PDA

View Full Version : Exposing the Anti - Apple bias


matthew24
Jul 18, 2003, 04:19 PM
Found this (http://www.applelust.com/oped/amc/archives/amc030718.shtml) article at Applelust exposing the many distortions published in articles by many 'renown' websites who 'favor' wintel machines.

It makes quite clear the Wintel IT 'experts' have something to worry about and reason to publish a lot of fud.

rhpenguin
Jul 18, 2003, 07:37 PM
A very long read, but puts everything into perspective... Definatly worth a look!

Go Apple! What an exciting time to be a switcher!

ollywilson2003
Jul 18, 2003, 08:11 PM
Very Interesting find, Well worth a read

Wintel Weenies heheehehehe

mactastic
Jul 18, 2003, 09:06 PM
Damn... did he really say that the PPC 980 would have up to four times the performance of the 970 at the same clock speeds ???? Holy gFlops batman!

Daveman Deluxe
Jul 18, 2003, 09:23 PM
The rebuttal of the cries from the Wintel world about the benchmarks being skewed was very good. On toward the end, when he got into speculation of Intel's propaganda, was not as good.

The first half featured quotes from documented sources and a link to the VeriTest document. The second half had no documented sources. It would have been a better article had sources been cited or if the second half were labeled as speculation.

VegetaPunk
Jul 19, 2003, 01:08 AM
Very good read thanks :D

Snowy_River
Jul 19, 2003, 01:21 AM
Thank you for the link. I found it most enlightening. Quite a nice rebuttle of all of the claims that the speed tests were somehow skewed.

acj
Jul 19, 2003, 01:51 AM
He has a few of his own innaccuracies, for instance his thoughts on hyperthreading. It does slow down some apps a little, but it speeds others up a little, and makes multitasking much smoother in nearly all circumstances. In my oppinion it's not a bad technology because it speeds up the areas where the PC systems are often slowest: Multitasking with a single CPU.

daveL
Jul 19, 2003, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by acj
He has a few of his own innaccuracies, for instance his thoughts on hyperthreading. It does slow down some apps a little, but it speeds others up a little, and makes multitasking much smoother in nearly all circumstances. In my oppinion it's not a bad technology because it speeds up the areas where the PC systems are often slowest: Multitasking with a single CPU.
So your saying that Intel's hyperthreading helps make up for the deficiencies in WinDoze :-) I mean multitasking is such a new idea, really bleeding edge stuff ;-) It's not hard to understand why MS would need some help!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

chazmox
Jul 19, 2003, 03:02 PM
He's not saying that hyperthreading does not work or have it's place. He's saying that it would slow down the Dell's performance on the Spec tests.

So it was left switched off to give the Dell the best performance possible.

acj
Jul 19, 2003, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by chazmox
He's not saying that hyperthreading does not work or have it's place. He's saying that it would slow down the Dell's performance on the Spec tests.

So it was left switched off to give the Dell the best performance possible.

No, he said precicely this: "Truth: Intel's Hyperthreading does not improve a PC's performance. In fact, it slows the system down seriously. . . In other words, Hyperthreading is just another Intel technology that does not work on currently produced machines."

acj
Jul 19, 2003, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by daveL
So your saying that Intel's hyperthreading helps make up for the deficiencies in WinDoze :-) I mean multitasking is such a new idea, really bleeding edge stuff ;-) It's not hard to understand why MS would need some help!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Well, we'll agree windows is not great at multitasking, but NT in 1995 and then Windows 2000 were better than any Mac OS before X. So I'll also agree it isn't cutting edge stuff.

chazmox
Jul 19, 2003, 04:23 PM
But "performance" in the context of the article was regarding performance on SPEC tests... not everyday performance.

Your initial comment was:


He has a few of his own innaccuracies, for instance his thoughts on hyperthreading. It does slow down some apps a little, but it speeds others up a little, and makes multitasking much smoother in nearly all circumstances. In my oppinion it's not a bad technology because it speeds up the areas where the PC systems are often slowest: Multitasking with a single CPU.

The tests were not about running multiple apps. They were spec tests and single app tests.

Although I do agree that the comment "does not work" goes too far... "does not work as well as it could" may have been a better chosen phrasing.

illumin8
Jul 20, 2003, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Daveman Deluxe
The rebuttal of the cries from the Wintel world about the benchmarks being skewed was very good. On toward the end, when he got into speculation of Intel's propaganda, was not as good.

The first half featured quotes from documented sources and a link to the VeriTest document. The second half had no documented sources. It would have been a better article had sources been cited or if the second half were labeled as speculation.
I agree. He did some good research and put quite a few falsehoods to rest, but he gets a little too much involved in the name-calling, which always leads impartial readers to question his bias.

Rule #1 for pro-Apple journalists: "Don't call others hypocrites for having a pro-Wintel bias when you obviously have a pro-Apple bias."

Overall a good article however. The G5 is going to be an awesome architecture.

illumin8
Jul 20, 2003, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by acj
He has a few of his own innaccuracies, for instance his thoughts on hyperthreading. It does slow down some apps a little, but it speeds others up a little, and makes multitasking much smoother in nearly all circumstances. In my oppinion it's not a bad technology because it speeds up the areas where the PC systems are often slowest: Multitasking with a single CPU.
I have a P4 2.6 ghz. with Hyperthreading and it seems to work pretty well. If you like to browse the web while waiting for a DVD to render and burn for example, it is nice to have a few spare CPU cycles so that your machine doesn't lag so noticeably. Almost as good as having a second processor, but not quite.

The 980 is supposed to have true dual cores, not just a simulated dual core like a P4. This should be sweet. Imagine, your dual processor 980 will be like having quad processors...

nuckinfutz
Jul 20, 2003, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by illumin8
[B]The 980 is supposed to have true dual cores, not just a simulated dual core like a P4. This should be sweet. Imagine, your dual processor 980 will be like having quad processors...

Let's hope so. I tend to think we may just see a single core 980 with SMT producing two logical cpus per chip. I don't believe Intel is due to go Dual Core until they move to 65nm fabs.

My best guess is the PPC 980 has:

1. Simultaneous Multithreading
2. Ondie Memory Controller
3. Improved Altivec
4. Improved L2 Cache and support for L3

Roller
Jul 20, 2003, 04:28 PM
Thanks for the link. I agree that it's a good read, but the author does himself a disservice with all the Wintel conspiracy stuff in the second half. The best way to deal with situations like this is to take the high road and offer clearly-stated facts that rebut the competition.

His conspiracy theories may even be correct, but they still detract from his main premise.

billyboy
Jul 20, 2003, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by illumin8
I have a P4 2.6 ghz. with Hyperthreading and it seems to work pretty well. If you like to browse the web while waiting for a DVD to render and burn for example, it is nice to have a few spare CPU cycles so that your machine doesn't lag so noticeably.

Oh, can you tell me what tasks I have to run to make my Powerbook lag when browsing the internet? Short of turning it off! :)

I invariably surf the web when waiting for things to be burnt and it seems to work the same as if nothing else was going on in the background. Or has my bias for Mac blinded me in some way? :).

daveL
Jul 20, 2003, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by illumin8
I have a P4 2.6 ghz. with Hyperthreading and it seems to work pretty well. If you like to browse the web while waiting for a DVD to render and burn for example, it is nice to have a few spare CPU cycles so that your machine doesn't lag so noticeably. Almost as good as having a second processor, but not quite.

The 980 is supposed to have true dual cores, not just a simulated dual core like a P4. This should be sweet. Imagine, your dual processor 980 will be like having quad processors...
Curious. Where did you read that the 980 would be dual core? I don't *think* that's accurate, although it's all speculation, at this point. I had heard that the 980 would have twice the integer and fp units, compared to the 970, but a single, possibly improved, Altivec. Anyway, as I understand it, the big difference between the PowerX CPUs and their 9xx counterparts is that the 9xx is *not* dual core but adds Altivec. I guess we'll all know for sure when the specs are published.

hvfsl
Jul 20, 2003, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by Daveman Deluxe
The rebuttal of the cries from the Wintel world about the benchmarks being skewed was very good. On toward the end, when he got into speculation of Intel's propaganda, was not as good.

The first half featured quotes from documented sources and a link to the VeriTest document. The second half had no documented sources. It would have been a better article had sources been cited or if the second half were labeled as speculation.

I was one of those that thought Apple was cheating on the benchmarks until I benchmarked on a 3Ghz P4 and realised Apple was telling the truth, those G5s are MUCH faster than the P4/AMD XP.

Ryan1524
Jul 20, 2003, 06:35 PM
you know the one excuse PC lovers are gonna use to sidestep this writing? "It's too long.." LMAO...

what a great article. eat that PC weenies...:mad:
i can't believe how many people can love to be as ignorant as they are. ;)

Mac Kiwi
Jul 20, 2003, 07:06 PM
Very illuminating :D



I also kind of cringed when he got into the conspiracy angle,its right where a PC user will have been reading intently maybe agreeing with some of it will go ah I knew it a Mac zealot.



I really hope Veritest and maybe Luxology do take some legal action.If I was veritest I would be pretty damn mad :mad:



I liked the bit where he alluded the G5 might be even "faster" then people are thinking......



Stu.

acj
Jul 20, 2003, 07:34 PM
Thankfully, I can run spec tests all day and beat the PC users with my New G5. It is truly all I plan to use it for.

ColdZero
Jul 21, 2003, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by billyboy
Oh, can you tell me what tasks I have to run to make my Powerbook lag when browsing the internet? Short of turning it off! :)

I invariably surf the web when waiting for things to be burnt and it seems to work the same as if nothing else was going on in the background. Or has my bias for Mac blinded me in some way? :).

Yea, easily.

1. Pick out your favorite DVD

2. Start encoding it to DiVx

3. Set the encoding process's priority to highest.

4. Start using your computer for anything else.

5. Experiance massive amounts of lag.

The reason it runs so slow is that the encoding process will get all of the cpu cycles it wants. Whatever is left over is what will be used to run the UI or any other programs running.

Now to be able to encode and still use your computer as normal. Change step #3 to:

3. Set encoding process priority to Idle.

Now instead of getting all the cycles it wants, it will only get what is left over by the other programs running on your computer.

Burning a CD is a lot different than encoding something which is where hyperthreading and dual processor computers excel at.

yzedf
Jul 21, 2003, 12:21 PM
This is all a load of "you know what."

You can't compare x86 to PPC with the same compiler. Get the best for each, running as near to the same routines, and see what happens. Nothing like this will happen until G5 machines are out for use by the general public (September).

Either way, it is most impressive that a Apple "desktop" machine can be seriously compared with a x86 based "workstation."

As to the remarks about wireless networking, PCI-X, Bluetooth, S-ATA and all... none of that is being used now for serious workstation stuff. Wireless (802.11a/b/g) is not secure, PCI-X is new and for the most part un-used, same for BlueTooth (as well as security issues), and S-ATA should be more prevalent than it is, once it is actually faster than IDE stuff.

That combined wth his neverending use of the "Wintel" comment, just makes me look at what he says with a grain of salt. If you are going to shoot down the detractors, don't sink to their level to do it. Someone needs to be honorable in all of this.

illumin8
Jul 21, 2003, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by billyboy
Oh, can you tell me what tasks I have to run to make my Powerbook lag when browsing the internet? Short of turning it off! :)

I invariably surf the web when waiting for things to be burnt and it seems to work the same as if nothing else was going on in the background. Or has my bias for Mac blinded me in some way? :).
If you notice I said "while waiting for a DVD to render and burn." Key word render. I should have been more clear; what I basically meant was MPEG2 compression, which will tax the ***** out of any CPU. I can't speak for how well the Powerbook does at this task because I haven't tried one, but on most PC architectures when there is a single process eating up 100% of the CPU your other tasks seem to slow down noticeably. The Hyperthreading makes it unnoticeable.

Maybe on your Powerbook it is an unnoticeable difference as well when you're doing MPEG2 compression while web browsing, I'm not sure because I haven't tried that (don't really get to try high-end stuff like that in the stores very often).

illumin8
Jul 21, 2003, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by daveL
Curious. Where did you read that the 980 would be dual core? I don't *think* that's accurate, although it's all speculation, at this point. I had heard that the 980 would have twice the integer and fp units, compared to the 970, but a single, possibly improved, Altivec. Anyway, as I understand it, the big difference between the PowerX CPUs and their 9xx counterparts is that the 9xx is *not* dual core but adds Altivec. I guess we'll all know for sure when the specs are published.
Sorry, I can't remember the source, but it was a posting in this forum somewhere. Someone mentioned that the 980 was based on the IBM Power5 which has dual cores, and it was assumed that the 980 would inherit this characteristic from the Power5.

yzedf
Jul 21, 2003, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by illumin8
Sorry, I can't remember the source, but it was a posting in this forum somewhere. Someone mentioned that the 980 was based on the IBM Power5 which has dual cores, and it was assumed that the 980 would inherit this characteristic from the Power5.
Power4 is dual core:

IBM launched the Power4, the first dual-core server CPU, in 2001. With the Power5, it now hopes to be the first to blend both multi-core and multithreading technologies.
Found here:

http://www.us.design-reuse.com/news/news4972.html

illumin8
Jul 21, 2003, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by yzedf
Power4 is dual core:


Found here:

http://www.us.design-reuse.com/news/news4972.html
It's possible I mixed up multithreading technology with multicore. Aren't all processor's multithread capable? Excuse my ignorance, but what is the benefit of having a processor that is multithread aware?

ColdZero
Jul 21, 2003, 08:53 PM
It provides even more efficiancy than having just 2 real processors. Say you are running 2 threads, you use both processors, but most likely not 100% of each processor, so letting other threads use what is left over will get more work done.

Cubeboy
Jul 21, 2003, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by illumin8
It's possible I mixed up multithreading technology with multicore. Aren't all processor's multithread capable? Excuse my ignorance, but what is the benefit of having a processor that is multithread aware?

Typically, applications that benefit from multiple processors/cores also benefit from Symmetric Multithreading (SMT) or "Hyperthreading" as Intel Marketing would call it. Usually the increase in performance on multithreaded apps/multiprocessing isn't near as high as having multiple processors or cores due to resource contention issues and having to share so many aspects of the same CPU (cache, integer math, floating math, code-decode units). However the cost of implementing SMT/Hyperthreading and increase in die size is minimal, far less than implementing dual processors or dual cores. In the Pentium 4's case, it's icing on the cake.

Personally, I see great potential in this technology as given sufficient time to mature, it could provide near dual processor capability (IBM predicted 80% efficiency against dual processor) on a single chip without much increase in cost or die size. Moreover future cpus like Intel's next Xeon, the Noconas, will feature higher levels of SMT. Imagine if you can, single chips, with 4x, 8x, 16x or even greater levels of symmetric multithreading running at up to 80% the efficiency of dual processors. Assuming processors continue to develop larger caches and more levels of cache (L3, L4) such a chip could be the equivalent of several of the same cpus without SMT and would cost several magnitudes less. More importantly, it would still be a single cpu, capable of being used as dual cpus, quad cpus or having dual cores, or quad cores or more. Have no doubt about it, this technology could be the next great advancement in cpu architecture.

Mr. MacPhisto
Jul 21, 2003, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by yzedf
This is all a load of "you know what."

You can't compare x86 to PPC with the same compiler. Get the best for each, running as near to the same routines, and see what happens. Nothing like this will happen until G5 machines are out for use by the general public (September).

Either way, it is most impressive that a Apple "desktop" machine can be seriously compared with a x86 based "workstation."

As to the remarks about wireless networking, PCI-X, Bluetooth, S-ATA and all... none of that is being used now for serious workstation stuff. Wireless (802.11a/b/g) is not secure, PCI-X is new and for the most part un-used, same for BlueTooth (as well as security issues), and S-ATA should be more prevalent than it is, once it is actually faster than IDE stuff.

That combined wth his neverending use of the "Wintel" comment, just makes me look at what he says with a grain of salt. If you are going to shoot down the detractors, don't sink to their level to do it. Someone needs to be honorable in all of this.

PCI-X is necessary for editing workstations, in many cases. A friend of mine owns a graphics/editing business with high-end clientele and he requires PCI-X to use the cards vital to his business. His dual Xeon machines use PCI-X and are custom built

Cubeboy
Jul 21, 2003, 10:47 PM
Regarding the main topic:
I'm tired of repeating myself so why don't I just kindly direct your attention to the threads below. In the first one, I explain the problems at hand, in the second one, I delve into the details and confirm some of the things in my first post as well as post some new findings. In the third post, I examine just how much SSE2 affects performance with the latest ICC compiler.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31475&perpage=&pagenumber=2

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32832

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31775&perpage=&pagenumber=2

Mav451
Jul 21, 2003, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by yzedf
This is all a load of "you know what."

You can't compare x86 to PPC with the same compiler. Get the best for each, running as near to the same routines, and see what happens. Nothing like this will happen until G5 machines are out for use by the general public (September).

Either way, it is most impressive that a Apple "desktop" machine can be seriously compared with a x86 based "workstation."

As to the remarks about wireless networking, PCI-X, Bluetooth, S-ATA and all... none of that is being used now for serious workstation stuff. Wireless (802.11a/b/g) is not secure, PCI-X is new and for the most part un-used, same for BlueTooth (as well as security issues), and S-ATA should be more prevalent than it is, once it is actually faster than IDE stuff.

That combined wth his neverending use of the "Wintel" comment, just makes me look at what he says with a grain of salt. If you are going to shoot down the detractors, don't sink to their level to do it. Someone needs to be honorable in all of this.

I'm happy someone finally said this. While i'm a PC user, it doesn't mean i believed every single website out there that denounced Apple's benchmarks. In the same way, i would highly doubt any literature from a website rightfully named "applelust" -- that already gives away its condescending bias toward ALL PC users. When i see either "wintel" or "peecee" i can pretty much disregard anything said in that context and not miss out on "learning" anything new.

Likewise, I can see that with all the heat Apple has been taking that people would gratefully side with any kind of writer, i.e. applelust and its article on "anti-apple bias".

I have to agree, however, the more i think about, at just how crazy it is that a retailer is distributing 64-bit desktops. While i am and AMD fan myself, there is no way i'm spending that kind of money on existing opteron boards. I already spent a fair amount of money upgrading (well in college student terms :) ), so i will be on the wait-see approach on the upcoming Athlon 64 cpus.

To end the rant, i know that Apples will always be different than PC's b/c of architectural/OS differences. Benchmarks are the only way of "bridging", albeit the only modest and tangible way of even comparing the two. Even then, when you think about it, the comparison with even AMD and Intel was already complicated with the BABco 2002 benchmark dilemma.

ColdZero
Jul 21, 2003, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by Mav451
In the same way, i would highly doubt any literature from a website rightfully named "applelust" -- that already gives away its condescending bias toward ALL PC users. When i see either "wintel" or "peecee" i can pretty much disregard anything said in that context and not miss out on "learning" anything new.


While I thought the article brought up some good points, after realizing it was on a site called Applelust made me feel exactly how you described. I don't mind wintel cause that is used in the pc world, but peeeceee or winblows really does nothing to further your argument besides make you look like a 12 year old. If your argument is good enough and supported with facts, then you don't need stupid commentary to help it along.

Snowy_River
Jul 22, 2003, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by Mav451
Benchmarks are the only way of "bridging", albeit the only modest and tangible way of even comparing the two. Even then....

That is precisely why Apple spent so much time emphasizing the "real-world" comparisons. Software that is cross platform, optimized for each platform...

panphage
Jul 22, 2003, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by yzedf
This is all a load of "you know what."

You can't compare x86 to PPC with the same compiler. Get the best for each, running as near to the same routines, and see what happens.

I can't agree with this. GCC is a multiplatform compiler, yes, but guess what architecture has the most developers working on it? Intel. Pardon me if you are informed, but a hell of a lot of people here and elsewhere (those that bash this as a "Mac-biased compiler") seem un- or mis-informed. The Gnu developers write code for whatever platform pleases them. And for most, that must be Intel, that is and has been the most widely available *cheap* hardware around for a long time. Yes, the Gnu developers have not brought out a wickedly optimised compiler for any platform that I know of, but they have done a LOT more tweaking for x86, SSE, and MMX than for PPC/Alvitec. There's just so many more of them to do x86 stuff. And the x86 architecture is open, the PPC is shrouded in mystery and RDF. The linux geeks had to reverse engineer a kernel for the G4, apple witheld the specs from them (and from Be, which is why Be went x86.)

Does this sound like a situation where the Gnu project would have time, manpower, and know-how to publish a strongly optimized compiler when they haven't done a bang-up job on architecture they had documentation for? I don't think so.

Just because GCC isn't a great compiler doesn't mean it's a biased compiler. I use it constantly on an x86 machine, I've never used any Intel compiler. If anything, I'd say GCC IS the fair choice, possibly still a bit better at x86 than PPC. It's closest to a level field IMO. It might not be the BEST field, but at least it's the same field.

Now apple is snuggling up to OSS and the Free Software Foundation, and helping with GCC. But I'd say that just begins to make up for the years of witheld specs. If you want benchmarks done with the absolute best possible compiler for each architecture, I think IBM and Intel have already done that. Both sets are superior to Apple's SPEC tests.

Originally posted by yzedf

Someone needs to be honorable in all of this.

Now THAT I can support wholeheartedly.

Rezet
Jul 22, 2003, 02:36 AM
What's the big fuss is about?
Like there is no websites out there that lie about Mac performance to make Pcs look like garbage.

How about this Thread: "Exposing anti PC bias..."

http://forgetcomputers.com/~jdroz/13.html


Uselsess topic.

Cubeboy
Jul 22, 2003, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by panphage
I can't agree with this. GCC is a multiplatform compiler, yes, but guess what architecture has the most developers working on it? Intel. Pardon me if you are informed, but a hell of a lot of people here and elsewhere (those that bash this as a "Mac-biased compiler") seem un- or mis-informed. The Gnu developers write code for whatever platform pleases them. And for most, that must be Intel, that is and has been the most widely available *cheap* hardware around for a long time. Yes, the Gnu developers have not brought out a wickedly optimised compiler for any platform that I know of, but they have done a LOT more tweaking for x86, SSE, and MMX than for PPC/Alvitec. There's just so many more of them to do x86 stuff. And the x86 architecture is open, the PPC is shrouded in mystery and RDF. The linux geeks had to reverse engineer a kernel for the G4, apple witheld the specs from them (and from Be, which is why Be went x86.)

Does this sound like a situation where the Gnu project would have time, manpower, and know-how to publish a strongly optimized compiler when they haven't done a bang-up job on architecture they had documentation for? I don't think so.

Just because GCC isn't a great compiler doesn't mean it's a biased compiler. I use it constantly on an x86 machine, I've never used any Intel compiler. If anything, I'd say GCC IS the fair choice, possibly still a bit better at x86 than PPC. It's closest to a level field IMO. It might not be the BEST field, but at least it's the same field.

Now apple is snuggling up to OSS and the Free Software Foundation, and helping with GCC. But I'd say that just begins to make up for the years of witheld specs. If you want benchmarks done with the absolute best possible compiler for each architecture, I think IBM and Intel have already done that. Both sets are superior to Apple's SPEC tests.



Now THAT I can support wholeheartedly.

Unfortunately, Intel spends nearly all of it's developer resources on ICC and IFC. Intel's first serious C/C++ compiler, ICC 5.0, came out in the same timeframe as the Pentium 4 and since then, nearly all Pentium 4 optimizations came from ICC.

GCC has had very few optimizations for the Pentium 4 at all and even then, several of them, ends up actually slowing the Pentium 4 in many instances. I've already listed some examples in my previous posts, such as the Pentium 4 not having enough registers for -march=pentium4 since the target machine is a 32 register RISC chip, and GCC not being able to schedule for the Pentium 4 at all (but it can for nearly every other x86 chip and apparently the PPC970), as well as others.

Remember that Apple has also spent alot of time working on it's own version of GCC, we now know this for a fact from the recent interview at Ars Technica with proof of a optimized scheduler, correct values for the MD file, and whatever other details that are sure to come out with time.

MisterMe
Jul 22, 2003, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by Mav451
.... In the same way, i would highly doubt any literature from a website rightfully named "applelust" -- that already gives away its condescending bias toward ALL PC users. When i see either "wintel" or "peecee" i can pretty much disregard anything said in that context and not miss out on "learning" anything new.
....
Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.

Exactly how does "lusting" for one brand of computers express disdain for another? Is it not possible that an "Appleluster" can at least be mildly attracted to SGI, Sun, IBM, or HP? Cannot an "Appleluster" have even a smidgen of respect for AlienWare, Toshiba, or Sony Vaio? Perhaps not in your world, but most certainly in mine.

yzedf
Jul 22, 2003, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
PCI-X is necessary for editing workstations, in many cases. A friend of mine owns a graphics/editing business with high-end clientele and he requires PCI-X to use the cards vital to his business. His dual Xeon machines use PCI-X and are custom built
Workstation is one thing, desktop machine (G5) is another. The lines are beginning to blur...

Mr. MacPhisto
Jul 22, 2003, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by yzedf
Workstation is one thing, desktop machine (G5) is another. The lines are beginning to blur...

Most definitely, but I believe you did use the word "workstation" in your original post, I could be incorrect though. That is the one point tis article does make well - that the G5 offers workstation power at a desktop price. A dual-2 GHz G5 would likely be able to match many Unix workstations while costing much less, as the guy demoing Mathematica @ WWDC said about his product. I know several people who are already considering the G5 as their next workstation because the price for performance on the dual 2GHz is very, very good. And it comes loaded even at its base price.

Mav451
Jul 22, 2003, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by MisterMe
Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.

Exactly how does "lusting" for one brand of computers express disdain for another? Is it not possible that an "Appleluster" can at least be mildly attracted to SGI, Sun, IBM, or HP? Cannot an "Appleluster" have even a smidgen of respect for AlienWare, Toshiba, or Sony Vaio? Perhaps not in your world, but most certainly in mine.

excuse me sir, but did you read the article? Try reading it from a PC user's view and attempt to finish the entire article. It was biased right from the get-go, read the title "smell of fear". Obviously they have no respect for PC's if they must use that kind of language. If you are an Apple user, you probably were nodding/agreeing and probably even snickering. That it why i do not think i'm protesting too much.

To finish, here is some of the extraordinary vocabularly that the biased author uses:
"wintel weenies", "weenies", "wintel flacks", "Apple-haters", "Great Wintel FUD Machine", and best of all: "Wintel Hegemony's longstanding arrogance"

one detail i noticed :)
"To date no one at Intel has publicly admitted that AMD's offerings also exceed Intel's Pentium 4 performance either."
>> the one thing i might agree with

Mr. MacPhisto
Jul 22, 2003, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by Mav451
excuse me sir, but did you read the article? Try reading it from a PC user's view and attempt to finish the entire article. It was biased right from the get-go, read the title "smell of fear". Obviously they have no respect for PC's if they must use that kind of language. If you are an Apple user, you probably were nodding/agreeing and probably even snickering. That it why i do not think i'm protesting too much.

To finish, here is some of the extraordinary vocabularly that the biased author uses:
"wintel weenies", "weenies", "wintel flacks", "Apple-haters", "Great Wintel FUD Machine", and best of all: "Wintel Hegemony's longstanding arrogance"

one detail i noticed :)
"To date no one at Intel has publicly admitted that AMD's offerings also exceed Intel's Pentium 4 performance either."
>> the one thing i might agree with

Yes, the bias here is bad if the authors intent was truly an attempt to enlighten. His facts about the SPEC scores are interesting and could have been presented as a solid refutation, pumping the Mac platform as a solid alternative to MS and Intel without demeaning them.

I do agree with his statement about Intel and AMD - Intel has and will never admit that AMD has made chips faster - and at a better value. But this can be expected regardless. Apple never came out and publically said: "The new P4s wipe the floor with our G4s." While there was some biased testing on the G4 (DVM ran Adobe AfterEffects on both - knowing full wll that Adobe had not optimized AfterEffects very well for Altivec but had worked hard on SSE optimization), it is well known that they became less competitive over a year ago.

I think stressing advantages of the OS, the interface, and the new chip design while not completely bashing MS and Intel would have worked better. A lot of people realize that the tests Apple commissioned are some of the best done by a company in recent years in an industry known for every company skewing results.

The tests run were done, I feel, to really see where the new IBM chip was in comparison to the best Intel is currently offering. Apple found that the chip held up quite well - and showed that they could compete pricewise (although the single 1.6 and single 1.8 should be cheaper, IMHO). It is also clear that Apple is aiming at Intel and not AMD - who they appear to have some agreements with.

And I actually got to see one of these things up against a loaded Xeon last week and the SPEC reports don't tell the whole story. The Photoshop presentation was dead on - this thing moves about twice as fast as the Xeons when rendering. I'd like to check it out against an Opteron at some point, but I don't have access to an Opteron machine at this point.

MisterMe
Jul 22, 2003, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by Mav451
excuse me sir, but did you read the article? Try reading it from a PC user's view and attempt to finish the entire article. It was biased right from the get-go, read the title "smell of fear". Obviously they have no respect for PC's if they must use that kind of language. If you are an Apple user, you probably were nodding/agreeing and probably even snickering. That it why i do not think i'm protesting too much.Indeed I did read the article. I enjoyed it immensely. You make a serious mistake. To paraphrase Carly Simon, you're so vain you think the article's about you. It is not. The article was written to reassure Mac users that all of the crap from the Wintel Weenies is just that, crap. Apple hired a highly reputable firm to benchmark its new computers and the most readily identifiable competition as accurately as possible. For all the catawauling from Gate's Gang, this article shows that the only peole trying to obfuscate the truth are Microsoft Minions. The article is not intended to convince them, because they know the truth. They are just trying to hide it.
Originally posted by Mav451
To finish, here is some of the extraordinary vocabularly that the biased author uses:
"wintel weenies", "weenies", "wintel flacks", "Apple-haters", "Great Wintel FUD Machine", and best of all: "Wintel Hegemony's longstanding arrogance"Just because being called a "lying SOB" hurts someone's feelings doesn't mean that he isn't lying or that his mom isn't named Trixie.

ilben77
Jul 22, 2003, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by yzedf
Workstation is one thing, desktop machine (G5) is another. The lines are beginning to blur...

Guys... Indeed things are really getting blurred.
A desktop computer selling for 2259 euro's ??? (cheapest one) without a monitor:confused:
Sorry I do not call that a desktop price but a workstation price.
So please don't fool yourselves if you want to compare the G5's than compare them to relativly the same priced machines, in the pc world these are usually workstations.
A pc desktop would sell anything between 1000 and 1500 euro's including monitor.

The I-Mac is more priced like a desktop.

Apple can call their G5 machines whatever they want, but they are priced like workstations and have the features of workstations. so comparing these with pc workstaions isn't only logical but also the only fair comparison

Cubeboy
Jul 22, 2003, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by MisterMe
Indeed I did read the article. I enjoyed it immensely. You make a serious mistake. To paraphrase Carly Simon, you're so vain you think the article's about you. It is not. The article was written to reassure Mac users that all of the crap from the Wintel Weenies is just that, crap. Apple hired a highly reputable firm to benchmark its new computers and the most readily identifiable competition as accurately as possible. For all the catawauling from Gate's Gang, this article shows that the only peole trying to obfuscate the truth are Microsoft Minions. The article is not intended to convince them, because they know the truth. They are just trying to hide it.

Being someone who doesn't believe the comparison was done "as fair as possible" or even remotely fair for that matter, I have yet to see any of my "crap", or any of the "crap" from the techies and engineers that form the center of "Gate's Gang" refuted by this article or any other article to date for that matter.

yzedf
Jul 22, 2003, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by ilben77
Guys... Indeed things are really getting blurred.
A desktop computer selling for 2259 euro's ??? (cheapest one) without a monitor:confused:
Sorry I do not call that a desktop price but a workstation price.
So please don't fool yourselves if you want to compare the G5's than compare them to relativly the same priced machines, in the pc world these are usually workstations.
A pc desktop would sell anything between 1000 and 1500 euro's including monitor.

The I-Mac is more priced like a desktop.

Apple can call their G5 machines whatever they want, but they are priced like workstations and have the features of workstations. so comparing these with pc workstaions isn't only logical but also the only fair comparison
That is only for PC pricing in the past 2 years. For the 2 decades before that, if you wanted a decent desktop you had to spend 2 grand.

Blurred = performance, not price.

Desktop or Workstation? It is for the marketing droids to figure out, not me.