Time Capsule Not Using Server-Grade Hard Drive As Advertised?

[AidenShaw]

I'm sorry if you felt that "can of worms" was glib - but it was also a succinct way of saying that you did open up a bunch of tired, duplicitous and tangential arguments - rather than simply admitting that Apple's use of "first 64-bit desktop" is a statement that is not supportable by facts in any way.

Many of your arguments involve trying to redefine the word "desktop" in terms of price, case size, marketing focus or other factors. You try to say that "64-bit desktop" is not a "64-bit PC that fits on a desktop". That sounds eerily similar to another long-running argument - and I won't do a point by point rebuttal of these arguments that are meant to distract or change the topic.

Some of your statements, though, have some problems with the facts - those I will discuss.

Their pricetag, at $6000 for the "desktop" you've pictured, is over $9000, adjusted for inflation, at a time when Macs and Windows PCs went for a third to half that.

Actually, the contemporary Quadra 950 sold for $7200, quite a bit more than the Alpha PC. A Quadra 800 at that time was $4700.

And since you want to bring in the superfluous inflation index, when it was introduced that Quadra 950 would have been $10,517 in today's dollars. (My inflation calculator puts the DECpc 150 at $8600, not "over $9000".)

They came in a big mid-tower case (unusual for a desktop).

The DECpc 150 (150 MHz Alpha) came in exactly the same 18.7"x18"x7" mini-tower case as the DECpc 433 (33 MHz 486) and other DECpc 400 series systems.

This case is about 3/4 the size of the "desktop G5". The Quadra 950 was even larger than a G5, the Quadra 800 (with much less expansion) was 3/4 the size of the DECpc 150. The DECpc 150 was not in an unusual-sized case for standard PCs at the time.

If you have some hangup about that size being called a desktop, perhaps I should have used Dec Multia from 1995 as my example. This was a 233 MHz Alpha PC in a micro-tower box 12.5"x12.5"x2.8" - one seventh the size of the G5.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEC_Multia

...the "first" 64-bit personal computers. IBM, upon launching the 970FX, did the same on its own accord...

This statement is an "invention". IBM never used the PPC970 in a PC. IBM used them in blade servers, and one or two models of UNIX server/workstations.

...especially when you consider that their AXP line was renamed AlphaServer shortly after the model you pictured.

When the Alpha systemboard architecture changed to the PCI bus, the desktops and desksides were renamed to "AlphaStations" and the servers were renamed to "AlphaServers".

Even then, the AlphaStations were available in desktop form-factors, such as the pizza-box AlphaStation 200.

http://h18002.www1.hp.com/alphaserver/workstations/retired/a200series.html

System box 4" x 16" x 17" - about one third the size of the Mac Pro (or PowerMac G5).

I suppose you'll come full circle and claim the G5 isn't server-grade next.

Nice, muddy the argument by making some spurious statement unrelated to anything other than trying to make an ad hominem taunt.

Anyway, I doubt that it will do any good to point out the facts that you have wrong - it seems that you have as much regard for the truth as an Apple marketing team member.

Meow, you can give the bunny the floor now....

... looks like rabbity has some lethal kung-fu moves up its furry sleeves.

He also has some issues with truth and keeping his focus on the argument at hand.

 

[matticus008]

I'm sorry if you felt that "can of worms" was glib

Again, not what I was talking about. *I'm* the one who first said can of worms.

rather than simply admitting that Apple's use of "first 64-bit desktop" is a statement that is not supportable by facts in any way.

Well, it was supportable in some ways. That's the whole thing. It was also unsupportable in the exact same ways as AMD and IBM, which you're not complaining about and is also a major point.

Many of your arguments involve trying to redefine the word "desktop" in terms of price, case size, marketing focus or other factors.

This raises the point that if you think it's a "quality" level, then the Alpha certainly goes beyond that. You can't have it both ways.

Actually, the contemporary Quadra 950 sold for $7200, quite a bit more than the Alpha PC.

The Quadra 950 was not a contemporary of the model you pictured (it was a year older and replaced by the $4700 Quadra 800, which was a contemporary). The Quadra 800, by about $1000, was also the most expensive Mac of the day, not the typical consumer product by a long shot.

This is the kind of disingenuity upon which all your arguments here are based. The typical mainline Mac was nearly half the price of the Quadra 800.

And since you want to bring in the superfluous inflation index

It's not superfluous. It illustrates the kind of person who could afford such a system at that time, and your calculator from 1993 indicates a price of $8800, which is certainly in the ballpark of my $9050 calculation from the US Statistical Abstracts.

The DECpc 150 (150 MHz Alpha) came in exactly the same 18.7"x18"x7" mini-tower case as the DECpc 433 (33 MHz 486) and other DECpc 400 series systems.

Yes, and a mini-tower is typically 16" tall. Four external drive bays is a common mark of a mid-tower, as is a 19-20" height. An AT full tower was 22-24" tall.

The DECpc 150 was not in an unusual-sized case for standard PCs at the time.

Nor are most servers and workstations.

This statement is an "invention". IBM never used the PPC970 in a PC. IBM used them in blade servers, and one or two models of UNIX server/workstations.

It's only an "invention" if your definition of personal computer excludes desktop applications and Macintoshes.

"IBM's new PowerPC 970 64-bit chip is all about bringing high-end server processing power to the desktop, low-end server and pervasive space."
--IBM (sorry, can't manage a static link)

When the Alpha systemboard architecture changed to the PCI bus, the desktops and desksides were renamed to "AlphaStations" and the servers were renamed to "AlphaServers".

Okay, and neither were "desktops" in the consumer-class you've been insisting this means.

Even then, the AlphaStations were available in desktop form-factors, such as the pizza-box AlphaStation 200.

I don't disagree. But if "desktop" merely means a form factor, then all 3.5" hard drives are desktop hard drives.

He also has some issues with truth and keeping his focus on the argument at hand.

Ha! Coming from you, that's rich.

 

[AidenShaw]

It was also unsupportable in the exact same ways as AMD and IBM, which you're not complaining about and is also a major point.

If the question is whether Apple marketing made an untruthful statement, how can the activities of third parties be a "major point"? Apple's truthiness is a standalone question.

The Quadra 950 was not a contemporary of the model you pictured (it was a year older and replaced by the $4700 Quadra 800, which was a contemporary).

Look at http://www.apple-history.com/body.php?page=gallery&model=950&performa=off&sort=date&order=ASC

Introduced: May 1992
Terminated: October 1995

Announced in May 1992, the Quadra 950 was a "speed bump" of the Quadra 900.

Contemporary, as was the 800. Fact is, the 950 lasted for more than a year after 800 was flat-lined.

The Quadra 800, by about $1000, was also the most expensive Mac of the day, not the typical consumer product by a long shot... The typical mainline Mac was nearly half the price of the Quadra 800.

The 950 and 800 were sold at the same time, so the 800 could not possibly be "the most expensive Mac of the day".

And what's the point anyway that 32-bit PCs were less expensive than 64-bit PCs? This is a surprise? Is the 64-bit PC on top of my desk not a "64-bit desktop" because it costs more than a 32-bit desktop?

This is the kind of disingenuity upon which all your arguments here are based.

And misquoting the dates of the Quadras is not disingenuous?

It's not superfluous. It illustrates the kind of person who could afford such a system at that time...

And how does price determine whether that 64-bit PC on my desktop is a "64-bit desktop" anyway?

...and your calculator from 1993 indicates a price of $8800, which is certainly in the ballpark of my $9050 calculation from the US Statistical Abstracts.

Ooops, I was wrong here. Apparently I put 1994 in the calculator instead of 1993. 1994 gives $8,545.75, which I rounded *up* to $8600. 1993 gives $8,764.57.

Thanks for catching the mistake.

Yes, and a mini-tower is typically 16" tall. Four external drive bays is a common mark of a mid-tower, as is a 19-20" height. An AT full tower was 22-24" tall.

Please cite your industry-standard definitions of case dimensions.

For example, here's a 19.1" case being sold as a mini-tower... http://www.myshopping.com.au/PR--106766_iCute_QH02_5g1_bb_Mini_Tower_Case_ATX_Micro

"IBM's new PowerPC 970 64-bit chip is all about bringing high-end server processing power to the desktop, low-end server and pervasive space."
--IBM (sorry, can't manage a static link)

Where is "first 64-bit desktop" in that IBM quote?

</end of this tangent>

 

[matticus008]

If the question is whether Apple marketing made an untruthful statement, how can the activities of third parties be a "major point"? Apple's truthiness is a standalone question.

Its truthfulness must be evaluated in the same context as others. If three companies made the claim of bringing 64-bit processors to the consumer market, it shows a flagrant disregard for fairness to single one out as a "lie", particularly when it was not particularly meaningful, consequential, or publicly contested (just like this tempest in a teapot). It's just anti-Apple bluster. If everyone is wrong, what's the virtue of singling out one because you don't like them? The fact is that relative to each other, none of them were wrong. In any meaningful sense, those were the first two "desktop" 64-bit processors.

No one has ever claimed that the DEC AXP 150 was a mainstream desktop machine. You may do it to be cantankerous and argumentative, but at the equivalent of $9000, it wasn't in many homes and was, of course, targeted at the server and extreme high-end market.

Contemporary, as was the 800. Fact is, the 950 lasted for more than a year after 800 was flat-lined.

The 950 predated the DEC AXP 150 by almost a year, and the Quadra 800 replaced the 950 in the Mac lineup. It was faster, newer, and cheaper by almost half. The 950, with price drops, was kept around for people who wanted the larger case. That is hardly relevant.

The 800 was again replaced with again cheaper and faster machines during the time of the AXP 150, while the Alpha system's price didn't really go anywhere.

The 950 and 800 were sold at the same time, so the 800 could not possibly be "the most expensive Mac of the day".

You selected the 950. That was the most expensive Mac of the day--I never said the 800 was. See, when I talk about what you are comparing, I mean the machine you selected. The difference in price between a 1992 machine and a 1993 one is quite extreme.

And misquoting the dates of the Quadras is not disingenuous?

No. The introduction dates and initial offering price of a computer nearly a year older is disingenuous. What do you gain by trotting out termination dates? From Wikipedia: "n 1993, the 950 was overtaken in performance by the less expensive Quadra 800 and 840AV. The newer Quadras had the addition of interleaved RAM, as well as an enhanced video system SCSI bus. However, their more compact (minitower) case proved difficult to work with, and the 950 (due to its enormous case) was kept in continued production for the server market, outliving the 800 and 840AV."

And how does price determine whether that 64-bit PC on my desktop is a "64-bit desktop" anyway?

It determines whether an item is a mainstream consumer item (what you have deemed "desktop" to be previously). A $6000 computer at any date is not a desktop in anything other than form factor.

For example, here's a 19.1" case being sold as a mini-tower... http://www.myshopping.com.au/PR--106766_iCute_QH02_5g1_bb_Mini_Tower_Case_ATX_Micro

Yeah, that's a 14" case. Nice try, though. 355mm is 14", not 19.1.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Once again, you have to selectively twist and connive to make your point, a point which remains contestable at best. It's advertising. Take it with a mountain of salt. It's easier to bitch about Apple than to hold everyone equally accountable, I know. That's all it's about with you. For the G5, "desktop" is a form factor. For the hard drive, because it's inconvenient, "desktop" suddenly means "consumer grade".

According to StorageReview, "Our looks at enterprise-oriented SATA drives from Seagate, Maxtor, and WD in two articles (the 500 GB enterprise drive roundup and the stand-alone Barracuda ES review) in effect represent the performance one may expect from their consumer counterparts. As a result, they also make great drives against which the 7K1000, a drive aimed at both the enterprise and demanding consumer, may be contrasted." Reviews of the drive have uniformly been positive. Its performance has been compared favorably to the Raptors (obviously targeted for, among others, server use). Its thermal management and low idle power draw have also been praised (heat, of course, being the major concern for drive longevity). Anandtech called it the "best 7200rpm drive [they'd] tested to date".

You're clearly not getting a run-of-the-mill drive. You're getting one that's ahead of the pack. There's no way this drive is a let down, and any definition of "server grade" that doesn't include "must be labeled an enterprise drive" would include the 7K.

Of course, if it were about anything other than Apple-bashing and stubbornness, you wouldn't be going on like this.

 

[AidenShaw]

It determines whether an item is a mainstream consumer item (what you have deemed "desktop" to be previously).

I said that I wouldn't continue this, but when you try to put words in my mouth I can't ignore it.

I have said nothing, *nothing* about *mainstream* or *consumer* vis à vis 64-bit desktop systems- those are your delusions.

You insist on redefining "desktop system" so that it does not mean "a system that is small enough to reasonably place on top of a desk".

 

[jragosta]

I was just informed that Axe body spray does NOT net you a super-model girlfriend within 30 seconds of application!

Shocking!

Well, we've already established that the Corvette engine would not be suitable for racing at Lemans. How dare GM call it a 'high performance' engine?

 

[matticus008]

I said that I wouldn't continue this, but when you try to put words in my mouth I can't ignore it.

Well, let's take a look.

I have said nothing, *nothing* about *mainstream*

"A 64-bit Alpha desktop mini-tower PC running Windows in 1993, from one of the mainstream vendors."

"10 years before the PowerMac G5 there were 64-bit desktop mini-tower mainstream PCs running Windows, UNIX and VMS."

or *consumer*

"I'm sorry - in earlier posts I say that you find 'good' drives (usually called 'desktop')"

"That's what's misleading, and why many people are surprised to find 'Desktop' drives named 'Deskstar' in the box that Apple claims has a 'server-grade' drive."

That's just from the past couple posts. I could go on, but that would be unsportsmanlike.

You insist on redefining "desktop system" so that it does not mean "a system that is small enough to reasonably place on top of a desk".

Okay, if that's what it means, then enterprise drives are also desktop drives. If desktop is just a form-factor, then clearly it says nothing about their qualifications for applications, and your entire argument about "desktop" confusing people falls apart, and "desktop" doesn't preclude "server-grade". I'm okay with that, though.

 

[iStefmac]

Most people wont even notice the difference. Besides Apple could just remove the server grade line making it a moot point.

Thats ridiculous. When it takes a **** after running constantly for 2 years and dies with all of your precious data onboard, tell me then that you or anyone wouldn't be "noticing the difference."

 

[AidenShaw]

"A 64-bit Alpha desktop mini-tower PC running Windows in 1993, from one of the mainstream vendors."

A PC from a "mainstream vendor" is not the same as a "mainstream PC".

How can you spend so much time taking apart phrases, while totally missing what the sentences and paragraphs are saying?

I love digitalbikers signature at times like this:

It's a shame that 99.9999 % of all lawyers give the others such a bad name.​

 

[alshead]

Disgruntled Airport Extreme Owner?

If you're one of the tens of thousands of disgruntled, unhappy, and utterly frustrated Airport Extreme owners out there, please send Apple feedback with details about your issues to this link:

http://www.apple.com/feedback/airportextreme.html

It is apparent from recent tear downs of Time Capsule that the AEBS and TC are basically the same router, and more importantly, that the USB controller and related hardware is the same. By all reports, Time Capsule can reliably mount a USB connected hard drive AND run Time Machine to that hard drive--neither of which is possible on the AEBS. Time Machine was "promised", but AirDisk is still advertised and doesn't work with any reliability. Owners of AEBS's are turned away from Apple Support with no answers and no possibility of product return or store credit. PLEASE send in your feedback--all that is needed is for Apple to upgrade the firmware in the AEBS to match that of Time Capsule.

*for what it's worth, three attempts at posting this EXACT SAME message on Apple's support/discussion pages were removed by moderators.

 

[matticus008]

A PC from a "mainstream vendor" is not the same as a "mainstream PC".

I didn't say it was, so you're only arguing with yourself. You've claimed that the DEC you selected was both a mainstream PC and from a mainstream vendor of PCs. (We'll set aside for the moment that it was, in fact, neither.) Your distinction makes no difference. To wit:

10 years before the PowerMac G5 there were 64-bit desktop mini-tower mainstream PCs running Windows, UNIX and VMS.

(emphasis added)

A 64-bit Alpha desktop mini-tower PC running Windows in 1993, from one of the mainstream vendors.

(emphasis added)

Again, I'm perfectly content to accept that "desktop" is merely a form factor. The Hitachi drive, then, is not disqualified from being appropriate for server use. I'm glad this can finally come to an end.

 

[jragosta]

If you're one of the tens of thousands of disgruntled, unhappy, and utterly frustrated Airport Extreme owners out there, please send Apple feedback with details about your issues to this link:

http://www.apple.com/feedback/airportextreme.html

It is apparent from recent tear downs of Time Capsule that the AEBS and TC are basically the same router, and more importantly, that the USB controller and related hardware is the same. By all reports, Time Capsule can reliably mount a USB connected hard drive AND run Time Machine to that hard drive--neither of which is possible on the AEBS. Time Machine was "promised", but AirDisk is still advertised and doesn't work with any reliability. Owners of AEBS's are turned away from Apple Support with no answers and no possibility of product return or store credit. PLEASE send in your feedback--all that is needed is for Apple to upgrade the firmware in the AEBS to match that of Time Capsule.

*for what it's worth, three attempts at posting this EXACT SAME message on Apple's support/discussion pages were removed by moderators.

I'd agree with this one. At one point, Apple stated that Time Machine would work over Airport Extreme and I bought one on that basis. There is a hack to make it work, but you shouldn't need to do that.

In fairness, Apple's argument is that they are concerned that if someone turns off the external drive while Time Machine is writing to it that it will be corrupted and data will be lost. That's a fairly easy Time Machine fix - have the last bit written be a 'data OK' bit that indicates that the transfer is complete. If that bit is missing, ignore that particular file and use the previous record. Not ideal, but it should work. Besides, they have the same problem with Time Capsule. What if you turn off TC while TM is writing to it?

 

[forgottensoft]

What if you turn off TC while TM is writing to it?

I have had that happen. It doesnt effect anything. You turn the drive back on, and TM overwrites any data it had written before the drive powered off. There was no corruption at all

People must remember that All the Colorful towers apple released (g3 B+W to g4 MDD) all were called Serves by Apple. All of them had 7200RPM or 10,000RPM(SCSI) drives in them. None of those drives were server grade, and they were being put into an actual server. Also, Xserves use the same drives as there Mac Pro (Or G5) counter part. So, Apple has never really use real server HD in the modern era (not sure about the old Workgroup servers).

 

[deltatux]

I understand the community is not happy about the false advertisement, I would also have to go against Apple on this one. However, Hitachi DeskStar hard drives aren't bad. I have a 320GB HDD DeskStar in my system and it's running perfectly. The only problem is that by default the drive runs at 1.5Gb/s instead of 3GB/s; which I had to use Hitachi's tool to boost the speed back to its designed maximum speed.

I wouldn't mind purchasing a Hitachi drive.

deltatux

 

[p.superfresh]

faulty power supply

Ok, I'm going to jump into this discussion... My non-server grade hard drives are fine, it's the FAULTY POWER SUPPLY that ****ed me over. I walked into the 'genius bar' with my unresponsive time capsule (plugged in, no lights, no noise, nothing) and before I even got to the desk the guy was like, 'ah, doesn't turn on, does it.' wtf, man.

early models were produced with a faulty internal power supply so they see alot of these roll in. they offered a free replacement but that meant dumping all my data!!! Not cool, I've been using it to store everything. I'm an architect, i have many many many projects in half completed stages on those hard drives... I have my resume+portfolio on those hard drives... my entire college career, all the papers and everything on those hard drives...

'sorry man, nothing we can do'

wtf!?

the thing is, there is something they can do. The data is all still there, all i need is a way to get it off the old (faulty) machine and on to the new (hopefully non-faulty) machine. I feel this should be Apple's responsibility. I can get some third party to do this for me but it'll cost me $400.

Apple's response: 'no way man'

What good is a 114 year hard drive if the power supply is burned out in less than 2 years?!?

 

[Juventuz]

Perhaps you would have been better suited to starting a thread about your gripes in a separate part of the forum, and not in a thread that's last response was almost 2 years ago.

 

[Virtuoso]

Mine failed a couple of weeks ago - same issue, a faulty PSU. I took it into the local Apple Store and they replaced if free of charge and also offered to migrate the old data over. I didn't bother because it was just a backup drive, but it was good of them to offer. Sounds like you got a lazy 'genius' - the TCs are apparently quite tricky to dismantle.

 

[HLdan]

Ok, I'm going to jump into this discussion... My non-server grade hard drives are fine, it's the FAULTY POWER SUPPLY that ****ed me over. I walked into the 'genius bar' with my unresponsive time capsule (plugged in, no lights, no noise, nothing) and before I even got to the desk the guy was like, 'ah, doesn't turn on, does it.' wtf, man.

early models were produced with a faulty internal power supply so they see alot of these roll in. they offered a free replacement but that meant dumping all my data!!! Not cool, I've been using it to store everything. I'm an architect, i have many many many projects in half completed stages on those hard drives... I have my resume+portfolio on those hard drives... my entire college career, all the papers and everything on those hard drives...

'sorry man, nothing we can do'

wtf!?

the thing is, there is something they can do. The data is all still there, all i need is a way to get it off the old (faulty) machine and on to the new (hopefully non-faulty) machine. I feel this should be Apple's responsibility. I can get some third party to do this for me but it'll cost me $400.

Apple's response: 'no way man'

What good is a 114 year hard drive if the power supply is burned out in less than 2 years?!?

Honestly, this is your responsibility to make sure you have redundant backups if your architectural projects are that important to you. You shouldn't be trusting everything one drive.

 

[Inconsequential]

Ok, I'm going to jump into this discussion... My non-server grade hard drives are fine, it's the FAULTY POWER SUPPLY that ****ed me over. I walked into the 'genius bar' with my unresponsive time capsule (plugged in, no lights, no noise, nothing) and before I even got to the desk the guy was like, 'ah, doesn't turn on, does it.' wtf, man.

early models were produced with a faulty internal power supply so they see alot of these roll in. they offered a free replacement but that meant dumping all my data!!! Not cool, I've been using it to store everything. I'm an architect, i have many many many projects in half completed stages on those hard drives... I have my resume+portfolio on those hard drives... my entire college career, all the papers and everything on those hard drives...

'sorry man, nothing we can do'

wtf!?

the thing is, there is something they can do. The data is all still there, all i need is a way to get it off the old (faulty) machine and on to the new (hopefully non-faulty) machine. I feel this should be Apple's responsibility. I can get some third party to do this for me but it'll cost me $400.

Apple's response: 'no way man'

What good is a 114 year hard drive if the power supply is burned out in less than 2 years?!?

If its that important then you have MULTIPLE backups, online AND offline.

I have nothing close to as important as you do but I do have a proper backup system in place.

Sorry but its your fault, not apples...