Picking Apple as a Server Solution

Business Week online ^ | 8/5/2003 | By Olga Kharif in Portland, Ore.

[Swordmaker]

Some companies are finding that OS X and Xserve are a viable, sometimes cheaper, alternative to Windows-based networks. That could be a big help

Two years ago, Jon Moog, chief information officer for RiskWise, considered giving Apple Computer the boot. Moog's St. Cloud (Minn.) outfit, which screens credit-card applications and does fraud detection for financial institutions and other companies, had used Apple gear as its primary computer system for years. That put RiskWise out of step with most of its peers -- but Moog's main problem was that his Mac hardware and software was just getting old. He put in countless hours researching alternatives, such as computers that run the Linux operating system.

In the end, he re-upped with Apple (AAPL ). What sold Moog? First, Apple had come out with OS X, a new version of its operating system -- basic software that runs a computer -- that's patterned after the industry-standard Unix operating system. Moog found that OS X was better supported and offered much easier-to-use development tools for writing new programs from scratch.

Then in the spring of 2002, Apple unveiled a new corporate server, called Xserve, that Moog is using to run his company's various databases. Apple followed that this past February with its Xserve RAID (redundant array of independent disks) storage server -- and in March with a cluster of Xservers that can be used for scientific research. Over the past year, Moog has bought 200 Xserve boxes to use for transaction processing in RiskWise's two data centers and one backup site.

"STARTING TO TAKE NOTICE." 

Moog is among a growing coterie of technology managers who are giving Apple a chance to show that it can succeed as a supplier to corporations -- for something other than the Macs used in graphics departments. At Apple's June developer conference, where for the first time it offered sessions for IT managers on upcoming corporate products, crowds filled the room. "I think people are starting to take notice," Moog says -- particularly those who already use Apple for education or graphics work.

[Swordmaker]

More evidence that Apple's can be a better choice in the corporate environment...

[Bosco]

Apple has become more viable as the story above states, now that that its underpinnings are essentially a UNIX OS. Steve Jobs made the right decision with swapping out the Apple OS core with a UNIX-like kernel.

But if one is going to do that, why not just run Linux?

[general_re]

But if one is going to do that, why not just run Linux?

That's the $64 question, isn't it? The first casualty of the rise of Linux is likely to be the various BSD flavors, followed by the other Unices - HP-UX, Irix, Solaris, et cetera. And I'm not sure why I'm supposed to believe that OSX is immune to that...

[EBITDA]

I recentlly had a conversation with one fo the vice-presidennts at PGP. He said the majority of the company used Macs. For those of you who don't knowPGP is the leading security encryption company. I think their choice of platforms says about all that needs to be said about Macs and securtiy.

[eno_]

IF - BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG IF - Apple can successfully navigate their OS into being a hybrid of Open Source and easy off-the-shelf installation, they have a chance. This is what they are sort of trying to do with Darwin.

Sun should have bought them three years ago.

[philetus]

Would that be be because hardly any virus's target Macs?

[Publius6961]

Wouldn't a really high-speed abacus be just as curious?

[EBITDA]

that's probably parft of it. Of course, once the market wakes up to Mac's inherent security strengths, we will see new viruses targeted at OSX. Until then, things like SoBig are just nuisances because of all the extra e-mail we get.

[dennisw]

I have no need to ever buy an Apple but wish them luck 'cause I like competition

[First_Salute]

The ease that we are enjoying, transferring files between PC's and Mac's running Mac OS X, is wonderful; it's a snap.

The article seems to be written by somebody who is not fully aware of the present abilities of Mac OS X v. 10.2.6 (latest Jaguar version).

"You" don't have to wait for a G5 nor for Panther, both of which have several bugs to work out.

A dual-processor G4 (still available) with 10.2.6 is very fast. They are very reliable, very stable, and incredibly easy to network.

[First_Salute]

Bump.

[First_Salute]

I had hoped that Apple and Kodak would merge, but I believe you're on to something if Sun can tolerate the push at Apple for expansion into certain areas of "consumer electronics."

[general_re]

IF - BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG IF - Apple can successfully navigate their OS into being a hybrid of Open Source and easy off-the-shelf installation, they have a chance.

On the client side, sure. But on the server side, OSX is just another proprietary Unix as far as I can tell. And the future doesn't look bright for products like that...

[John Lenin]

It's just as easy to crack a mack as it is to crack a pc. And same for linux.

[D-fendr]

That makes an interesting recommendation:

Yes, you should use the more popular brand that requires the vast amount more of security cost and attention. Because if you buy one that SoBig and Klez and Slammer and Blaster and Code Red and Lovebug, etc. don't affect - well, if everybody did that, then they'd be more popular and get all the virus stuff and then you'd be getting them again too.

So, yes, just avoid all that hassle of more security, and stick with the one that's less secure now, so it will be the less secure one in the future too."

[AZLiberty]

The article mentions Sybase, but another interesting development is that InterSystems has ported their Caché product to OS X. Caché is a really cool object-oriented data base that is used in lots of financial and medical applications.

[Bush2000]

I actually have a better use for Apple's servers: They make great doorstops and boat anchors. A little pricey, perhaps, but have you seen the price of marine hardware these days?!? Practically a bargain.

[Bosco]

My initial point exactly -

Cost of Linux OS - few hundred dollars (boxed distro, etc.)

Hardware - a commodity, pick what you want.

Apple is prettier, but servers don't need nice GUIs to do their job. Linux would get the win in my comparison.

[general_re]

I don't see any reason why Linux shouldn't eventually be able to scale up to the ultra-high end as well as OS X would - building full-blown datacenters and the like. And it also fills the bill for the ultra-low end where OS X and Apple hardware would be ridiculously overpowered and overpriced. If all we need to do is serve up static HTML, give me a Linux CD and a remaindered 486/66 that your kid's elementary school was about to throw out, and I'll give you a server that will happily keep a T1 full, for nothing more than the price of the connection. And that's a deal that nobody can beat, especially not Apple.