Exposing the Anti - Apple bias

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by matthew24, Jul 18, 2003.

  1. macrumors 6502

    matthew24

    Joined:
    May 30, 2002
    Location:
    Netherlands
    #1
    Found this 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.
     
  2. macrumors 6502a

    rhpenguin

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Location:
    London, Ontario
    #2
    A very long read, but puts everything into perspective... Definatly worth a look!

    Go Apple! What an exciting time to be a switcher!
     
  3. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2003
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #3
    Heheheh

    Very Interesting find, Well worth a read

    Wintel Weenies heheehehehe
     
  4. macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    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!
     
  5. macrumors 68000

    Daveman Deluxe

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Location:
    Corvallis, Oregon
    #5
    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.
     
  6. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Location:
    AZ
    #6
    Very good read thanks :D
     
  7. macrumors 68030

    Snowy_River

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    Corvallis, OR
    #7
    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.
     
  8. acj
    macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    #8
    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.
     
  9. macrumors 68020

    daveL

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Location:
    Montana
    #9
    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.
     
  10. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    #10
    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.
     
  11. acj
    macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    #11
    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."
     
  12. acj
    macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    #12
    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.
     
  13. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    #13
    But "performance" in the context of the article was regarding performance on SPEC tests... not everyday performance.

    Your initial comment was:

    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.
     
  14. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2003
    Location:
    East Coast, US
    #14
    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.
     
  15. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2003
    Location:
    East Coast, US
    #15
    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...
     
  16. macrumors 603

    nuckinfutz

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2002
    Location:
    Middle Earth
    #16


    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
     
  17. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    #17
    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.
     
  18. macrumors 65816

    billyboy

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2003
    Location:
    In my head
    #18
    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? :).
     
  19. macrumors 68020

    daveL

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Location:
    Montana
    #19
    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.
     
  20. macrumors 68000

    hvfsl

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2001
    Location:
    London, UK
    #20
    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.
     
  21. macrumors 65816

    Ryan1524

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Location:
    Canada GTA
    #21
    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. ;)
     
  22. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2003
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #22
    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.
     
  23. acj
    macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    #23
    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.
     
  24. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    #24
    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.
     
  25. macrumors 65816

    yzedf

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Location:
    Connecticut
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page