maybe that's why Apple hasn't tried yet.

[kevon27 @ Jun 21st 2008 9:43AM]

I really think that this company has the support and blessing from apple (secretly). This is apple's way to testing OSX on non-apple machines without telling the world it's going to license it's OS.
Watch, well see more little companies pop up with non-apple branded machine with OSX installed.
They are testing the waters people. Don't be fooled.

[Wormbolt @ Jun 21st 2008 12:13PM]

You may very well be on to something there. Apple will eventually have to break up the hardware and software if they want to grow in the future. They may be taking a wait and see approach to these kinds of products.

[ef15e @ Jun 21st 2008 2:02PM]

Well first look at the other companies numbers they are not all that much more.

[Phillip Donley @ Jun 21st 2008 2:35PM]

Well, I'm sure the lawsuit will come eventually. If PSYSTAR is just "starting out", Apple has has to wait for them to make money before they can sue for damages. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip.

[kevon27 @ Jun 21st 2008 4:43PM]

Apple has money. They don't need to sue for it. If they are really upset about their OS is being installed and sold by a non-apple company, they can have the courts order Psystar to stop selling it's pc's with OSX. Psystar is breaking the Eula agreement every time the install Osx on their pc's

[Nohone @ Jun 21st 2008 3:35PM]

@ef15e

From http://www.itwire.com/content/view/15057/1023 Windows server has a 70% market share, 20% Linux, Unix > 10%, and Netware making up the rest.

According to http://news.cnet.com/Windows-bumps-Unix-as-top-server-OS/2100-1016_3-6041804.html (a 2006 study, but even if you say that Apple grew 73%, you can still make some assumptions):

"The Unix market, though, is still huge, and the three major players are fighting for every scrap. In another first, IBM secured the top spot in 2005, with 31.8 percent of the market to Hewlett-Packard's 29.8 percent and Sun's 26.2 percent."

I will assume that OSX is in that >10% Unix portion. But that 10% UNIX also includes Solaris, HP-UX, and AIX, very popular servers in the UNIX community.

Sun shipped 20000 x86 servers in one quarter of FY2006 (yes, a few years back, but market share does not change dramatically year over year, and is included in the percentages from above for UNIX) according to http://news.cnet.com/Sun-shipped-about-8%2C000-Galaxy-servers/2110-1010_3-6031248.html?tag=nw.2

This means that there are about 76300 UNIX servers sold/quarter, or 762000 total servers sold/quarter, giving OSX a 1.14% total market share, and Windows a total of 533400 sold/quarter. 533400>>8700.

The final results are not exact (SUN sells more than just x86 servers), but it would actually bring down the percentages for Apple, not make it better.