Well either you are playing a joke on the forum or you can't operate your tool. So which is it?
I looked up his other posts to try to gauge if he was trolling before responding personally. If he is he put a lot of effort into it. I figured it to be possible he bought a fake machine online and remains frazzled by the experience, so I didn't respond to it as a troll post.
That's because you don't have any external eSATA RAID boxes that require Silicon Image's SteelVine Manager software (PowerPC binaries only) to manage them. SiI never updated the software after February of 2008.
It works fine on Snow Leopard but without Rosetta, it won't work at all on Lion.
I was forced to buy a Mac Pro with 4 internal drives to replace my two AMS Venus DS-DS3RPRO 2x1TB eSATA RAID units because of this. So now I have two expensive paperweights ...
That's because you don't have any external eSATA RAID boxes that require Silicon Image's SteelVine Manager software (PowerPC binaries only) to manage them. SiI never updated the software after February of 2008.
Yep. Yeah, that, uh? that would indeed be the case. I haven't.
Oh, that's inexcusable, by the way. I completely agree.
I don't even think there's a name for the type of trolling that is.
how's it that trolling? it's a completely legitimate concern, faster is useless for pro users if we can't get large files on and off of them in reasonable amount time. fool.
how's it that trolling? it's a completely legitimate concern, faster is useless for pro users if we can't get large files on and off of them in reasonable amount time. fool.
You're implying that no Thunderbolt accessories exist. That couldn't be further from the truth.
Also, processor speed doesn't really have much of anything to do with drive speed, drive interface speed, or?
That's because you don't have any external eSATA RAID boxes that require Silicon Image's SteelVine Manager software (PowerPC binaries only) to manage them. SiI never updated the software after February of 2008.
eSATA is a bad idea to begin with, putting a RAID drive on that port doubly so.
Quote:
It works fine on Snow Leopard but without Rosetta, it won't work at all on Lion.
I was forced to buy a Mac Pro with 4 internal drives to replace my two
I harp on this all the time but the best place for a RAID array is in the internal bays of your computer chassis. Trying to extend your working storage via an external device is loaded with problems. This is different than using an array for one level of backups, where obviously you need to separate the hardware.
If your machine can't handle your storage needs internally you should resort to some sort of network storage using common protocols. That is some sort of file server implementation.
Quote:
AMS Venus DS-DS3RPRO 2x1TB eSATA RAID units because of this. So now I have two expensive paperweights ...
Not really; you have two sources of parts that might go nicely into a NAS box or something similar. That is if you are up to the DIY challenge. If not it is a good lesson in value, very few of these proprietary external storage boxes stay around for long. There have to be dozens of external RAID boxes no longer supported, plus a host of other "drives" that have outlived their originating companies.
I know this post will generate all sorts of comment to the contrary but that is the way I see it. You might also have better luck with the bigger brand names, but who is big today may not be tomorrow.
In any event don't feel bad, I have a whole cellar full of computing mistakes. Some not so bad at the time but in retrospect an example of falling victim to a false sense of economy. A lot of those mistake involve storage devices.
I guess with fanboi blinders on one only sees Apple perfection...
Nothing is broken... as a matter of fact there should never, ever be another release on any OS ever as the current version of Lion is so perfect and done
I guess with fanboi blinders on one only sees Apple perfection...
Nothing is broken... as a matter of fact there should never, ever be another release on any OS ever as the current version of Lion is so perfect and done
LOL, OBVIOUSLY I'M NOT ASKING AN HONEST QUESTION ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE FIND WRONG WITH THE OS.
I CAN'T POSSIBLY SEE PAST MY ANODIZED ALUMINUM-COLORED GLASSES.
I guess with fanboi blinders on one only sees Apple perfection...
This is just ignorant. I've lived through enough Mac OS/X updates to realize that Lion is pretty darn good relative to some. No one in this forum has ever said Lion is perfection, rather we point out again and again it is a huge win overall. You won't see that if you dwell on the rough spots.
Quote:
Nothing is broken...
Very little if anything is broken. There are some networking issues and a number of behavioral problems but none of this keeps the platform from working. What faults there is will be fixed, but those problems are far out weighed by the positives.
Quote:
as a matter of fact there should never, ever be another release on any OS ever as the current version of Lion is so perfect and done
This is also very stupid as Apple itself has said Lion is not done. The update for iCloud should be rather significant and then sometime down the road expect some other significant updates.
Really you need to learn to read for content. If you had a grasp of what is happening you would know where Apple is going with Lion. On top of that it is pretty much accepted that Operating Systems are works in progress. Mac OS did not hatch out of an egg all complete and ready to go, rather it has been assembled bit by bit over the years. Lion is just one step along the development path.
That's because you don't have any external eSATA RAID boxes that require Silicon Image's SteelVine Manager software (PowerPC binaries only) to manage them. SiI never updated the software after February of 2008.
It works fine on Snow Leopard but without Rosetta, it won't work at all on Lion.
I've owned a small esata box since the G5 days when internal storage was more limited. Today you can have 8TB internally on a mac pro, but you still want your backup of that to be off the computer, so it's not a complete solution. I avoid consumer raid boxes like the plague. You're better off with the system addressing single drives there unless you're willing to get into a proper NAS solution. The issue that sucks most these days is archiving large amounts of data.
Anyone remember tape drives (many still in use today just not "as many")?
I see this MacBook Pro refresh as somewhat futile.
For many users, the latest MacBook Air is sufficient, apart from the fact that SSD disk size is limited to 256 GB. This machine effectively makes the 13" MacBook Pro redundant. Moreover, everybody is now anticipating Ivy Bridge and a new enclosure design for the 15" and 17" MBP models. Many buyers will simply wait.
It looks almost certain as if a 15" MacBook Air will get quad core Ivy Bridge with incredible battery life and a 60% performance increment.
I think we're seeing Apple's notebook line-up evolve into a single type of enclosure design - all based around the current 13" Air. Will they call it Air or Pro? Perhaps the 11" and 13" models will be MacBook Airs and the 15" and 17" models will be MacBook Pros? It probably doesn't matter, but I'd prefer it if Apple just simplified the name to MacBook or iMacBook.
I guess the real differentiator between the MacBook and the MacBook Pro has always been the inclusion of a discrete graphics card. The only exception being the 13" MBP, which isn't really a MBP in my opinion.
So if Apple were to include a discrete graphics card, I suppose there's nothing to stop them adopting the MBA style enclosure for the MBP?
I bought an 11" MBA when they were first launched, and a 17" MBP about three months ago, and I have to say that the MBA is noticeably faster than the MBP in everything but large Photoshop files (or InDesign documents with lots of large Photoshop files/effects).
I marvel at how fast the new generation of MBAs must be?
So yes, I think for a lot of people, the new MBAs are the logical choice over a MBP...
I hope that Apple continue to distinguish between the MacBook Air and the MacBook Pro. I think the essential difference should be that the MacBook Pro should continue to accommodate CPUs/GPUs with about double the thermal dissipation (about 35W) of those which the MacBook Air can accommodate (about 17W). Another difference would be that the MacBook Pro models would continue to include more ports than the MacBook Air models. I hope the MacBook Pro models would include two mSATA slots rather than the one slot of the MacBook Air.
Ideally, I think the MacBook Air should be offered in 11", 13", and 15" versions while the MacBook Pro should be offered in 13", 15", and 17" versions.
I see this MacBook Pro refresh as somewhat futile.
Baloney.
Quote:
For many users, the latest MacBook Air is sufficient, apart from the fact that SSD disk size is limited to 256 GB.
For just as many, maybe even more, the AIR comes up short sometimes very short. Just consider what the AIR is missing:
Expandable / replaceable RAM.
A real drive bay to take magnetic or solid state drives.
A real GPU supporting OpenCL.
An Ethernet port.
A suitably big screen.
Respectable CPU performance. Note that this is not the same thing as a machine being responsive.
Long run time on battery.
The ability to drive multiple monitors well.
Quote:
This machine effectively makes the 13" MacBook Pro redundant.
See the above. The simple fact that you can add RAM to the 13" MBP makes it a very good machine, add in the faster processor and the 13" MBP becomes very unique.
Quote:
Moreover, everybody is now anticipating Ivy Bridge and a new enclosure design for the 15" and 17" MBP models. Many buyers will simply wait.
Well I'm trying to wait. However I don't think they will ignore the 13" MBP.
Quote:
It looks almost certain as if a 15" MacBook Air will get quad core Ivy Bridge with incredible battery life and a 60% performance increment.
Not really. The bench mark that saw a 60% improvement was a synthetic bench. Other tests indicated less than 3o% improvement for the GPU overall. Not that this does not include the CPU.
Quote:
I think we're seeing Apple's notebook line-up evolve into a single type of enclosure design - all based around the current 13" Air. Will they call it Air or Pro? Perhaps the 11" and 13" models will be MacBook Airs and the 15" and 17" models will be MacBook Pros? It probably doesn't matter, but I'd prefer it if Apple just simplified the name to MacBook or iMacBook.
For just as many, maybe even more, the AIR comes up short sometimes very short. Just consider what the AIR is missing:
Expandable / replaceable RAM.
A real drive bay to take magnetic or solid state drives.
A real GPU supporting OpenCL.
An Ethernet port.
A suitably big screen.
Respectable CPU performance. Note that this is not the same thing as a machine being responsive.
Long run time on battery.
The ability to drive multiple monitors well.
Most of the items on your list are only interesting to us geeks. Normal consumers do not factor most of these things into their purchase decisions. I would bet that for about 99% of potential buyers, the only items on your list that would be a factor are:
A suitably big screen.
Long run time on battery.
An Ethernet port. (maybe)
Since you distinguish between CPU performance and system responsiveness, I'll opine that about 99% of consumers care about system responsiveness and about 1% care about CPU performance. Most of them have no idea what a CPU is and most of the few who some idea what a CPU is know only that it's the computer's "brain".
Take gamers for example, some are geeks but many are not. However they know enough that they look for machines with certain aspects, including GPUs. The same could be said about people involved in graphics arts whom also have an interest in RAM and CPU performance. The list could go on but the point is any of a number of items on that list could be important to the geekless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling
Most of the items on your list are only interesting to us geeks. Normal consumers do not factor most of these things into their purchase decisions. I would bet that for about 99% of potential buyers, the only items on your list that would be a factor are:
A suitably big screen.
Long run time on battery.
An Ethernet port. (maybe)
Since you distinguish between CPU performance and system responsiveness, I'll opine that about 99% of consumers care about system responsiveness and about 1% care about CPU performance. Most of them have no idea what a CPU is and most of the few who some idea what a CPU is know only that it's the computer's "brain".
You don't have to understand what a CPU is the way we do as geeks. Seriously speed or performance is still one of the big drivers of system upgrades, for all users. Generally it is a mix between faster performance or more storage space.
You may think I'm pulling these comments out of the air but I have a friend that runs a computer repair business on the side. So my impression is based in part what the helpless go looking for when they decide it is time to upgrade. Believe me performance and storage space are to bug drivers. Some of the other factors may also come into play. The reality is sometimes the people coming into the shop can't even express what they want well.
Take gamers for example, some are geeks but many are not. However they know enough that they look for machines with certain aspects, including GPUs. The same could be said about people involved in graphics arts whom also have an interest in RAM and CPU performance. The list could go on but the point is any of a number of items on that list could be important to the geekless.
These people you list care about system responsiveness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I have a friend that runs a computer repair business on the side. So my impression is based in part what the helpless go looking for when they decide it is time to upgrade. Believe me performance and storage space are to b[i]g drivers. Some of the other factors may also come into play. The reality is sometimes the people coming into the shop can't even express what they want well.
These people are not shopping based on tech specs. They go into an Apple store or try a friend's machine and it either feels fast or it feels sluggish. That or they read a review somewhere that opines that the machine is fast or not. They don't care why it feels fast or feels sluggish.
These people you list care about system responsiveness.
When you are talking about the difference between code execution on different machines it is about performance. In other words given the same I/O and other external features the machine that runs long running code faster is preferred. In many cases the speed of a computer can have a direct impact on a professionals ability to make money and be competitive. They thus understand the need for performance even if they are thin on the details to get there.
Notably there is another group of professionals where a responsive machine makes a huge difference. There is not however a lot of overlap here.
Quote:
These people are not shopping based on tech specs. They go into an Apple store or try a friend's machine and it either feels fast or it feels sluggish. That or they read a review somewhere that opines that the machine is fast or not. They don't care why it feels fast or feels sluggish.
Exactly! These people don't have a clue about the CPU, GPU or whatever. What they do know is that their hardware is noticeably slower than it should be or that they would like. Even many of a professional user doesn't care about the details they just know that XYZ piece of software works better, faster or whatever on certain hardware configurations. Sometimes they just take the software manufactures Suggestions blindly as to suitable hardware configs.
When you are talking about the difference between code execution on different machines it is about performance. In other words given the same I/O and other external features the machine that runs long running code faster is preferred. In many cases the speed of a computer can have a direct impact on a professionals ability to make money and be competitive. They thus understand the need for performance even if they are thin on the details to get there.
I agree completely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Notably there is another group of professionals where a responsive machine makes a huge difference. There is not however a lot of overlap here.
I think we may be talking past each other here. I used to run simulations of CPU designs that would take about 24 hours on a Cray. In that context, system responsiveness was when I would get the simulation results. I didn't care about vector processing, clock speeds, number of execution units, cache size, or any of that. I just wanted the computer's response to my problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Exactly! These people don't have a clue about the CPU, GPU or whatever. What they do know is that their hardware is noticeably slower than it should be or that they would like. Even many of a professional user doesn't care about the details they just know that XYZ piece of software works better, faster or whatever on certain hardware configurations. Sometimes they just take the software manufactures Suggestions blindly as to suitable hardware configs.
Comments
Well either you are playing a joke on the forum or you can't operate your tool. So which is it?
I looked up his other posts to try to gauge if he was trolling before responding personally. If he is he put a lot of effort into it. I figured it to be possible he bought a fake machine online and remains frazzled by the experience, so I didn't respond to it as a troll post.
I don't know of a single OS X utility that isn't covered by an Intel version.
Use this site to help ease yourself along.
That's because you don't have any external eSATA RAID boxes that require Silicon Image's SteelVine Manager software (PowerPC binaries only) to manage them. SiI never updated the software after February of 2008.
It works fine on Snow Leopard but without Rosetta, it won't work at all on Lion.
I was forced to buy a Mac Pro with 4 internal drives to replace my two AMS Venus DS-DS3RPRO 2x1TB eSATA RAID units because of this. So now I have two expensive paperweights ...
That's because you don't have any external eSATA RAID boxes that require Silicon Image's SteelVine Manager software (PowerPC binaries only) to manage them. SiI never updated the software after February of 2008.
Yep. Yeah, that, uh? that would indeed be the case. I haven't.
Oh, that's inexcusable, by the way. I completely agree.
I don't even think there's a name for the type of trolling that is.
how's it that trolling? it's a completely legitimate concern, faster is useless for pro users if we can't get large files on and off of them in reasonable amount time. fool.
how's it that trolling? it's a completely legitimate concern, faster is useless for pro users if we can't get large files on and off of them in reasonable amount time. fool.
You're implying that no Thunderbolt accessories exist. That couldn't be further from the truth.
Also, processor speed doesn't really have much of anything to do with drive speed, drive interface speed, or?
That's because you don't have any external eSATA RAID boxes that require Silicon Image's SteelVine Manager software (PowerPC binaries only) to manage them. SiI never updated the software after February of 2008.
eSATA is a bad idea to begin with, putting a RAID drive on that port doubly so.
It works fine on Snow Leopard but without Rosetta, it won't work at all on Lion.
I was forced to buy a Mac Pro with 4 internal drives to replace my two
I harp on this all the time but the best place for a RAID array is in the internal bays of your computer chassis. Trying to extend your working storage via an external device is loaded with problems. This is different than using an array for one level of backups, where obviously you need to separate the hardware.
If your machine can't handle your storage needs internally you should resort to some sort of network storage using common protocols. That is some sort of file server implementation.
AMS Venus DS-DS3RPRO 2x1TB eSATA RAID units because of this. So now I have two expensive paperweights ...
Not really; you have two sources of parts that might go nicely into a NAS box or something similar. That is if you are up to the DIY challenge. If not it is a good lesson in value, very few of these proprietary external storage boxes stay around for long. There have to be dozens of external RAID boxes no longer supported, plus a host of other "drives" that have outlived their originating companies.
I know this post will generate all sorts of comment to the contrary but that is the way I see it. You might also have better luck with the bigger brand names, but who is big today may not be tomorrow.
In any event don't feel bad, I have a whole cellar full of computing mistakes. Some not so bad at the time but in retrospect an example of falling victim to a false sense of economy. A lot of those mistake involve storage devices.
...
What's "broken"?
I guess with fanboi blinders on one only sees Apple perfection...
Nothing is broken... as a matter of fact there should never, ever be another release on any OS ever as the current version of Lion is so perfect and done
I guess with fanboi blinders on one only sees Apple perfection...
Nothing is broken... as a matter of fact there should never, ever be another release on any OS ever as the current version of Lion is so perfect and done
LOL, OBVIOUSLY I'M NOT ASKING AN HONEST QUESTION ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE FIND WRONG WITH THE OS.
I CAN'T POSSIBLY SEE PAST MY ANODIZED ALUMINUM-COLORED GLASSES.
That's just sickeningly wrong.
I guess with fanboi blinders on one only sees Apple perfection...
This is just ignorant. I've lived through enough Mac OS/X updates to realize that Lion is pretty darn good relative to some. No one in this forum has ever said Lion is perfection, rather we point out again and again it is a huge win overall. You won't see that if you dwell on the rough spots.
Nothing is broken...
Very little if anything is broken. There are some networking issues and a number of behavioral problems but none of this keeps the platform from working. What faults there is will be fixed, but those problems are far out weighed by the positives.
as a matter of fact there should never, ever be another release on any OS ever as the current version of Lion is so perfect and done
This is also very stupid as Apple itself has said Lion is not done. The update for iCloud should be rather significant and then sometime down the road expect some other significant updates.
Really you need to learn to read for content. If you had a grasp of what is happening you would know where Apple is going with Lion. On top of that it is pretty much accepted that Operating Systems are works in progress. Mac OS did not hatch out of an egg all complete and ready to go, rather it has been assembled bit by bit over the years. Lion is just one step along the development path.
That's because you don't have any external eSATA RAID boxes that require Silicon Image's SteelVine Manager software (PowerPC binaries only) to manage them. SiI never updated the software after February of 2008.
It works fine on Snow Leopard but without Rosetta, it won't work at all on Lion.
I've owned a small esata box since the G5 days when internal storage was more limited. Today you can have 8TB internally on a mac pro, but you still want your backup of that to be off the computer, so it's not a complete solution. I avoid consumer raid boxes like the plague. You're better off with the system addressing single drives there unless you're willing to get into a proper NAS solution. The issue that sucks most these days is archiving large amounts of data.
Anyone remember tape drives
You must be a Democrat, you confuse rumors with news. Apple insider is clearly reporting a rumor here.
Pathetic. Grow up.
I see this MacBook Pro refresh as somewhat futile.
For many users, the latest MacBook Air is sufficient, apart from the fact that SSD disk size is limited to 256 GB. This machine effectively makes the 13" MacBook Pro redundant. Moreover, everybody is now anticipating Ivy Bridge and a new enclosure design for the 15" and 17" MBP models. Many buyers will simply wait.
It looks almost certain as if a 15" MacBook Air will get quad core Ivy Bridge with incredible battery life and a 60% performance increment.
I think we're seeing Apple's notebook line-up evolve into a single type of enclosure design - all based around the current 13" Air. Will they call it Air or Pro? Perhaps the 11" and 13" models will be MacBook Airs and the 15" and 17" models will be MacBook Pros? It probably doesn't matter, but I'd prefer it if Apple just simplified the name to MacBook or iMacBook.
So if Apple were to include a discrete graphics card, I suppose there's nothing to stop them adopting the MBA style enclosure for the MBP?
I bought an 11" MBA when they were first launched, and a 17" MBP about three months ago, and I have to say that the MBA is noticeably faster than the MBP in everything but large Photoshop files (or InDesign documents with lots of large Photoshop files/effects).
I marvel at how fast the new generation of MBAs must be?
So yes, I think for a lot of people, the new MBAs are the logical choice over a MBP...
Ideally, I think the MacBook Air should be offered in 11", 13", and 15" versions while the MacBook Pro should be offered in 13", 15", and 17" versions.
Getting back on topic, guys...
You are asking a lot there
I see this MacBook Pro refresh as somewhat futile.
Baloney.
For many users, the latest MacBook Air is sufficient, apart from the fact that SSD disk size is limited to 256 GB.
For just as many, maybe even more, the AIR comes up short sometimes very short. Just consider what the AIR is missing:
This machine effectively makes the 13" MacBook Pro redundant.
See the above. The simple fact that you can add RAM to the 13" MBP makes it a very good machine, add in the faster processor and the 13" MBP becomes very unique.
Moreover, everybody is now anticipating Ivy Bridge and a new enclosure design for the 15" and 17" MBP models. Many buyers will simply wait.
Well I'm trying to wait. However I don't think they will ignore the 13" MBP.
It looks almost certain as if a 15" MacBook Air will get quad core Ivy Bridge with incredible battery life and a 60% performance increment.
Not really. The bench mark that saw a 60% improvement was a synthetic bench. Other tests indicated less than 3o% improvement for the GPU overall. Not that this does not include the CPU.
I think we're seeing Apple's notebook line-up evolve into a single type of enclosure design - all based around the current 13" Air. Will they call it Air or Pro? Perhaps the 11" and 13" models will be MacBook Airs and the 15" and 17" models will be MacBook Pros? It probably doesn't matter, but I'd prefer it if Apple just simplified the name to MacBook or iMacBook.
For just as many, maybe even more, the AIR comes up short sometimes very short. Just consider what the AIR is missing:
Most of the items on your list are only interesting to us geeks. Normal consumers do not factor most of these things into their purchase decisions. I would bet that for about 99% of potential buyers, the only items on your list that would be a factor are:
- A suitably big screen.
- Long run time on battery.
- An Ethernet port. (maybe)
Since you distinguish between CPU performance and system responsiveness, I'll opine that about 99% of consumers care about system responsiveness and about 1% care about CPU performance. Most of them have no idea what a CPU is and most of the few who some idea what a CPU is know only that it's the computer's "brain".Most of the items on your list are only interesting to us geeks. Normal consumers do not factor most of these things into their purchase decisions. I would bet that for about 99% of potential buyers, the only items on your list that would be a factor are:
- A suitably big screen.
- Long run time on battery.
- An Ethernet port. (maybe)
Since you distinguish between CPU performance and system responsiveness, I'll opine that about 99% of consumers care about system responsiveness and about 1% care about CPU performance. Most of them have no idea what a CPU is and most of the few who some idea what a CPU is know only that it's the computer's "brain".You don't have to understand what a CPU is the way we do as geeks. Seriously speed or performance is still one of the big drivers of system upgrades, for all users. Generally it is a mix between faster performance or more storage space.
You may think I'm pulling these comments out of the air but I have a friend that runs a computer repair business on the side. So my impression is based in part what the helpless go looking for when they decide it is time to upgrade. Believe me performance and storage space are to bug drivers. Some of the other factors may also come into play. The reality is sometimes the people coming into the shop can't even express what they want well.
Take gamers for example, some are geeks but many are not. However they know enough that they look for machines with certain aspects, including GPUs. The same could be said about people involved in graphics arts whom also have an interest in RAM and CPU performance. The list could go on but the point is any of a number of items on that list could be important to the geekless.
These people you list care about system responsiveness.
I have a friend that runs a computer repair business on the side. So my impression is based in part what the helpless go looking for when they decide it is time to upgrade. Believe me performance and storage space are to b[i]g drivers. Some of the other factors may also come into play. The reality is sometimes the people coming into the shop can't even express what they want well.
These people are not shopping based on tech specs. They go into an Apple store or try a friend's machine and it either feels fast or it feels sluggish. That or they read a review somewhere that opines that the machine is fast or not. They don't care why it feels fast or feels sluggish.
These people you list care about system responsiveness.
When you are talking about the difference between code execution on different machines it is about performance. In other words given the same I/O and other external features the machine that runs long running code faster is preferred. In many cases the speed of a computer can have a direct impact on a professionals ability to make money and be competitive. They thus understand the need for performance even if they are thin on the details to get there.
Notably there is another group of professionals where a responsive machine makes a huge difference. There is not however a lot of overlap here.
These people are not shopping based on tech specs. They go into an Apple store or try a friend's machine and it either feels fast or it feels sluggish. That or they read a review somewhere that opines that the machine is fast or not. They don't care why it feels fast or feels sluggish.
Exactly! These people don't have a clue about the CPU, GPU or whatever. What they do know is that their hardware is noticeably slower than it should be or that they would like. Even many of a professional user doesn't care about the details they just know that XYZ piece of software works better, faster or whatever on certain hardware configurations. Sometimes they just take the software manufactures Suggestions blindly as to suitable hardware configs.
When you are talking about the difference between code execution on different machines it is about performance. In other words given the same I/O and other external features the machine that runs long running code faster is preferred. In many cases the speed of a computer can have a direct impact on a professionals ability to make money and be competitive. They thus understand the need for performance even if they are thin on the details to get there.
I agree completely.
Notably there is another group of professionals where a responsive machine makes a huge difference. There is not however a lot of overlap here.
I think we may be talking past each other here. I used to run simulations of CPU designs that would take about 24 hours on a Cray. In that context, system responsiveness was when I would get the simulation results. I didn't care about vector processing, clock speeds, number of execution units, cache size, or any of that. I just wanted the computer's response to my problem.
Exactly! These people don't have a clue about the CPU, GPU or whatever. What they do know is that their hardware is noticeably slower than it should be or that they would like. Even many of a professional user doesn't care about the details they just know that XYZ piece of software works better, faster or whatever on certain hardware configurations. Sometimes they just take the software manufactures Suggestions blindly as to suitable hardware configs.
I agree completely.