How Mac Pros Could Be Redesigned To Replace XServes [Concept]


05-macpro03 (1)

With the death of the venerable XServe blade server at the beginning of last year, Apple has essentially abandoned the market for corporate servers. If you want to run a Mac server, Apple recommends the Mac mini with Lion Server, which is only really a viable option for small businesses.

Over at MacMagazine, reader Joseph Arthur had a great idea: why not redesign the Mac Pro slightly so they are stackable?

It’s a cute idea, and I get a kick out of the visual, but two problems: the Mac Pro looks like it’ll be killed off sooner rather than later, and the Mac Pro solution leads to the same problem the Mac mini solution had, in that centers can’t fit the machines in their existing blade racks. Still, pretty ingenious.

  • cheesy1

    i think eventually apple will hit this one on the head sooner or later, considering the amount thats being pumped in and the kind of ideas they are coming out with

  • VGISoftware

    I think the Thunderbolt ports will have a huge impact on the form factor of any new Mac Pro. They’ll still make room for plenty of RAM, but I think the expansion slots will be an EXTERNAL and optional add-on. This will satisfy those pining for a mid-sized tower, as well as the power users.

  • MacRat

    “If you want to run a Mac server, Apple recommends the Mac mini with Lion Server, which is only really a viable option for small businesses.”

    Oh really?

    Apple doesn’t recommend anyone buy their Mac Pro Server?

  • mbconwell

    Another drawback, the Mac Pro (and Mini) does not have redundancy built in (power supplies, network, fans, etc.) which is a requirement for those of us who need to manage a datacenter. Additionally, part of the whole thing picture is the support that servers need vs a consumer product.  If one of my HP servers goes down, I have 1st level support within 4 hours and a replacement part delivered to me (and possibly a technician to install it) within 24 hours.  Taking a Mac Pro to the Genius bar for a motherboard replacement isn’t going to cut it.

  • Oskar

    There seem to be a confusion here between the two concepts “blade” and “rack”. In a blade server many smaller blades (containing e.g. CPU, RAM, disks) are put in a larger usually model-specific enclosure sharing many components such as power supply and cooling. The whole blade enclosure is then usually installed in an industry standard 19 inch rack. Apple’s Xserve was a rackmount server (19″) but not a blade server. See e.g.… and

  • Mike Rathjen

    Looking at that visual, all I see are mac pros waiting to be knocked over.

  • ichthydru

    Not to be picky, but the XServe is/was not a blade server and would not fit in any blade chassis. It is simply a rack mounted server.  Blades are quite different.

  • Brittp2

    Sacre bleau!!! it was in French???? ;-))

  • John Petit

    Hmmm, that does not seem right. The big, expensive, box concept seems to be what is on the chopping block…but not stackable pros. I think a better approach would be a modular one in which one could stack units the size of big minis. These would only have a cpu and graphics. The key would be to have a special buss (like the old hippi buss) that would connect one cpu to the next, allowing you to create a more powerful system with each slave you attach (master on the botton). Hard drives would all be external (perhaps their own stack). Call it the Mac Mod.

  • Maximo Cocolio

    What a mess!!!! for this task where created racks and rack mounted servers or any other networking device, something i hate about mac users is their big stupidity!!!!

    And as other mentioned, they lack of redundant PSUs, the cost of every node and parts is much higher than any other REAL SERVER in the market, they are just expensive, no reason to acquire one.

    But the best news are that Apple´s end is NEAR!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA