ie8 fix
madison

The Mobile Gadgeteer

Matthew Miller & Joel Evans

Is Microsoft killing off the Zune hardware? Microsoft responds

By | March 14, 2011, 2:48pm PDT

Summary: There are rumors out that Microsoft may be killing off the dedicated Zune hardware devices. This isn’t surprising given that they did a lousy job of telling why they were so good.

Engadget reported that Microsoft may be killing off the Zune hardware to focus on the software experience and let people experience Zune on Windows Phone 7 hardware. I still have my custom FC Sounders Zune HD and still find it to have the BEST sound of any digital media player while also being an extremely nice and light piece of hardware to use while working out when I don’t want to track my runs with GPS on my phone. Microsoft never did very good at promoting the platform so it is understandable that Zune focused hardware may no longer be made.

I have written about the obvious benefits of the Zune Marketplace, but it seems that my enthusiasm for the platform has fallen on deaf ears. Microsoft never actively promoted the platform, even the fantastic Zune HD. It never should have been compared to the iPod and they should have told the story about the entire experience as it stood alone. Microsoft seems to only provide sales data for the Xbox platform so we are not sure how well the Zune did in retail channels, but if they are killing it off then it obviously wasn’t doing that well.

I have emails into my contacts at Microsoft to verify if this rumor is true or not, but as I said it would not be surprising to anyone.

I will continue to use and enjoy my Zune HD and hopefully it continues to last for a few more years before some compelling Nokia Windows Phone 7 device launches.

UPDATE: I received the following response from a Microsoft spokesperson so while the Zune hardware may eventually be killed off, there is no official statement confirming this at this time.

We’re absolutely committed to providing the best movies, music, and TV show experiences through Zune on Xbox, the PC, Windows Phone 7 and Zune devices. We’ll share more information about the evolution of the Zune entertainment service and Zune hardware as future plans develop.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Matthew Miller is an avid mobile device enthusiast who works during the day as a professional naval architect in Seattle.

Disclosure

Matthew Miller

Matthew is a professional naval architect by day and a mobile gadget freak at all other times. He purchases most of his devices and then sells them on eBay or Craigslist to buy more. Many other devices are sent for review on a 30-day loaner basis and then returned to the carrier or manufacturer. If any are provided as “keeper” or “long term loaner units” this will be clearly disclosed in his reviews.

Biography

Matthew Miller

Matthew Miller is an avid mobile device enthusiast who works during the day as a professional naval architect in Seattle. He is one of three hosts on the MobileTechRoundup podcast and runs the Nokia Experts website. Matthew started using mobile devices in 1997 with a US Robotics Pilot 1000 and has owned over 90 different devices running Palm, Linux, Symbian, Newton, BlackBerry, Mac OS X (iPhone), Google Android, and Windows Mobile operating systems. His current collection includes a Nokia N85, Nokia E71, Nokia 5800, Nokia N810, Apple iPhone, HTC Advantage, T-Mobile G1, Palm Treo Pro, HTC Fuze, MSI Wind, MacBook Pro, and many more, along with tons of accessories and classic devices like the Apple Newton MessagePad 2100 and Sony CLIE UX50. Matthew co-authored Master Visually Windows Mobile 2003, was a member of the Nokia Nseries Blogger relations program, and is a member of the invite-only Microsoft Mobius mobile device evangelist group. He can be found on various discussion forums under the user name of "palmsolo".

96
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Is Microsoft killing off the Zune hardware?
FAULKNE 13th Oct
Good day to confirm this comment I would appreciate T h e b e s t o f Z D N e t d e l i v e r e d your website very nice to everyone Yes, Oracle is the only one with shared-disk architecture, but that is there advantage. It means you can add or remove nodes and the database lives on. In a shared nothing architecture, if you lose a node, you lose the system. I'm sure Oracle appreciates EMC highlighting their advantage.I also desire to signal in your RSS feeds. Thank you as soon as once again and maintain up the great operate Awesome post! Thank you very much || thanks for nice content this is really benefit to me.
It was a 3rd rate MP3 player from an also-ran in the tech industry. Color me yawn.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is Microsoft killing off the Zune hardware?
Habiloso Updated - 14th Mar 2011
"Microsoft never did very good at promoting the platform so it is understandable that Zune focused hardware may no longer be made."

Zune struggled because it was only released in the USA and the Zune Marketplace was only available in a few countries.
0 Votes
+ -
@denisrs

How is my quotation misguided . . . it came straight from the article!
@ptorning: in essence.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
@ ptorning

It almost looks like, after the original Zune failed to make a dent in the market after launch, Microsoft decided that the music player market had already peaked, and wasn't worth bothering with. One reason they may have kept the device going was to provide a platform for continued development of music distribution software, with the hope of deploying it on later devices (e.g. Windows Phones).
0 Votes
+ -
Doomed from the start
Robert Hahn 14th Mar 2011
@itguy08 The reason it failed is that it didn't run full versions of Windows and Office. If it had, they would have put Apple out of business. Or at least, that's the theory they're going to try with 'slates'.
0 Votes
+ -
Not to mention..
LTV10 15th Mar 2011
...it should have been able to run AutoCAD and Adobe Premier. Nothing short of that would please the Redmond Borg Collective.

Maybe they should have made a quad core version, instead. No?

lol...
0 Votes
+ -
@Robert Hahn
Actually just poor advertising and communication hurt the zune as side by side the zune is superior to the apple ipod and almost all other video music players. The zune is much more sturdy and the hardware is much better in quality. I repaired 12 zunes since they came out usually a battery or ear jack. Ipods I repair few dozen a day cracked screens, ear jacks, batteries, bad digitizers. yes thier is a number difference in those out there but apple products are very fragile and poor quality.
0 Votes
+ -
@ Fletchguy
The veracity, usefulness, value, and intellectual honesty of this post dovetails quite well with all your previous posts.
0 Votes
+ -
so another 5 can enjoy it;-)
0 Votes
+ -
@itguy08
The Windows hater strikes again!

The ZuneHD is actually a great, lightweight, awesome device. However, no advertising or support will kill just about anything off these days.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is Microsoft killing off the Zune hardware?
Habiloso Updated - 14th Mar 2011
@Droid101
And yet in a post on a different but similar article, you claimed that, "Nobody wants an MP3 player anymore... people want multi-function devices these days." The international music market is huge and so is the market for mp3 players. Other companies, such as Apple, make a fortune from selling iPods.
@Droid101
I agree it's a nice MP3 player, even getting better ratings then the iPod touch in some categories, but most of the haters here have never even tried one, so of course the Richard Fluid's and the DonnieBoy's of these sites can only insult.

But then again, we know who they are, and you kinda' have to feel sorry for them if that is the most exciting thing in their lives.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
@John Zern
I agree it's a nice MP3 player, even getting better ratings then the iPod touch in some categories, but most of the haters here have never even tried one, so of course the Richard Fluid's and the DonnieBoy's of these sites can only insult.

And Microsoft treated everyone that doesn?t use Windows like a second class citizen. In order for a Linux user, or Mac User, to use the Zune: they would have to buy a license for Windows. Now why would any Mac user buy a copy of Windows to use one product? If Microsoft made the player multi-platform, you might have an argument. But it was Microsoft?s arrogance that killed the Zune.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
John save your sympathy...
Richard Flude 14th Mar 2011
for the Zune owners. Fortunately there wasn't many of them. Maybe they can join a PlaysForSure support group, another MS abandoned customer base:-)
  • Flagged
@Richard Flude,
"Maybe they can join a PlaysForSure support group, another MS abandoned customer base:-) "

It's similar as Apple did with their XServe product line. They stopped production leaving they customer base without options to run Mac OS X Server. I suppose that happens when a product sales are weak.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
dvm, another jumps in
Richard Flude 14th Mar 2011
"They stopped production leaving they customer base without options to run Mac OS X Server."

Sorry, the server version runs on any Macs. They dropped the rack mounted hardware. You have a point, Apple's change probably affected more customers;-)
  • Flagged
@Richard Flude,
"Sorry, the server version runs on any Macs. They dropped the rack mounted hardware."
Even though you can run Mac OS Server on any Mac, which Apple hardware is enterprise ready? The only option they have is the Mac Pro, and don't even have a redundant power supply option. Who is going to run a business in this kind of hardware?
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
@Droid101 : okey. So that would mean the billion dollar WP7 campaign that only manage to sell 1.5 million sets is the secret for a successful product launch.

Zune died because it was only "subjectively" better than iPod. Tons of ink could be drawn on the benefits, and how the AMOLED of the Zune HD was way ahead of the competition.

The problem Microsoft hasn't realized that best doesn't necessarily win in the marketplace, else we all be using high powered water cooled RISC workstations with bubble memory and holographic storage in networked distributed X session with programs written in ADA or Lisp.

Instead we're using ultra hot, fan cooled complex CISC PC on steroids with plain old RAM memory, in direct driver to monitor Win32 (created 15+ years ago) programs most of them using legacy C code. Talk about a "best of breed".

Alas, in that perfect world, we would have no idea of what Microsoft was.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is Microsoft killing off the Zune hardware?
DeusXMachina Updated - 15th Mar 2011
@dvm
If you don't know what you are talking about, why do you post? Although Apple's decision to drop XServe is regrettable, your contention that there is no enterprise-ready migration path is laughably uninformed. There are a number of third party products providing enterprise-class hardware redundancy to rack mounted Apple hardware, from the mac pro to the mac mini. But don't let truth get in the way.
0 Votes
+ -
@Droid101. Yes, despite all the haters, the ZuneHD is a great device. There were issues, though. The worst one was Microsoft dumping their own "plays 4 sure" infrastructure for the copy of Apple that so much of the Zune world became. This managed to maKe the Zune one of the few PMPs that couldn't play Blu-ray/DVD digital managed copys. They also failed in only copying Apple half the way... by the time the ZuneHD came out, Apple had transformed the PMP at the high end into a full fledged PDA. The ZuneHD had good sound, particularly compared to iPods, but if that's what mattered, Cowon devices have even better sound. Some of the others, like Archos, became full PDAs under Android. MS just didn't really compete in the "don't want an iPod" market very well, despite the excellent hardware.
@DeusXMachina,
"There are a number of third party products providing enterprise-class hardware redundancy to rack mounted Apple hardware, from the mac pro to the mac mini. But don't let truth get in the way. "

Based on your comment, you have to go to 3rd party supplies and accessories because Apple lacked by design what business and enterprises needed. That's the true I have seen. Maybe that's the reason IBM, HP and other big players destroyed the XServe market. Again, why call a business/enterprise server a hardware that don't even have a redundant power supply? Is that you POV of an enterprise server? Like you posted before, if you don't know what you are talking about, why post?
0 Votes
+ -
Ignorance
DeusXMachina Updated - 16th Mar 2011
@dvm

And your point is? I already made clear I do not agree with Apple's decision to abandon the server hardware market. However your post implies that Enterprise customers no longer have an upgrade path, and you are flat out wrong.
First, they will continue to support current XServes, and second, new Apple hardware can still be brought into service.
You also used the word "lack" in the past tense. Care to delineate exactly what the XServe lacked?

"Maybe that's the reason IBM, HP and other big players destroyed the XServe market."

Huh? Apple entered the market dominated by your big players and gained share. How is this being destroyed?

"Again, why call a business/enterprise server a hardware that don't even have a redundant power supply?"

And again, the XServe HAS redundant PS. Third party rack systems provide it for rack-mounted mini/pro servers.

"Like you posted before, if you don't know what you are talking about, why post?"

All things considered, I think the person posting from ignorance here is you.
0 Votes
+ -
@DeusXMachina,
"You also used the word "lack" in the past tense. Care to delineate exactly what the XServe lacked?"
Here are some capabilities the XServe lacked,
No 4 or 8 socket option
No blade option
Only three drive bays
Only one SAS HD option
RAID controller optional
Cannot install Windows, Linux or Unix as the main OS.
1yr of warranty

"Huh? Apple entered the market dominated by your big players and gained share. How is this being destroyed?"
Are you sure about that?
"An e-mail allegedly sent by Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs said that "hardly anyone" was buying the Xserve. And researchers at IDC said that Apple's share of the total server market is less than 4 percent."
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/12/07/enterprise_buyers_frustrated_by_apple_axing_xserve_but_sticking_with_mac.html
IMO, that is being destroyed by the competition.

"And again, the XServe HAS redundant PS. Third party rack systems provide it for rack-mounted mini/pro servers."
And again, why Apple have a server without something so important as a redundant power supply? When I buy an IBM or HP server, I don't need to add 3rd party accessories because they are ready for my server room/datacenter. Why you have to add 3rd party accessories the a Mac Pro/Mac Mini Server? Because one of them is a workstation and the other one a PC. The Mac Pro is an excellent workstation, but it fails as a business/enterprise server.

"All things considered, I think the person posting from ignorance here is you. "
If you read my post and the hardware I mentio, you will understand the kind of environments I have worked. I respect your POV about my post, but it doesn't change the point in case, Apple XServe was a failure from Apple the same way MS failed with the Zune.
0 Votes
+ -
@dvm
Wow, you really just have NO clue what you are talking about. Do you bother to even check your 'facts'?!? Most of the items you listed are not even logically germain to the discussion. The topic is individual products. The fact that the XServe was rack mount and not blade in thus irrelevant. Need a rack mount server, the XServe was an option. Need blades? It wasn't. So what? The same thing could be said about ANY rack mounted device. The fact that a RAID controller was optional was likewise irrelevant to the discussion of capabilities that XServe lacked, as it DIDN'T lack it.
Lacking a Windows option is a laughable entry on the list.
The other items are just flat out wrong. It is not true that there was only one SAS option. Lacking UNIX just shows your ignorance. OSX is a FULLY certified, POSIX-compliant UNIX.
Fail.

"'Huh? Apple entered the market dominated by your big players and gained share. How is this being destroyed?'
Are you sure about that?"

YES, I am sure. It is a logical imperative.

"'An e-mail allegedly sent by Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs said that "hardly anyone" was buying the Xserve. And researchers at IDC said that Apple's share of the total server market is less than 4 percent.'
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/12/07/enterprise_buyers_frustrated_by_apple_axing_xserve_but_sticking_with_mac.html

IMO, that is being destroyed by the competition."

It does not matter what your opinion is. The language (English) just doesn't work that way.

"'And again, the XServe HAS redundant PS. Third party rack systems provide it for rack-mounted mini/pro servers.
And again, why Apple have a server without something so important as a redundant power supply? When I buy an IBM or HP server, I don't need to add 3rd party accessories because they are ready for my server room/datacenter.'

PAY ATTENTION. One more time: THE XSERVE HAD A REDUNDANT PS. FROM APPLE. Again, you are just plain wrong. And it was bay swappable. More importantly, perhaps, is the fact that, even if it didn't, I CLEARLY claimed it did, so your above objection shows clearly a complete failure of basic logic, if not a failure to actually read what I wrote before bothering to reply.
0 Votes
+ -
@DeusXMachina,
"Do you bother to even check your 'facts'?!? Most of the items you listed are not even logically germain to the discussion. The topic is individual products".
Maybe from an Apple POV the only option you have is to talk about a single product. Different from HP or IBM, where when you talk about Proliant or xSeries you can choose from rack, tower and blades. That was my point.

"The fact that a RAID controller was optional was likewise irrelevant to the discussion of capabilities that XServe lacked, as it DIDN'T lack it."
Ok, at least you could add a RAID controller on an XServe (a capability included by default on HP and IBM). But what about Apple lack of 4/8 socket or more than 3 HDD? Those were part of my list, remember?

"Lacking a Windows option is a laughable entry on the list."
Not too funny when you see that Windows has the market share in server OS, and you have to reject Apple servers for not supporting Windows Server, while it runs on IBM and HP hardware in enterprises and business worldwide.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/idc-dollarwise-windows-still-leads-the-server-market/8825?tag=mantle_skin;content

"The other items are just flat out wrong."
Like support for Linux? Where I was wrong?

"It is not true that there was only one SAS option."
Yes, it's true and was with a 3rd party option,
"450GB 15,000-rpm SAS drive available as a third-party kit"

BTW, it looks like Apple didn't offered a 2.5" disk as an option, something available in the competition a long time ago.
http://support.apple.com/kb/SP511

"Lacking UNIX just shows your ignorance. OSX is a FULLY certified, POSIX-compliant UNIX."
I knew about Mac OS X as a UNIX certified OS. But my point was about UNIX, as all type of UNIX. For example, can I run Solaris on a XServer / Mac Pro? Or maybe BSD? Again, most business/enterprises are considering Linux or Windows. Will either OS will run on a Mac Pro or XServe?

"It does not matter what your opinion is. The language (English) just doesn't work that way."
You know what my point is. Apple failed at the server market and quit of it, while the competition makes billions. It's clear that the competition was far better than Apple in that market.

"PAY ATTENTION. One more time: THE XSERVE HAD A REDUNDANT PS. FROM APPLE."
I already knew that. If you read my post, you will find this line,
"Why you have to add 3rd party accessories the a Mac Pro/Mac Mini Server? Because one of them is a workstation and the other one a PC. The Mac Pro is an excellent workstation, but it fails as a business/enterprise server."
It's clear that I was talking about the Mac Pro and the Mac Mini Server, the only two server offerings from Apple, and both lack the RPS.
0 Votes
+ -
@dvm
"Maybe from an Apple POV the only option you have is to talk about a single product. Different from HP or IBM, where when you talk about Proliant or xSeries you can choose from rack, tower and blades. That was my point."

And that point is not logically germane to the discussion.

"But what about Apple lack of 4/8 socket or more than 3 HDD?"

Again, not germane. The issue is the suitability of XServe, not the breadth and depth of Apple's product line. But if you wanted more HDDs it is trivial to add additional controllers.

"Not too funny when you see that Windows has the market share in server OS, and you have to reject Apple servers for not supporting Windows Server, while it runs on IBM and HP hardware in enterprises and business worldwide."

Regardless of B.S. numbers published by IDC, and hawked by Microsoft, Windows server footprint is nothing to write home about. But again, NOT LOGICALLY GERMANE! If you want Windows, go elsewhere. Besides which, it is not even really true, as Windows server DOES run as a VM on XServe.

"You know what my point is. Apple failed at the server market and quit of it, while the competition makes billions. It's clear that the competition was far better than Apple in that market."

Actually, that was NOT your initial point. Your point keeps shifting so as to present a moving target. Case in point:

"'PAY ATTENTION. One more time: THE XSERVE HAD A REDUNDANT PS. FROM APPLE.'
I already knew that. If you read my post, you will find this line,
'Why you have to add 3rd party accessories the a Mac Pro/Mac Mini Server? Because one of them is a workstation and the other one a PC. The Mac Pro is an excellent workstation, but it fails as a business/enterprise server.'
It's clear that I was talking about the Mac Pro and the Mac Mini Server, the only two server offerings from Apple, and both lack the RPS."

No, your initial point was about the XServe. I wrote:
"Care to delineate exactly what the XServe lacked?"

Bringing up issues with Apple's server hardware AFTER they dropped XServe is a bit disingenuous, as it was stated at the outset that Apple's decision to drop the hardware was not being defended.
0 Votes
+ -
@DeusXMachina,
"And that point is not logically germane to the discussion."
I was answering the line "The topic is individual products" from your post. You were talking about the XServe, where the only offering available was a 1U rack server. I was thinking about Proliant, where you have a full range of options, from rack, tower and blades. So it has to do with the initial point, Apple lack of options.

"Again, not germane. The issue is the suitability of XServe, not the breadth and depth of Apple's product line. But if you wanted more HDDs it is trivial to add additional controllers."
You asked what Apple lacked, and I gave you a list of options not available. Is something wrong with the answer?

"Regardless of B.S. numbers published by IDC, and hawked by Microsoft, Windows server footprint is nothing to write home about. But again, NOT LOGICALLY GERMANE! "
The numbers prove that Apple was doing bad in a market where billons of dollars are made each year. If you don't like numbers from IDC, maybe you should your own numbers. Can you post market share numbers of Apple server products?

"If you want Windows, go elsewhere. "
Interesting that I could run Windows 7 on a MacPro/MBP. Why not with Windows Server? Even companies like Sun/Oracle have servers on which you can run Windows, even though the compete at the OS level. Why Apple cannot do the same?

"Besides which, it is not even really true, as Windows server DOES run as a VM on XServe."
The only option to run Windows on Mac OS X virtualized is VMWare Fusion. Interesting that Fusion is under desktop products and not under SMB or datacenter. Are you saying that I should run Windows Server for a business/enterprise production environment on a desktop virtualization solution? Even VMWare won't agree with you.

"Actually, that was NOT your initial point. Your point keeps shifting so as to present a moving target."
Sorry if I mixed up my points. Here is what I know from Apple servers. XServer has RPS, but the offering was limited on things I already mentioned. Now the XServer is discontinued, and replaced with the Mac Pro and Mac Mini Server, an excellent workstation/desktop, but as a server, doesn't have all the capabilites from a business/enterprise server, including something as simple as RPS. Plus Apple don't offer a wide range of options as IBM or HP, companies with far better experience than Apple on server/data center environments. I hope being clear now.

"Bringing up issues with Apple's server hardware AFTER they dropped XServe is a bit disingenuous, as it was stated at the outset that Apple's decision to drop the hardware was not being defended. "
I answered the question you ask about what Apple lacked, and I gave you an answer. Was my answer wrong?
0 Votes
+ -
@dvm
"So it has to do with the initial point, Apple lack of options." As that was NOT the initial topic, no it doesn't.

"You asked what Apple lacked, and I gave you a list of options not available. Is something wrong with the answer?"

Why do you make such statements when the initial post is still available to check?!? I most certainly did NOT ask what Apple lacked. Check your facts.

"'Regardless of B.S. numbers published by IDC, and hawked by Microsoft, Windows server footprint is nothing to write home about. But again, NOT LOGICALLY GERMANE!'
The numbers prove that Apple was doing bad in a market where billons of dollars are made each year. If you don't like numbers from IDC, maybe you should your own numbers. Can you post market share numbers of Apple server products?"

Um, are you even paying attention?!? The issue being discussed here was NOT Apple's numbers, it was your claims about MicroSoft's numbers.

"Interesting that I could run Windows 7 on a MacPro/MBP. Why not with Windows Server? Even companies like Sun/Oracle have servers on which you can run Windows, even though the compete at the OS level. Why Apple cannot do the same?"

Again, not germane. The answer in because they chose not to, for many reasons, including only wanting to offer total packages. I have to wonder, how badly DID you do at the analytical reasoning section of the S.A.T.? Because your grasp of basic analytical logical chain reasoning is tenuous at best.

"Are you saying that I should run Windows Server for a business/enterprise production environment on a desktop virtualization solution? Even VMWare won't agree with you."

No, I am clearly not saying that, as desktop server solutions was not even under discussion at this point. Once again, you appear to be incapable of keeping topics separate, instead switching back and forth so as to always present a continually moving target. BTW, this is a logical fallacy they teach in first semester logic classes.


"'Bringing up issues with Apple's server hardware AFTER they dropped XServe is a bit disingenuous, as it was stated at the outset that Apple's decision to drop the hardware was not being defended.

I answered the question you ask about what Apple lacked, and I gave you an answer. Was my answer wrong?"

And again, that is not what I asked. I asked about XServe, not Apple products in general. When I brought up Apple's products in general, it was to you claim that there was no longer ANY enterprise-grade option with OSX server. But in response to my response, you bring up false objections to the former point. When those points are shows to be inaccurate, you bring up irrelevant objections to the FIRST post again. This constantly moving target makes it impossible to carry on a cohesive discussion.
0 Votes
+ -
@DeusXMachine,
"I most certainly did NOT ask what Apple lacked. Check your facts."
My answer was to this line from your post,
"Care to delineate exactly what the XServe lacked?"
http://www.zdnet.com/tb/1-94595-1815307
Here is my answer (again),
"Here are some capabilities the XServe lacked,
No 4 or 8 socket option
No blade option
Only three drive bays
Only one SAS HD option
RAID controller optional
Cannot install Windows, Linux or Unix as the main OS.
1yr of warranty"
Again, is there something wrong with this answer?

"Um, are you even paying attention?!? The issue being discussed here was NOT Apple's numbers, it was your claims about MicroSoft's numbers."
I bring the point because Apple never mentioned the server line sales, and later announced it was stopping the XServe. So it looks like most companies announce their successful products and hide their worst ones, like MS and Apple did.

"Again, not germane. The answer in because they chose not to, for many reasons, including only wanting to offer total packages."
I was answering a line from your post, "If you want Windows, go elsewhere." So I gave example from servers companies that compete with MS and support MS Windows in their servers. I think the answers matched the point you bring.

"No, I am clearly not saying that, as desktop server solutions was not even under discussion at this point. Once again, you appear to be incapable of keeping topics separate, instead switching back and forth so as to always present a continually moving target. "
Do you remember that you were saying that you could run Windows virtualize on a MacPro Server/XServe?
"Besides which, it is not even really true, as Windows server DOES run as a VM on XServe." If I virtualize a server is for production, test or other critical use/environment. Then, why you were talking about Mac virtualization when you knew that the only solution was for desktops? And again, I was answering what you posted.

"And again, that is not what I asked. I asked about XServe, not Apple products in general. "
Here is my answer (again),
No 4 or 8 socket option
No blade option
Only three drive bays
Only one SAS HD option
Cannot install Windows, Linux or Unix as the main OS.
1yr of warranty

"When I brought up Apple's products in general, it was to you claim that there was no longer ANY enterprise-grade option with OSX server. "
Enterprises need 4 and 8 socket servers, RPS, 1U/2U rack mount servers capable of supporting more than four 2.5HDD 10k or 15k drives, multiples OS' capable hardware and 3YR onsite warranty standard. As today Apple don't have a hardware with those capabilities.

"But in response to my response, you bring up false objections to the former point. When those points are shows to be inaccurate, you bring up irrelevant objections to the FIRST post again. This constantly moving target makes it impossible to carry on a cohesive discussion. "
Can you post an example of inaccurate or false posts?
0 Votes
+ -
@dvm
"'I most certainly did NOT ask what Apple lacked. Check your facts.'
My answer was to this line from your post,
"Care to delineate exactly what the XServe lacked?'"

PLEASE pay attention so you can stop shifting the argument.
Apple and XServe are two different things.
If one asks about XServe, you can NOT logically answer with a reply about Apple, and vice versa.

"'Um, are you even paying attention?!? The issue being discussed here was NOT Apple's numbers, it was your claims about MicroSoft's numbers.'
I bring the point because Apple never mentioned the server line sales, and later announced it was stopping the XServe. So it looks like most companies announce their successful products and hide their worst ones, like MS and Apple did."

And this was never under discussion. It is thus irrelevant
But in answer to your statement, Apple publishes ALL their numbers in their fiscal reporting. Your assertion is just not true.

"'Again, not germane. The answer in because they chose not to, for many reasons, including only wanting to offer total packages.'
I was answering a line from your post, "If you want Windows, go elsewhere." So I gave example from servers companies that compete with MS and support MS Windows in their servers. I think the answers matched the point you bring."

It is clear that you though that. It didn't.

"'No, I am clearly not saying that, as desktop server solutions was not even under discussion at this point. Once again, you appear to be incapable of keeping topics separate, instead switching back and forth so as to always present a continually moving target.'
Do you remember that you were saying that you could run Windows virtualize on a MacPro Server/XServe?"

Yes, in reply to yet another TOTALLY separate comment from you.

"Then, why you were talking about Mac virtualization when you knew that the only solution was for desktops?

Because it ISN'T!

"And again, that is not what I asked. I asked about XServe, not Apple products in general. "
Here is my answer (again),
No 4 or 8 socket option
No blade option
Only three drive bays
Only one SAS HD option
Cannot install Windows, Linux or Unix as the main OS.
1yr of warranty

"'When I brought up Apple's products in general, it was to your claim that there were no longer ANY enterprise-grade option with OSX server. "
Enterprises need 4 and 8 socket servers, RPS, 1U/2U rack mount servers capable of supporting more than four 2.5HDD 10k or 15k drives, multiples OS' capable hardware and 3YR onsite warranty standard. As today Apple don't have a hardware with those capabilities."

1) Different enterprises need different things. You don't get to state what those are for every enterprise.
2) AGAIN, it does not matter what hardware Apple now has, as your original statement was that OSX Server (software) could not be used (at all) because of the lack of certain hardware features. Now, it does not matter if those hardware features (e.g. RPS) come from third parties. The facts are what they are. An enterprise CAN use OSX Server along with Apple hardware to accomplish enterprise tasks.

Look, it is clear that you are just hand waving to cover up your ignorance of the hardware available in the OSX market.

"Can you post an example of inaccurate or false posts?"

I did so already, several times.
0 Votes
+ -
@DeusXMachina,
"PLEASE pay attention so you can stop shifting the argument.
Apple and XServe are two different things.
If one asks about XServe, you can NOT logically answer with a reply about Apple, and vice versa."
We are talking about servers, and the XServe, the only server from Apple at the time, was the product you mentioned in your post, remember? Here is again, in case you forgot,
""Care to delineate exactly what the XServe lacked?'"
My answer?,
No 4 or 8 socket option
No blade option
Only three drive bays
Only one SAS HD option
Cannot install Windows, Linux or Unix as the main OS.
1yr of warranty

The XServe is discontinued. What is lacking on Apple current server offerings?,
No 4 or 8 socket option
No blade option
Only four drive bays in the Mac Pro and two on the Mac Mini Server
No SAS drives, no 2.5 drives. No 10k or 15k RPM disks. Not hot swap capable.
Cannot install Windows, Linux or Unix as the main OS.
No RPS from Apple
1yr of warranty
Care to point in which specific point am I wrong?

"And this was never under discussion. It is thus irrelevant
But in answer to your statement, Apple publishes ALL their numbers in their fiscal reporting. Your assertion is just not true."
Can you post a link with Apple sales numbers from their server products?

"Do you remember that you were saying that you could run Windows virtualize on a MacPro Server/XServe?"

Yes, in reply to yet another TOTALLY separate comment from you."
If that's the case, why you answer it?

""Then, why you were talking about Mac virtualization when you knew that the only solution was for desktops?

Because it ISN'T!"
You are right. I forgot Parallels Server, an excellent solution. It's sad that you cannot run it on a server with 4 or 8 sockets, like many enteprises and business do, because Apple lacks a server with those capabilites, remember?

""1) Different enterprises need different things. You don't get to state what those are for every enterprise."
Agree with you. That's the reason IBM and HP have options from tower, rack, blades, 2/4/8 sockets, 10k/15k SAS drives and many other options that let's you customize the server for your needs. Not so many options with the Apple offerings, don't you think?"

"2) AGAIN, it does not matter what hardware Apple now has, as your original statement was that OSX Server (software) could not be used (at all) because of the lack of certain hardware features. Now, it does not matter if those hardware features (e.g. RPS) come from third parties. The facts are what they are. An enterprise CAN use OSX Server along with Apple hardware to accomplish enterprise tasks."
Maybe enterprise can accomplish enterprise tasks on Apple servers/OS X Server. Interesting they choose not do so, and go to Microsoft, HP, IBM and Linux for their infrastructure. For example, the Mac Pro Server and Mac Mini Server, the only current offerings from Apple, don't support drives hot swap. Would you consider it an enterpise grade server when it don't even have a feature so important, and at the same time standard on most of enterprise and business servers?
BTW, you mentioned that 3rd party provides RPS to the Mac Pro. I search for it, but can't find it. Can you post a link of it?

"Look, it is clear that you are just hand waving to cover up your ignorance of the hardware available in the OSX market."
Here (again) are my points on what Apple XServer, Mac Pro Server and Mac Mini Server lacks
No 4 or 8 socket option
No blade option
Only three drive bays
Only one SAS HD option
Cannot install Windows, Linux or Unix as the main OS.
1yr of warranty

The XServe is discontinued. What is lacking on Apple current server offerings?,
No 4 or 8 socket option
No blade option
Only four drive bays in the Mac Pro and two on the Mac Mini Server
No SAS drives, no 2.5 drives. No 10k or 15k RPM disks. Not hot swap capable.
Cannot install Windows, Linux or Unix as the main OS.
No RPS from Apple
1yr of warranty

If I miss something, can you clarify it for me? And sorry because of my ignorance on hardware for the Mac OS X market.

""Can you post an example of inaccurate or false posts?"
I did so already, several times."
Can you specify which one? I'm not used to lie, so maybe I made a mistake on my points. You can even copy and paste the point on which I lie.
0 Votes
+ -
@itguy08
I am guessing you never owned a zune and just an ipod as if you had owned a zune it would be quit clear how supierior it is to an ipod in everyway. It would be a shame to kill the zune. If microsoft did a litle vamp then actually did some commercials for it it would easily out sell apple ipods as the zune has that cool factor you don't get with old people apple products and it out works the ipod in everyway. 3rd rate mp3 player? I guess some people just don't know much about electronics.
0 Votes
+ -
@Fletchguy
You being a case in point.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is Microsoft killing off the Zune hardware?
brucekdonaldson 15th Mar 2011
@Fletchguy
I'm a professional studio/live musician and didn't want to be restricted to iPod format and library. The Zune gave me larger library choices (including from any client's formats) and larger memory space (120G). That's why I never was interested in iAnything. iPad is another story, though I don't own one and will probably wait for something even more versitile when it comes, though I may be ignorant of an ap that will allow the iPad to play WAV, MP3, MP4, Son, MID, and all other types of files.
0 Votes
+ -
@ brucekdonaldson
I find your claims dubious, at best.
Certainly if you are a musician, you are misinformed one. You want an ap [sic] to play WAV, MP3, MP4, etc.? It's called iTunes!!! If you knew anything about the device you were commenting on, you would know that all these file formats are supported on the iPod.
In addition, as there are large capacity iPods, the claim that the Zune gives you a larger "memory space" is likewise uninformed. Lastly, there is a reason that when you go to professional music trade shows, almost NO Windows machines are to be found. Please ask the vendors of such products as Traktor Pro and Serato why they demo almost exclusively on the mac.
0 Votes
+ -
The music player market ...
P. Douglas 14th Mar 2011
... isn't really growing, that is why I think MS may have called it quits, and didn't want to invest in promoting the product over the last couple of years.
0 Votes
+ -
...not a single one.
0 Votes
+ -
@MC_z
I own a ZuneHD, and it's smaller and sleeker than any device I've ever used.
0 Votes
+ -
@Droid101
And yet you claim, "Nobody wants an MP3 player anymore... people want multi-function devices these days. "
0 Votes
+ -
@ptorning

How does that prevent him(or her) from owning one, especially if it was bought before conditions became such?

Besides, the HD is a multi-functional device....
Besides, the HD is a multi-functional device....

Does it have a telephone? Does it run Flash? How about Office?

Anything short of that, isn't a multi-functional device.
0 Votes
+ -
I saw these at Best Buy once. My impression? Cheap plastic piece of crap, put together with screws, with very little functionality above playing music. iPod Touch blew this pathetic crud out of the water.
0 Votes
+ -
@Monkeypox
It?s actually not a bad looking device, I for one would not spend the money (for a Windows License) just to use it though. I have seen them in stores, but I have never actually seen a person with one.
0 Votes
+ -
@Rick_K
I have a Zune HD and love it.
@Monkeypox
When compared the iPod Touch I replaced my Zune with it was as simple as this, a larger device for less cost to do the same thing that my iPod did. The major difference is I can purchase songs from either iTunes, Amazon, Zune or (fill in you favorite music service here) and it plays on my Zune without having to be converted to something else.
0 Votes
+ -
Cheap plastic piece of Crap? Sure
Will Farrell 15th Mar 2011
@Monkeypox
if we're talking about the iPod here, yes I agree with you 100%
0 Votes
+ -
@Will Farrell
Which says a lot for the discerning nature of your posts. All iPods have been made from metal and glass for years. Make stuff up much?
0 Votes
+ -
Zune was D.O.A. So all of this is just pillow talk.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is Microsoft killing off the Zune hardware?
Hallowed are the Ori 15th Mar 2011
@james347

Troll elsewhere, loser.
Good day to confirm this comment I would appreciate T h e b e s t o f Z D N e t d e l i v e r e d your website very nice to everyone Yes, Oracle is the only one with shared-disk architecture, but that is there advantage. It means you can add or remove nodes and the database lives on. In a shared nothing architecture, if you lose a node, you lose the system. I'm sure Oracle appreciates EMC highlighting their advantage.I also desire to signal in your RSS feeds. Thank you as soon as once again and maintain up the great operate Awesome post! Thank you very much || thanks for nice content this is really benefit to me.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix