CompuLab Turns An 8-Core/16-Thread Xeon, 64GB RAM, NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 Into Fan-Less Computer

[coder]

No, I'm pointing out what is likely the largest demographic. That demographic does not share your priorities. Therefore, they're the ones who I'm primarily focused on.

How do you know this? Where's your data?

The only reason that's the case is because you continue to ignore that they're a large potential demographic.

I don't ignore any market segment - I just don't presume to know their relative sizes.

No, it isn't. Let's use a different scenario to exemplify how absurd your claims are:
Let's say the product being sold is a key-lime pie. People who buy that pie don't care about the calories or grams of fat in it. Not everyone likes the flavor. There are cheaper pastries available. So, a baker can safely assume that most people who buy that pie do so because they like that specific flavor and they don't care if it's unhealthy. So using your crappy logic, does that mean the baker is telling people what to buy? Is he retracting the free will of people? Is he omniscient of the decisions of those who want to buy the pie? No, because that's ridiculous. He's just a baker.

The correct analogy would be the baker deciding that because people don't care about its calories or fat content, he won't provide a nutrition label with that data (assuming he lives somewhere that it isn't required). However, his actions are potentially hurting the sales of his pie for consumers who overestimated the calories or fat, and otherwise hurting consumers who underestimated those parameters and therefore overshoot their dietary goals.

That's what you're saying. If you presume nobody is going to base purchasing decisions on performance data, then, by not providing that data, you're causing some people to make sub-optimal choices. Ironically, the better-engineered the product, the more it would actually work to your disadvantage.

Should I quote you from earlier posts?

If you think it would help.

You made it seem like that was your point of view because you've stated repeatedly how you're suspicious that Michael is hiding something while complaining that there's no performance data.

That point was cleared up by Compulab. I look forward to Michael's full review.

But if you truly acknowledged other people's needs, you'd realize those needs don't prioritize performance to the same degree you do, because they know they're making sacrifices for this very specific setup.

You keep using the word "acknowledge", as if it's possible to know. Show me the market data, and I'll acknowledge that. So far, all you've shown me is your preconceptions, which it should be clear that I don't accept. I've made that clear.

If we're talking about acknowledgement, then you should acknowledge that point of disagreement so we can move on.

Of course someone's purchasing decision can be affected by performance data. But if it that's the case for this PC, then they would look elsewhere.

I acknowledge your opinion. As I said, it's an irreconcilable difference.

If that's what makes you feel better then go ahead and believe that.

I said I respect people's priorities - not that I respect your opinion of what they are.

If someone wants to buy a particular PC because it's pink, I respect their right to make that decision for that reason. I wouldn't do it, but maybe the case color is really important to to them and they're happier using a pretty PC than one which performs better or costs less.

[schmidtbag]

You have a very specific idea of who's buying it and why. They might like to know that, as it would have to be based on a lot of market research for you to have such confidence. Or, maybe you're a marketing guru, in real life?

No, I'm pointing out what is likely the largest demographic. That demographic does not share your priorities. Therefore, they're the ones who I'm primarily focused on.

You have been very prescriptive about who buys this and why. That's tantamount to the same thing, as it presumes to know their priorities and value judgements.

The only reason that's the case is because you continue to ignore that they're a large potential demographic. I already acknowledged that there are others (like yourself), but the thing is, those others are probably going to look elsewhere since they're not willing to make sacrifices.

If I know a person isn't going to do a thing, then it really makes no difference whether I tell them not to. If you're so sure nobody else is going to buy it, then it's of no consequence whether you feel a right to tell them. So, even though you're not telling them, by your earlier assertions, you're rendering the point moot.

...huh?
None of that makes any sense. Your gripe is how you think I'm telling people what they should buy. I never said such a thing; I'm telling you who is most likely to care and what they care about. Whoever buys the product doesn't change any of that. So therefore, the only point here that is moot is your accusation of me.

It's a bit like the contradiction between omniscience and free will. By presuming you know how someone will behave, you're assuming they have no free will to do otherwise. Then, by not providing data for them to make a decision on grounds that you don't accept they might have, you're influencing their actions in the case that you're wrong.

No, it isn't. Let's use a different scenario to exemplify how absurd your claims are:
Let's say the product being sold is a key-lime pie. People who buy that pie don't care about the calories or grams of fat in it. Not everyone likes the flavor. There are cheaper pastries available. So, a baker can safely assume that most people who buy that pie do so because they like that specific flavor and they don't care if it's unhealthy. So using your crappy logic, does that mean the baker is telling people what to buy? Is he retracting the free will of people? Is he omniscient of the decisions of those who want to buy the pie? No, because that's ridiculous. He's just a baker.

So, that was really a quoting issue. You were ascribing a view to me that it doesn't fit someone's needs, and then enumerating the possible needs. I was saying I never made a statement in line with the view you were ascribing - that it didn't fit someone's needs.

If that were true, you would understand why we're arguing.

I don't know how you decided that was my point of view, but I was simply pointing out that it's not one I stated or that logically follows from any of my statements.

Should I quote you from earlier posts? You made it seem like that was your point of view because you've stated repeatedly how you're suspicious that Michael is hiding something while complaining that there's no performance data. But if you truly acknowledged other people's needs, you'd realize those needs don't prioritize performance to the same degree you do, because they know they're making sacrifices for this very specific setup.

Do you really find it inconceivable that someone's purchasing decision might hinge on the relative performance data between this and another machine? If so, that's the point of irreconcilable difference.

Of course someone's purchasing decision can be affected by performance data. But if it that's the case for this PC, then they would look elsewhere. Why? Because of all the reasons I listed before: there's other PCs that will be faster and/or cheaper, either by going for something larger or something with active cooling.
Remember, there's no other PC quite like this one on the market. If you are at all uncertain about whether or not the performance is up to your specs, it probably isn't for you. You don't have another alternative to choose from (of similar specs, size, and noise level).

No... I respect them.

If that's what makes you feel better then go ahead and believe that.

[coder]

That's assuming they're doing what you say as you say it, which you don't have proof of.
And here I thought you said you weren't making assumptions?

There are two separate points of discussion. One concerns an underlying mechanism and the other concerns how it's configured in their solution. I was trying to address the underlying mechanism - not making any assumptions about how it's being employed. Again, if you have some confusion, just look back a couple messages to recover any supplemental context you need to understand the point.

Who the hell gets emotional over an OEM workstation that they never got their hands on yet?

Emotion is a factor in most human commercial behavior. If not, then advertising wouldn't be such a lucrative pursuit.

Why do I need to? They clearly know what they're doing.

You have a very specific idea of who's buying it and why. They might like to know that, as it would have to be based on a lot of market research for you to have such confidence. Or, maybe you're a marketing guru, in real life?

I jest, but you have a simplistic view of consumer behavior that I don't share.

Um.... I definitely did not ever say people couldn't buy this. I explicitly said I have no right to tell people what to do in my last post.

You have been very prescriptive about who buys this and why. That's tantamount to the same thing, as it presumes to know their priorities and value judgements.

If I know a person isn't going to do a thing, then it really makes no difference whether I tell them not to. If you're so sure nobody else is going to buy it, then it's of no consequence whether you feel a right to tell them. So, even though you're not telling them, by your earlier assertions, you're rendering the point moot.

It's a bit like the contradiction between omniscience and free will. By presuming you know how someone will behave, you're assuming they have no free will to do otherwise. Then, by not providing data for them to make a decision on grounds that you don't accept they might have, you're influencing their actions in the case that you're wrong.

Once again, you just interpret things the way you want to.

You say this, but I'm just citing the contradiction I observed above.

As you continue to exemplify your poor reading comprehension,, I was saying how you don't realize any of it.

So, that was really a quoting issue. You were ascribing a view to me that it doesn't fit someone's needs, and then enumerating the possible needs. I was saying I never made a statement in line with the view you were ascribing - that it didn't fit someone's needs.

I don't know how you decided that was my point of view, but I was simply pointing out that it's not one I stated or that logically follows from any of my statements.

I was saying how you don't realize any of it.

How do you know? As I said, I don't presume to know someone's needs or priorities.

Because I also agree knowing the performance is important, just not critical for this PC.

Do you really find it inconceivable that someone's purchasing decision might hinge on the relative performance data between this and another machine? If so, that's the point of irreconcilable difference.

And of course you don't presume other people's priorities are - you're ignoring them.

No... I respect them.

[coder]

In your case, particularly, nothing is too good for you.

As an aside: I appreciate your use of the quote feature. It makes your replies much easier to read. Not so much in this case, but when you multi-quote things, it's sometimes not so clear what's the message quotation vs. other text you insert.

So, thanks for that.

[danmcgrew]

This is not even remotely trolling.

In your case, particularly, nothing is too good for you.

[schmidtbag]

Read the article, and you'll understand how those parameters work. They don't simply modulate voltage, as you claimed. They do have an impact on performance - that's sort of the point.

That's assuming they're doing as you say, which you don't have proof of.
And here I thought you said you weren't making assumptions?

Okay, so no influence from price, aesthetics, features, brand loyalty, and emotional influences?

I already mentioned price. Physical size is part of the aesthetic. This PC doesn't appear to be lacking any major features that you'd expect from a pre-built PC (in fact, it even has a front-panel USB-C connector). Compulab isn't a big enough brand to depend on loyalty. Who the hell gets emotional over an OEM workstation that they never got their hands on yet?

I don't pretend to speak for Compulab, but I'd imagine they would appreciate you sharing your extensive market research with them. Perhaps they'll quite like to know just how much they've decreased their total addressable market by making it so small.

Why do I need to? They clearly know what they're doing. You're the one who is skeptical and doesn't seem to understand what's going on. If anything it's you who wants their data.

Heh, it's cute how you tried to flip that on me, but you can't wear both hats. I'm not the one saying who can't buy it - you've clearly staked out that position for yourself. I'm all about choice and giving people the information they need to make the best decision possible.

Um.... I definitely did not ever say people couldn't buy this. I explicitly said I have no right to tell people what to do in my last post. Once again, you just interpret things the way you want to.
All you're about is data and nothing else.

I never said any of that.

Perhaps you're delusional, in which case I offer my sympathies. Or, maybe you've come to doubt the tenability of your position, so you're building a straw man (link), which I don't much appreciate. Either one kinda derails any rational path towards a conclusion.

I know you didn't say any of that. As you continue to exemplify your poor reading comprehension, I was saying how you don't realize any of it. So of course you didn't say any of that, dumbass.
That being said, you don't understand what a straw man fallacy is, because what I said is entirely relevant. In fact, it's the foundation of everything revolving around what I'm talking about.

You seem believe you know my mind so well...

Well, it's the only stuff you've been harping on about. So if you truly believe I'm wrong, you have either:
A. Failed at proving your point
B. Are a hypocrite, since at this point you're the one arguing for the sake of arguing.

Performance is undeniably an important piece of the puzzle - critical for some, less so for others. I don't presume to know what people's priorities are, so I believe they should have as much information as possible, to facilitate the best decision. A properly functioning free market requires equal access to information.

Because I also agree knowing the performance is important, just not critical for this PC. And of course you don't presume other people's priorities are - you're ignoring them. I never said your priorities are wrong, I'm just saying there's more out there that you are willfully ignoring.

[coder]

Correction: one mule.

This is not even remotely trolling.

[coder]

"It" being what?

Read the article, and you'll understand how those parameters work. They don't simply modulate voltage, as you claimed. They do have an impact on performance - that's sort of the point.

Pro tip: if you need more context, you can always scroll back (or click the blue [>>] icon, in the quote block), to the see the previous message in the discussion.

Because who the hell else is going to buy this PC? It's a very niche product. Do I really need to spell it out for you?
There are other silent PCs that are faster, but bigger
There are other non-silent PCs that are just as small
There are faster and cheaper PCs than this
There are smaller but slower PCs than this.
So, why buy this PC? Because of the combination it offers, which nothing else has. It's got good specs (for its size), it's silent, and it's small.

Okay, so no influence from price, aesthetics, features, brand loyalty, and emotional influences?

I don't pretend to speak for Compulab, but I'd imagine they would appreciate you sharing your extensive market research with them. Perhaps they'll quite like to know just how much they've decreased their total addressable market by making it so small.

Just because you don't want to step to a lower-end model, doesn't mean this product doesn't fit someone's needs.

Heh, it's cute how you tried to flip that on me, but you can't wear both hats. I'm not the one saying who can't buy it - you've clearly staked out that position for yourself. I'm all about choice and giving people the information they need to make the best decision possible.

Not everyone wants a bigger tower or has the room for it. Not everyone wants fan noise (or perhaps they work in a dusty environment). Not everyone needs the CPU to run at its maximum capacity 24/7. The fact you can't seem to wrap your head around any of this is why I'm arguing with you. You really can't seem to grasp that someone actually has a need for each of this product's traits.

I never said any of that.

Perhaps you're delusional, in which case I offer my sympathies. Or, maybe you've come to doubt the tenability of your position, so you're building a straw man (link), which I don't much appreciate. Either one kinda derails any rational path towards a conclusion.

Where did I say I was clairvoyant, or even imply it?

You seem believe you know my mind so well...

All you seem to care about is how fast it runs, and that's not the point of it.

No, that's not all I care about. And how is that consistent with this:

Facts and data showing the product on all angles inside and out, so people get a complete picture of what they're getting.

Performance is undeniably an important piece of the puzzle - critical for some, less so for others. I don't presume to know what people's priorities are, so I believe they should have as much information as possible, to facilitate the best decision. A properly functioning free market requires equal access to information.

[danmcgrew]

Correction: one mule.

[schmidtbag]

It doesn't work by simply modulating voltage, as you'd know if you actually read the Anandtech article.

"It" being what?

And here we go again. You assume the only ones who buy it are those who need all of its attributes. There's no room in your worldview for someone who "steps up" from a lower-end model, after judging the relative performance vs. cost, or decides that it performs close enough to another workstation they're considering and simply likes the idea of going fanless and finds its aesthetic appealing.

Because who the hell else is going to buy this PC? It's a very niche product. Do I really need to spell it out for you?
There are other silent PCs that are faster, but bigger
There are other non-silent PCs that are just as small
There are faster and cheaper PCs than this
There are smaller but slower PCs than this.
So, why buy this PC? Because of the combination it offers, which nothing else has. It's got good specs (for its size), it's silent, and it's small. Just because you don't want to step to a lower-end model, doesn't mean this product doesn't fit someone's needs. Not everyone wants a bigger tower or has the room for it. Not everyone wants fan noise (or perhaps they work in a dusty environment). Not everyone needs the CPU to run at its maximum capacity 24/7. The fact you can't seem to wrap your head around any of this is why I'm arguing with you. You really can't seem to grasp that someone actually has a need for each of this product's traits. All you seem to care about is how fast it runs, and that's not the point of it.

This is cute. I'm clearly not the one deficient in empathic imagination. At least I'm not claiming clairvoyance.

There you go again, jumping to conclusions and exaggerating things. Where did I say I was clairvoyant, or even imply it? I'm saying there are viewpoints and preferences other than your own.

Really? Then, what are they?

Facts and data showing the product on all angles inside and out, so people get a complete picture of what they're getting.