[besson3c]

Are Mac users generally skeptical, or pretty content to cling to Steve Jobs' every word?

Steve Jobs is a great salesman. When he raves about Macs, it seems as if he wants to give you the impression that the technology is light years ahead of anything else, and it was completely innovated fromo the ground up at Apple, perhaps targetting those who desire to maintain a sense of individualism.

I find much of Apple's marketing to be a little disingenuous. What is with hyping the Mac Pro and XServe as being quad processor machines? Do any other manufacturers treat the Core Duo line as having two physical processors per chip? This is bogus - a machine with four processors vs. two processors is much different, paticularly because dual core chips are not really rare commodities these days.

I don't know if this is the fault of Apple or not, but I've seen some publications refer to the XServe as an enterprise class server. Compared to other offerings on the market, it isn't in the same league. Perhaps "enterprise" has become one of those B.S. marketing terms that has lost its meaning?

Anyway, I could probably cite more examples if I tried to, but I hope I've gotten enough across to ask my question: is there a substantial population of Mac using sheep that will eat out of Steve Jobs' hand no matter what the offering, or are Mac users generally pretty skeptical and savvy?

I know this is asking you to make a generalization, something which I normally hate to do, but if you don't want to answer the question that way, perhaps you could simply speak to the basic culture, marketing techniques employed by Apple, and how you perceive people interpreting these marketing techniques.

[Landos Mustache]

For the first while when everyone is hyped up... yes.

Reality starts to set in for most though after a couple weeks.

Benchmarks for the new 2.66 Mac Pro's just came out and it is almost equal to a Quad G5 which I find highly disappointing. Equal when it comes to native apps, emulated it is damn slow in Photoshop taking twice as long.

There will always be fanboys that accept anything that comes out of a company.

[besson3c]

There is something very fascinating about the culture Apple has built up that I can't quite put my finger on. I don't know of any other computer enthusiasts that were obsessing over whether Apple should use a different color gradient or something in Leopard, or whether the scrollbars are pretty.

I could understand this by looking at this through the lens of a usability/HCI expert, but in terms of providing a user experience (which is a pretty important subject in this area), the little cosmetic choices are simply one aspect to providing a user experience. Yet, there is a disproportionate amount of conversation about this than there is any other area of usability, that I know of.

Anyway, some day I'm going to figure all of this out In the meantime, I welcome your thoughts.

[itai195]

Technically they are calling it a Quad Core workstation, not Quad Processor. That may or may not be misleading, I guess.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

Benchmarks for the new 2.66 Mac Pro's just came out and it is almost equal to a Quad G5 which I find highly disappointing. Equal when it comes to native apps, emulated it is damn slow in Photoshop taking twice as long.

Almost equal? In the benchmarks you posted, the $800 cheaper Mac Pro beats the Quad G5 in 6 of 8 benchmarks (1 losing benchmark is non-native).

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by mduell

Almost equal? In the benchmarks you posted, the $800 cheaper Mac Pro beats the Quad G5 in 6 of 8 benchmarks (1 losing benchmark is non-native).

It beats it by 2 seconds on 30. That is hardly impressive.

The quad is what? A year old?

What type of people normally buy towers? Yup, photoshop users.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

It beats it by 2 seconds on 30. That is hardly impressive.

The quad is what? A year old?

What type of people normally buy towers? Yup, photoshop users.

At what point are people going to stop caring about this sort of stuff?

That's another possibly interesting question to ponder

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by besson3c

At what point are people going to stop caring about this sort of stuff?

That's another possibly interesting question to ponder

When time no longer equals $

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

What type of people normally buy towers? Yup, photoshop users.

Because we all know that Adobe would never make an Intel native version of Photoshop.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by goMac

Because we all know that Adobe would never make an Intel native version of Photoshop.

If you are stupid enough to want to buy a machine today that will run photoshop at half the speed of a PowerPC go nuts. Your money.

Or perhaps it would be the tiniest bit smarter to wait till native photoshop comes next year and then buy the machine which will also be much faster at that time anyway.

And as I mentioned. I am not talking about photoshop performance but how it is almost equal in speed in universal apps. Lord knows where apple gets its benchmarks from.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by goMac

Because we all know that Adobe would never make an Intel native version of Photoshop.

Unless agencies absolutely HAVE TO blow money on machines this year, they will put off upgrading their Power Macs until next year, when the native CS3 comes out.

A substantial number of agencies, however HAVE TO blow money this year, and they will buy G5 machines, since they know Photoshop to run well on them, and these are the fastest machines for at least another year.

[Salty]

All the bench marks Apple was using were of the 3Ghz machine. Though I imagine it doesn't do 2x better either. Though they did say they were using specific tests.

Anyway calling the new Mac Pros quad is fair. They do have 4 processor cores. A Dual core chip is effectively two processors they're just one one chip. I don't see why it's unfair to call it a quad.

As for do we readily drink the koolaid? Yah I'd say so partly because typically it's not that bad. Apple does release enough cutting edge stuff that leaves users happy with their Machines. I mean really would you want to go without Exposé and how readily would you give up spotlight? I mean I don't use spotlight much but when I don't have it on a Mac I do find myself going to use it and being disappointed. I even did a save instead of a save as the other day and found myself wanting Time Machine.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

What type of people normally buy towers? Yup, photoshop users.

Motion, Aperture, Logic, Xcode and Final Cut Pro users too.

[mdc]

I find that people who have just switched over to Mac OS are fanatical.
Take someone here at work for example. Never spoke a word about Apple or Mac OS last year when I started. About a month or two ago he bought an iMac and his car already has an Apple sticker on it, he has a G4 Cube poster in his office (I wonder if he even knows what computer it is), and he trashes pcs every time he talks about them.

He never hated Macs, but he never knew much about them, and then all of a sudden, it's Mac OS this and Mac OS that.

I'm a huge Apple fan, I'll be the first to admit it, but believing absolutely everything Steve says? No.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I find much of Apple's marketing to be a little disingenuous. What is with hyping the Mac Pro and XServe as being quad processor machines? Do any other manufacturers treat the Core Duo line as having two physical processors per chip? This is bogus - a machine with four processors vs. two processors is much different, paticularly because dual core chips are not really rare commodities these days.

While there is a physical difference, it doesn't necessarily make much practical difference. And besides that, they're calling it "quad-core" or just "quad," not "quad-processor."

Originally Posted by besson3c

Perhaps "enterprise" has become one of those B.S. marketing terms that has lost its meaning?

It always was. "Enterprise" means "good enough for my big, important business."

Originally Posted by besson3c

Anyway, I could probably cite more examples if I tried to, but I hope I've gotten enough across to ask my question: is there a substantial population of Mac using sheep that will eat out of Steve Jobs' hand no matter what the offering, or are Mac users generally pretty skeptical and savvy?

The truth is, Apple's products generally do kick ass. I wouldn't consider myself a sheep for thinking, "Wow, he said this would be awesome and he was right." Steve is a really good salesman and a generally smart guy to boot, so yeah, people generally trust him. But it's not as though he's continually betraying that trust either.

[tutelary]

Apple's greatest sales pitches are its meaningless bar graphs. I love those. You'll have a bar of one color, and a bar of another color and something like: "28% faster!" As a disclaimer with no notations about the test itself, or even exact figures for the results.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by tutelary

Apple's greatest sales pitches are its meaningless bar graphs. I love those. You'll have a bar of one color, and a bar of another color and something like: "28% faster!" As a disclaimer with no notations about the test itself, or even exact figures for the results.

http://www.apple.com/macpro/performance.html

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Are Mac users generally skeptical, or pretty content to cling to Steve Jobs' every word?

Steve Jobs is a great salesman. When he raves about Macs, it seems as if he wants to give you the impression that the technology is light years ahead of anything else, and it was completely innovated fromo the ground up at Apple, perhaps targetting those who desire to maintain a sense of individualism.

I find much of Apple's marketing to be a little disingenuous. What is with hyping the Mac Pro and XServe as being quad processor machines? Do any other manufacturers treat the Core Duo line as having two physical processors per chip? This is bogus - a machine with four processors vs. two processors is much different, paticularly because dual core chips are not really rare commodities these days.

I don't know if this is the fault of Apple or not, but I've seen some publications refer to the XServe as an enterprise class server. Compared to other offerings on the market, it isn't in the same league. Perhaps "enterprise" has become one of those B.S. marketing terms that has lost its meaning?

Anyway, I could probably cite more examples if I tried to, but I hope I've gotten enough across to ask my question: is there a substantial population of Mac using sheep that will eat out of Steve Jobs' hand no matter what the offering, or are Mac users generally pretty skeptical and savvy?

I know this is asking you to make a generalization, something which I normally hate to do, but if you don't want to answer the question that way, perhaps you could simply speak to the basic culture, marketing techniques employed by Apple, and how you perceive people interpreting these marketing techniques.

I think Mac users are a pretty discerning group. I think that we are much more critical of Apple and Apple's products than any other group of customers. This has a lot to do with our love of Apple and the Mac, but I think it has more to do with the type of people that the Mac and Apple attract.

I think most, if not all people would agree that most Mac users are creative types of people. Creative people by nature are critical. Especially artists. But even more than just the creative aspect of the Mac user base, I think its just how much we care about Apple and the Mac. When someone cares deeply about something or someone, they become critical of the choices they make. And criticism is a good thing. It keeps Apple on their toes. It forces them to meet the high standards that their users demand. And I think that Apple knows that when their user base is criticizing something of theirs, it isn't out of spite or hate. Its out of love and respect. We want the Mac (and all Apple products) to be the best in the industry.

Of course, there will always be the minority of Mac users who pretty much take whatever Apple says or releases as the best thing ever. But those people are the minority. Most of us Mac users will criticize, even if we have to fish for something minor.

As far as Apple's marketing, I don't see anything wrong with it. When Apple markets something, they really aren't trying to speak to their well established user base. They know that those people already know what Apple is about, and will discover the product on their own. When Apple releases numbers (inflated as they may be) they are speaking to the people who don't really know Apple or even the computer industry. And Apple is no different in this respect than any other company out there, in any industry. Every single company will inflate numbers in their favor. They will finesse every single word in a PR statement or advertisement to make it sound like its better than it actually is. Its just the way the marketing machine works. If you'd like a really funny example, just look at any marketing Microsoft puts out. They are one of the best at making their products sound 100x better than they actually are. Sometimes its so obvious its laughable.

[Salty]

I think anyone who doesn't know to take everything Steve says with a slight grain of sand are silly. Spotlight is lightning fast now! Yah if you're got a really fast HD. For those of us with 4200rpm drives it's still faster to just know where the damned file is.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

When time no longer equals $

You said it yourself though, one of your benchmarks above was a difference of 2 seconds. How much is 2 seconds worth? 10? 15?

At times I think that the need to have the fastest computer money can buy is overhyped these days. Of course, there are people who do benefit from this sort of horsepower, but my presumptions are that the vast majority of people do not.

[Salty]

I buy closer to the middle and enjoy having last year's fastest

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Salty

Anyway calling the new Mac Pros quad is fair. They do have 4 processor cores. A Dual core chip is effectively two processors they're just one one chip. I don't see why it's unfair to call it a quad.

I disagree on the grounds that I don't think anybody else is doing this, and secondly because there is a distinct difference between a 4 processor machine and 2 dual cores, especially when if you were to buy a processor these days there is a good chance it would be dual core anyway. Like I said, being dual core is no rare commodity.

As for do we readily drink the koolaid? Yah I'd say so partly because typically it's not that bad. Apple does release enough cutting edge stuff that leaves users happy with their Machines. I mean really would you want to go without Exposé and how readily would you give up spotlight? I mean I don't use spotlight much but when I don't have it on a Mac I do find myself going to use it and being disappointed. I even did a save instead of a save as the other day and found myself wanting Time Machine.

It depends on what you call "cutting edge". To some, features like Expose and Spotlight have nothing to do with what cutting edge is about.

[Salty]

Yes but to some they do.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The truth is, Apple's products generally do kick ass. I wouldn't consider myself a sheep for thinking, "Wow, he said this would be awesome and he was right." Steve is a really good salesman and a generally smart guy to boot, so yeah, people generally trust him. But it's not as though he's continually betraying that trust either.

I hear what you're saying, but I think that more experienced users develop a sort of B.S. filter, and a good sense of what to "believe when I see", and what to take at face value. I take it at face value that the Mail stationary and to-do stuff will work as advertised, but I'm very skeptical about Time Machine working without some serious set of tradeoffs to consider, for instance.

However, I'm sure that some believe now that Time Machine will magically back everything up without requiring disk space or any other sort of accommodation, performing like a champ, absolutely no strings attached.

I'm not claiming to be some sort of computer genius. Each and every one of us in here has a general idea as to what sort of things don't perform as well as Steve Jobs' demos from experience. So, when new stuff is announced, do people like us (and/or less experienced users) fall hook line and sinker for all the benefits and awesomeness advertised, or do we approach these sort of testimonies with skepticism?

Just want to make sure I'm understood, hope I'm not beating this to death.

[Salty]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I hear what you're saying, but I think that more experienced users develop a sort of B.S. filter, and a good sense of what to "believe when I see", and what to take at face value. I take it at face value that the Mail stationary and to-do stuff will work as advertised, but I'm very skeptical about Time Machine working without some serious set of tradeoffs to consider, for instance.

However, I'm sure that some believe now that Time Machine will magically back everything up without requiring disk space or any other sort of accommodation, performing like a champ, absolutely no strings attached.

I'm not claiming to be some sort of computer genius. Each and every one of us in here has a general idea as to what sort of things don't perform as well as Steve Jobs' demos from experience. So, when new stuff is announced, do people like us (and/or less experienced users) fall hook line and sinker for all the benefits and awesomeness advertised, or do we approach these sort of testimonies with skepticism?

Just want to make sure I'm understood, hope I'm not beating this to death.

I think most people who have a clue are going to realize that, I have a 40 gig HD, and I will probably not have time machine behaving super great and it'll probably not take care of my big files. Though who knows by next spring I might find myself buying a new MacBook with a bigger HD. Whatever. That said I think Time Machine probably work as advertised as far as backing things up to an external which is a lil bit more important to me.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Salty

I think most people who have a clue are going to realize that, I have a 40 gig HD, and I will probably not have time machine behaving super great and it'll probably not take care of my big files. Though who knows by next spring I might find myself buying a new MacBook with a bigger HD. Whatever. That said I think Time Machine probably work as advertised as far as backing things up to an external which is a lil bit more important to me.

Actually, I think your big files are not going to be relevant here, assuming you have the space to cover a single backup of these files. I talked about this today with some programmer dudes I respect, and they agreed with my theory here: what is going on is probably an actual log of binary data written at the file system level. Therefore, regardless of how large your file is, the amount of data necessary to record this change remains at about the size of approximately the amount of actual data manipulated. This is the precedent with systems that have handled this sort of thing before, and it is obviously a far slicker approach than keeping a gazillion hard copies of a single file.

What will add up in space is probably the sheer size of this giant log given the need to account for thousands upon thousands of files. I'd expect it would be at least the size of what is required to store these files, although you'd be surprised as to the substantial amount of space that can be reclaimed in file compression of text files. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple develops some compression scheme for compressing text files, which ought to help out a great deal in space requirements.

What I want to know is if you have a really large file, whether you will be able to opt out of having this large file logged to save space. I'm sure there will be a mechanism built in, and I sure hope there is, as I probably wouldn't be interested in backing up stuff outside of my home directory.

I'm also looking forward to find out how open Apple decides to make this, and whether they will allow backing up to non-Apple servers.

[RAILhead]

MacFixIt ran GeekBench on the base model, and the overall score was twice what my score was on my Dual 2.0GHz G5.

Point being, for many people, the new towers are quite the upgrade.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I disagree on the grounds that I don't think anybody else is doing this, and secondly because there is a distinct difference between a 4 processor machine and 2 dual cores, especially when if you were to buy a processor these days there is a good chance it would be dual core anyway. Like I said, being dual core is no rare commodity.

Not to be a jerk or anything, but can you read?

Apple is not calling it a quad processor machine. They are calling it a quad CORE machine, which is what it is.

[Chuckit]

EDIT: Misunderstood.

[himself]

Originally Posted by mdc

I find that people who have just switched over to Mac OS are fanatical.
Take someone here at work for example. Never spoke a word about Apple or Mac OS last year when I started. About a month or two ago he bought an iMac and his car already has an Apple sticker on it, he has a G4 Cube poster in his office (I wonder if he even knows what computer it is), and he trashes pcs every time he talks about them.

He never hated Macs, but he never knew much about them, and then all of a sudden, it's Mac OS this and Mac OS that.

I'm a huge Apple fan, I'll be the first to admit it, but believing absolutely everything Steve says? No.

I've noticed the same thing as well, but I suspect it is because they are really taken at how much better the Mac OS is compared to the alternatives. When you've been using Windows for your entire computing life, and finally decide to switch to the Mac, many people will wonder why they waited so long, and realize just how poor Windows (or whatever they used before) is.

And this isn't just me being a blind sheep drunk off the kool-aid, but on balance, the Mac is the best computing platform available. Even with all of its shortcomings, most of us aren't going to be considering anything else (unless it is absolutely necessary). So when a new product or feature is announced, I'll take it on face value (with the requisite grain of salt) until I can get an opportunity to evaluate it, since I'm not going anywhere anyway.

[mitchell_pgh]

IMHO, Apple would be VERY foolish to say "Dual CPU" regarding their systems. To many non-technical people, "Dual 64-bit Dual-Core Intel Xeon Processors" = "64-bit Dual-Core Intel Xeon Processors"

You do see that having simply dual anywhere is silly when you have 4 cores standard... unlike dell that offers dual core systems.

Plus, it's marketing, and IMHO, Dell and the others hype it just as much.

[mitchell_pgh]

Specifically regarding Mac users, I've been on the platform since the Apple II... and I get excited when I see cool technologies being implemented into the OS I choose to use. Time Machine looks cool, the new iChat looks great, etc. etc. I also enjoy the fantastic presentations Steve Jobs gives (he really is a first class presenter).

Do I believe EVERYTHING blindly, no, but I've found Apple to generally be accurate about their offerings. Also, anyone that believes marketing information without reading the fine detail is going through life with their blinders on. I've never upgraded a system to have it 5X faster... EVER. What makes anyone thing that simply upgrading to a Mac Pro is going to do that?

Having lived through the "dark days of Apple" has made me appreciate just how far Apple has come as a company.

[Salty]

I agree on the whole it's just that much better than what they've had. I'm a crazy Mac nut because everyone knows that I know tons about the systems (I blame you guys for that) and so while I'm a crazy Mac user it's typically in a more funny witty special interest way. Where are a lot of my friends who have recently switched will just gush over some things that to me I don't think are a huge deal. Like I've had people show Exposé all the time, when i don't even think of that as a huge difference. I have the Mac user arrogance, where as a lot of new users have the Mac user romance. I think a lot of us have settled into a dependable relationship with our Macs, where we take them for granted but still feel like we're better than everyone else (cause we are). Where as new users have that still can't believe this platform is as good as it is.
My mom for example is still in the romance phase. She still loves her Mac mini, she'll talk about how tiny and cute it is, and tell other people in her business they should get it. she doesn't know why it's much better than her old PC, she just knows it is.

[mitchell_pgh]

Salty,

Regarding the "Apple Arrogance," I find that it's not so much that I'm arrogant, but rather that my Mac makes others assume I'm arrogant.

EXAMPLE: Opening a .eps file and printing it using Preview.

Windows User: How did you do that?
Me: My Mac can read those files with a built in application.
Windows User: Rolls eyes.

[MrForgetable]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

If you are stupid enough to want to buy a machine today that will run photoshop at half the speed of a PowerPC go nuts. Your money.

Or perhaps it would be the tiniest bit smarter to wait till native photoshop comes next year and then buy the machine which will also be much faster at that time anyway.

And as I mentioned. I am not talking about photoshop performance but how it is almost equal in speed in universal apps. Lord knows where apple gets its benchmarks from.

i agree.. i'm waiting until the next photoshop comes before i buy an intel machine.. but man, i can't wait.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I find much of Apple's marketing to be a little disingenuous. What is with hyping the Mac Pro and XServe as being quad processor machines? Do any other manufacturers treat the Core Duo line as having two physical processors per chip? This is bogus - a machine with four processors vs. two processors is much different, paticularly because dual core chips are not really rare commodities these days.

Yes, they do. They count cores and compare machines with the same number of cores, i. e. a two-way dual-core machine may be compared to a 4-way single-core machine. Examples? Sure, here is IBM (`2 dual-core cpus'), Sun (note that the website says it's a 16-way system, on the specs page it clearly says the system has 4 or 8 cpus) and HP (4 single or dual-core cpus).

Originally Posted by besson3c

I don't know if this is the fault of Apple or not, but I've seen some publications refer to the XServe as an enterprise class server. Compared to other offerings on the market, it isn't in the same league. Perhaps "enterprise" has become one of those B.S. marketing terms that has lost its meaning?

You have the wrong idea of what `enterprise-class servers' are, in the server world, these are big iron machines with 16+ cpus which sell for six, seven-digit amounts. I have given you an example of the server hardware my department has (a Sun Fire 280 R) which Sun considers an `entry-level server', although you could buy four, five XServes for that machine (sans RAID it is connected to, of course).

Compared to other machines in its class, the XServe has the same feature set: redundant power supply, hot-pluggable harddrives, SAS, ECC RAM, etc. Obviously, these are just entry-level servers for other server manufacturers and you can get much more powerful and (no pun intended ) redundant machines. But then you'd compare Apples and Oranges. So I don't think Apple is marketing the XServe as something it isn't. If you need a serious server, you won't look either at Apple's offerings nor at its direct competitors anyway.

[Salty]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

Salty,

Regarding the "Apple Arrogance," I find that it's not so much that I'm arrogant, but rather that my Mac makes others assume I'm arrogant.

EXAMPLE: Opening a .eps file and printing it using Preview.

Windows User: How did you do that?
Me: My Mac can read those files with a built in application.
Windows User: Rolls eyes.

Agreed. There are varying levels. Sometimes when someone asks me why they should get a Mac I honestly don't even feel like telling them. I just ramble off no viruses, intuitive UI, product design, awesome apps etc. As well when people ask me how to do something and I can't tell them how to do it on a PC I normally sigh and tell them, if you had a Mac I could tell you unfortunately I have no idea how to do that on your machine. And I don't tell them to rub it in.
I avoid rubbing in when I see someone buy a new PC and they want to do something that I have no idea how they could on their machine. Then I tend to feel bad for them. Unless they asked me for buying advice and bought a PC instead. Then I mock them.
Typically I only display my arrogance around people who I don't care about or who I want to realize how awesome the Mac is. But I do my best to avoid being obnoxious, it tends to be in a loveable quirky way. I generally present the MacBook as the cure of all laptop problems friends complain about. Whenever someone tells me their battery is crap or their LCD's gone wonky I just say you know what would fix your problems? And they of course respond "David I can't afford a Mac" and I smile and leave them alone.
Most of my friends now at school all want to replace their current laptops with Macs.

Perhaps we should call it the Mac confidence?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Salty

I agree on the whole it's just that much better than what they've had. I'm a crazy Mac nut because everyone knows that I know tons about the systems (I blame you guys for that) and so while I'm a crazy Mac user it's typically in a more funny witty special interest way. Where are a lot of my friends who have recently switched will just gush over some things that to me I don't think are a huge deal. Like I've had people show Exposé all the time, when i don't even think of that as a huge difference. I have the Mac user arrogance, where as a lot of new users have the Mac user romance. I think a lot of us have settled into a dependable relationship with our Macs, where we take them for granted but still feel like we're better than everyone else (cause we are). Where as new users have that still can't believe this platform is as good as it is.
My mom for example is still in the romance phase. She still loves her Mac mini, she'll talk about how tiny and cute it is, and tell other people in her business they should get it. she doesn't know why it's much better than her old PC, she just knows it is.

BUt you're not better than everyone else. The Mac is not the best computer for everything and for everyone. It excels at who and what it was designed for, providing you are willing to pay a premium price - it's a niche market.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Yes, they do. They count cores and compare machines with the same number of cores, i. e. a two-way dual-core machine may be compared to a 4-way single-core machine. Examples? Sure, here is IBM (`2 dual-core cpus'), Sun (note that the website says it's a 16-way system, on the specs page it clearly says the system has 4 or 8 cpus) and HP (4 single or dual-core cpus).

I'll take your word for it, although I notice that HP wasn't doing this on their pages. At any rate, regardless of who is doing it, I find it a bit disingenuous. Even if you want to argue that the net result is the same of having dual cores vs. two CPUs, you are essentially paying for one CPU. Isn't this simply false advertising?

You have the wrong idea of what `enterprise-class servers' are, in the server world, these are big iron machines with 16+ cpus which sell for six, seven-digit amounts. I have given you an example of the server hardware my department has (a Sun Fire 280 R) which Sun considers an `entry-level server', although you could buy four, five XServes for that machine (sans RAID it is connected to, of course).

Compared to other machines in its class, the XServe has the same feature set: redundant power supply, hot-pluggable harddrives, SAS, ECC RAM, etc. Obviously, these are just entry-level servers for other server manufacturers and you can get much more powerful and (no pun intended ) redundant machines. But then you'd compare Apples and Oranges. So I don't think Apple is marketing the XServe as something it isn't. If you need a serious server, you won't look either at Apple's offerings nor at its direct competitors anyway.

I have the wrong idea? I know exactly what enterprise class servers are, which is why I was calling out these sort of publications by tossing the word around recklessly.

This is but one of many examples of creative but inaccurate marketing used by Apple, Steve Jobs, and many players throughout the rest of the industry. However, the difference between when Apple does it and when others do it may be that Apple knows that they have a certain degree of customer loyalty, whereas PC owners (and build-it-themselfers) are perhaps more fickle in their loyalties.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I'll take your word for it, although I notice that HP wasn't doing this on their pages. At any rate, regardless of who is doing it, I find it a bit disingenuous. Even if you want to argue that the net result is the same of having dual cores vs. two CPUs, you are essentially paying for one CPU. Isn't this simply false advertising?

I REALLY don't understand where you're getting the false advertising thing from.

Apple says "Mac Pro Quad Xeon 64 bit Workstation."

This is exactly true. Quad what? Quad core. Then when you get into the main advertising page, they say "two dual-core Xeon processors."

Just because YOU assume it says "Quad (processor)" doesn't mean it's false advertising.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I'll take your word for it, although I notice that HP wasn't doing this on their pages. At any rate, regardless of who is doing it, I find it a bit disingenuous. Even if you want to argue that the net result is the same of having dual cores vs. two CPUs, you are essentially paying for one CPU. Isn't this simply false advertising?

No. When dual-core Opterons came out, Intel was scared. Because they had NOTHING that came even close to their performance at a similar price point. 4-way servers are a LOT more expensive than 2-way servers and when you need to buy a 4-way Xeon to compete with a 2-way dual-core Opteron, you're in trouble. Counting cores is the right way to compare performance of different computers. (Also note that the current SPECint and SPECfp (not rate) marks use only one core. The rate marks then measure how well your performance increases with the cores.)

It also isn't false advertising, because one core is one core. Some of the dual-core cpus (e. g. the Pentium D) even consist two single-core cpus in one chip case. Also, you have 4 logical full cpus (unlike hyperthreaded cpus where the number of cpus is artificially increased) for the OS. The OS cannot distinguish between a 4-way single-core system and a 2-way dual-core system.

Originally Posted by besson3c

I have the wrong idea? I know exactly what enterprise class servers are, which is why I was calling out these sort of publications by tossing the word around recklessly.

Then why do you claim Apple wants to make us believe the XServe is an enterprise-class server. Just take a look at HP's homepage. It distinguishes between Home/SoHo, small and medium businesses as well as enterprises. Enterprise servers are different from the servers you have mentioned in your examples and different from the servers most of us deal with. I also don't see that Apple claims to be a big iron server manufacturer now and that the XServe is an enterprise class server.

Originally Posted by besson3c

This is but one of many examples of creative but inaccurate marketing used by Apple, Steve Jobs, and many players throughout the rest of the industry. However, the difference between when Apple does it and when others do it may be that Apple knows that they have a certain degree of customer loyalty, whereas PC owners (and build-it-themselfers) are perhaps more fickle in their loyalties.

I don't really know what you want to tell me here. Larger companies have a very strong tendency to stick with one manufacturer. The math department of my university for instance gets substantial rebates from Sun, so we have lots of Sun equipment (in my (shared) office, there are two Sun Rays and two Sun TFTs alone). They prefer a more homogeneous environment to saving a few bucks here and there.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Person Man

I REALLY don't understand where you're getting the false advertising thing from.

Apple says "Mac Pro Quad Xeon 64 bit Workstation."

This is exactly true. Quad what? Quad core. Then when you get into the main advertising page, they say "two dual-core Xeon processors."

Just because YOU assume it says "Quad (processor)" doesn't mean it's false advertising.

Not false, disingenuous...

[Hash]

Lot of noise out of nothing, sorry to say so. I do not remember when Apple intentionally lied, and therefore, there are no reasons to doubt what Apple says. I have been Mac user since 1993 and I remember that Macs were always very solid platform. When PCs were running Windows 98 (and I remember horrors of Office 97 and 2000), my B&W G3 was running Word 98 and a lot of other applications great.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Not false, disingenuous...

It's NOT disingenuous, either.

Apple is stating EXACTLY what you get.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Hash

Lot of noise out of nothing, sorry to say so. I do not remember when Apple intentionally lied, and therefore, there are no reasons to doubt what Apple says.

MHz myth anyone?

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

MHz myth anyone?

What was the lie about the MHz Myth? Would you rather a 2.4GHz Pentium 4 or a 1.8GHz Core Duo?

MHz was a myth in that people were accustom to Faster MHz = Faster Macine which was true up to a point when other factors started to make a bigger difference.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Person Man

It's NOT disingenuous, either.

Apple is stating EXACTLY what you get.

If you read the text carefully, perhaps, I haven't done so. However, the headlines are deceptive.

Even if there aren't performance differences in two processors versus one processor with dual cores, the additional processor costs money and figures into the overall price. Additionally, in server setups (and possibly some Mac hardware, I don't know), that second processor can be used as a failover should the first processor die.


I take back what I said in pointing this in Apple's direction, this is something that the entire industry ought to figure out in communicating to customers, just like the meaning of Ghz ratings.

Try explaining to Grandma the difference between four dual core processors, or four single processors versus two dual core processors which actually makes four.

[Hash]

come on, now you talk that headlines are deceptive. Maybe in bad mood today and have nothing else to complain about?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Hash

come on, now you talk that headlines are deceptive. Maybe in bad mood today and have nothing else to complain about?

Isn't deceptive a synonym for disingenuous?

[Hash]

I don't think that they are deceptive