Is apples marketing misleading or FALSE!

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by DavidCL23, May 24, 2002.

  1. DavidCL23 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2001
    Location:
    NJ
    #1
    Is this true?
    http://www.theregus.com/content/39/24272.html
    the basic jist of it is that the testing 'gurus' at Apple unfairly pit a new G4 vs. a top of the line Pentium 4 in a photoshop benchmark, but the version of Photoshop running on the P4 machine is an older, buggier version for Windows and the Mac is running a newer clean-coded Mac Photoshop.

    I feel cheated....Please say this isn't true.
     
  2. strider42 macrumors 65816

    strider42

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    #2
    Re: Is apples marketing misleading or FALSE!

    there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics. Don't worry about it, different machines are better at different things, and marketing is just that: marketing.
     
  3. AlphaTech macrumors 601

    AlphaTech

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2001
    Location:
    Natick, MA
    #3
    Don't believe the article. If you watched the keynote, you would have seen that the versions of PS were the same, just one was on a pesleeze and the other on a Mac. The Mac version has ALWAYS looked better and cleaner. Adobe wrote the code for the Mac version FIRST, then ported it over to the peecee.

    It has gotten to the point that I completely ignore articles and sites that claim the Apple testing is stacked in Apple's favor.

    Mac's are infinately more stable then peecee's when it comes right down to it.

    As for the spinning cd under OS X, I have only seen that a few times, and almost all of them were caused by bad web sites (or Sharity f*cking up my airport connection).

    As for feeling cheated... imagine how you would feel if you picked up a windblows box, and went to update to a stable version (or more then the other) only to find out that in order to do that, you have to shell out about $300. You only get one OS with that (unlike the two that shipped with OS X 10.1) and you would have to install at least one service pack right away. Never mind if you went and got a heXPee system (with the 'home' version) you would have to tell m$ whatever it wanted to know, or have a door stopper after 30 days.
     
  4. DavidCL23 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2001
    Location:
    NJ
  5. eyelikeart Moderator emeritus

    eyelikeart

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2001
    Location:
    Metairie, LA
    #5
    it's called slander...

    people who are going to try and sell u on an idea of whatever will say things that aren't completely clear or true...

    we've already seen benchmarks for these 2 systems...and we all know what really goes on...
     
  6. Choppaface macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Location:
    SFBA
    #6
    i wouldnt be surprised if it was true

    bottom line, never EVER believe marketers, and more importantly, never EVER buy a product because of how it's marketed.
     
  7. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #7
    Ah, jeez...

    Dude, this is like the 10th time that stupid "c't" SPEC benchmark thing has come up. Maybe this should be in a FAQ or something.

    To start with, ALL benchmarks produced by hardware manufacturers are stacked in favor of the company's own hardware. Duh. Apple uses Photoshop for comparison because Photoshop is really really damn fast on Apple hardware compared to PCs. You expect them to NOT demonstrate their strengths?

    Second, without getting into details again, I've done SPEC professionally, and from their original article, there are some things "c't" simply do not understand about this benchmark, the conditions under which it should be run, and the applicability of the results.

    The reason Apple has not posted any significant SPEC results yet is because Motorola hasn't got a compiler division worth squat. PC manufacturers get support from Intel, and Intel has one hell of a compiler group. Nobody uses Intel's compiler for REAL code, but it does amazing things for benchmarks on Intel hardware. And even a comparison on two platforms using the same version of gcc says at least as much about gcc's code generation on Intel versus PPC as it does about real performance.

    The "c't" test has long ago been demonstrated to be terminally flawed. Your G4 is not a piece of junk, and Apple is not pulling the wool over your eyes any more than any other hardware manufacturer.

    Furthermore, there is a LOT of politicking in that article. I like this quote:

    The reason UNIX has survived mostly intact for 25 years is that it's well-though-out and efficient. Anyone with any technical knowledge recognizes the internals of UNIX to be relatively clean and consistent compared to the dirty snowball of Win32, which just keeps accumulating more crud with each passing year. And being fifteen years old does not necessarily make the NeXTstep frameworks bad. Honestly, the only OS whose guts I have found more satisfying than OS X has been BeOS, which was just a thing of beauty internally.

    Now onto the political side: Surely you're aware of how many times Apple tried and failed to produce a "next generation" OS to supercede the original Mac design. One of the major reasons this happened is that, unfortunately, a lot of the original MacOS engineers (the guys who signed on as Pascal jockies in the mid eighties) were totally stuck on the original MacOS as a paradigm. It's sad, and it seems ungrateful on Steve Jobs' part, but in order to get you MacOS X, many of those guys just had to be fired. So I ask you whether it isn't possible that the unnamed "former Apple engineer" they cite isn't someone with an axe to grind.

    Also problematic is their use of the term "serializing." They seem to be adopting a definition of a technical-sounding term which just doesn't make a lot of sense. "Serialization," they claim, "is one of the toughest problems for an engineer to solve." I've been an engineer for quite a while. I have a working definition of the word "serialization" which in no way relates to any issue in this article. I am aware of no definition of the word which would apply, much less one which would present itself as one of the toughest problems in my line of work. I don't know who is feeding whom a line of crap here, but make no mistake, that's exactly what it is.

    So, yes, David, the article is false. I can't claim definitively that Andrew Orlowski, the author of the article, is willfully lying to you, but the information he is presenting to you is not entirely correct.
     
  8. AlphaTech macrumors 601

    AlphaTech

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2001
    Location:
    Natick, MA
    #8
    Also don't EVERY buy a computer based on an article, or just numbers. With Mac's you really need to get a feel of them, unless you already know what you want, and are getting. If you have had a Mac before, then you can judge a new system against an older one pretty well.

    One rule of thumb that was presented to me, and have proven fairly reliable over the years. For each generation update or revision, you see about a 33% increase in performance if the same speed rating. Think about how the original G3 series rates to the current G4 series, or even the first real G4 line (sawtooth motherboard). A G4 500MHz was more then twice the speed of a G3 233MHz or 266MHz system. Add to the equation how much better the new Mac OS's run (either 9.2.2 or OS X 10.1.x) and you get the idea.

    I would say that my new G4 800 is more then the numbers would indicate then the G4 500 I had before. If I had to put a value on the usable speed difference, I would put it at least 50% better, if not higher. The 'hella fast' assessment is pretty damned accurate. :D
     
  9. eyelikeart Moderator emeritus

    eyelikeart

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2001
    Location:
    Metairie, LA
    #9
    now that I'm thinking more of it...

    haven't we seen this topic about a dozen times already?!

    why are we discussing it again?? I cannot seem to place a good enough reason... :rolleyes:
     
  10. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #10
    Of course we've seen it, and we'll probably discuss it again, many more times. This sort of thing is also like taking a poll on the internet. Its not unbiased, its not going out and randomly asking 100 people what they think about the new iMac. Its slanted to a certain degree. You'll probably never know how much, but its not to be trusted. Who knows, the guys that wrote the article could have all been PC zealots and sore losers.....
     
  11. blackpeter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2001
    #11
    Uugh... Benchmarks are so passé.

    PC's do a lot of things faster than Mac's (crashing, for one). For some reason, I can get a lot of work done on my Mac and still have time for everything else in my life. Go figure?
     
  12. mac15 macrumors 68040

    mac15

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2001
    Location:
    Sydney
    #12
    one way to find out if stuff is faster is actually try it out for yourself and thats it.....
    statistics don't prove anything......80% of people know that.....oh wait:D
     
  13. menoinjun macrumors 6502a

    menoinjun

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    #13
    Yeah, we've seen this all before...but we have also seen the OSX on Intel machines threads before and they still come up. Some people either don't understand, or don't want to let things die. It's up to us to inform as many people as possible so that this can die out quickly.

    No big deal.

    -Pete
     
  14. King Cobra macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    #14
    According to an episode of the Simpsons:

    There are 2 kinds of truth. There's "the truth" (in a low, serious voice) and "the truth" (in a high voice, with big smiles). I think that this somewhat underhanded version of "the truth" is hiding a lot of important deatil. If someone intelligent, or even half-witted, had to choose between a Mac and a PC, and they saw this short, baised, PC-favoring article about some stupid testing with one application and a few options, that person would not be willing to give in to PCs just yet. I mean, come on, how much more ridiculous do articles get?
    __________________

    Fear the King.
     
  15. Ludicrosity macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    #15
    Re: Is apples marketing misleading or FALSE!

    I've always wondered why Apple never puts whatever dual G4 system at the time of testing to a dual Athlon or Xeon PC setup.

    One more thing, I hate defending Micro$soft, but I just can't help it for this one detail/fact. Windows XP doesn't crash all the time, it rarely does. I'll return to my dark, damp, hole now...
     
  16. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #16
    Re: Re: Is apples marketing misleading or FALSE!

    Because due to the current level of the Apple systems, a single processor wouldn't beat a single Intel or AMD chip. That's one of the biggest problems facing Apple today. Maybe with the new mobo we might see in MWNY things might change, but the bottom line is Apple needs faster processors, period.
     
  17. Hemingray macrumors 68030

    Hemingray

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Location:
    Ha ha haaa!
    #17
    LOL, now THAT was funny! :D

    Statistics mean about as much to me as that article...
     
  18. mac15 macrumors 68040

    mac15

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2001
    Location:
    Sydney
    #18
    you kno whats funny they pay people to find that useless crap out
     
  19. AlphaTech macrumors 601

    AlphaTech

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2001
    Location:
    Natick, MA
    #19
    Re: Re: Is apples marketing misleading or FALSE!

    I can't help but notice that you said all the time. Would that be the same as 'as much as' previous windblows os's? Compared to win95/98 a man in a padded cell is more stable.

    At work, we had a system running nt4 give the blue screen of death. Even attempting to repair it failed to fix it's issues. I ended up installing win2k onto the peecee. Of course, there were several security updates and a service pack to install, but you come to expect that with windblowschunks.

    One of the people that work in that department (the mail room) mentioned that her father has a peecee running heXPee on it. I had to laugh when she mentioned something about it being stable. I had to give her the info that unless she was running ALL of the security updates, her father was highly vulnerable (the tons of security holes in heXPee is horrid). She then informed me that none of those had been installed because her father was 'paranoid' about installing updated (aka he's a dumb-a$$). I also informed her about what m$ does with all the info that her father had to enter on the peecee (since it came with the 'home edition' of heXPee). I also mentioned the recent articles about what m$ did with hotmail account info. She wanted me to come out and fix her father's computer. I had to tell her that I would, if she pays me my normal fee ($75/hour plus travel expenses). She thought I would do it for free because I liked her... I don't know her that well, and she is NOT THAT cute :D...

    Anyone else notice how cute women can get almost anything either free of damn close to it?? :D
     
  20. Ludicrosity macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    #20
    Re: Re: Re: Is apples marketing misleading or FALSE!

    I agree, the base code is nearly 7 years old with lots and lots and lots of patches and updates. It stinks and alot of people have updated to XP because of it. Although my mother has 98 and it never blue screens, locks up, or crashes. That's becuase all she does on it is surf the internet, office stuff, and email. For her it works and works well...

    So basically what my arguement here is if you want to convert people or at least keep your comments, opinions, or whatever acturate. Keep in mind that alot of people that run Windows, myself included, aren't having to restart our computer everyday, aren't frustrated with performance, aren't getting lock-ups, aren't wishing that they bought some other computer back x-days ago. It's ugly? Yes. It's uninspired? Yeah. Does it work and does the overall system price cost less than alternatives? Yeah...

    What did the person that was using it do to it?! NT4 is old but I haven't seen one just 'quit' working on it's own.

    I've had a tone of security patches for Linux (Red Hat 7). I doubt Mac OS X is all that secure, if some experienced hacker/cracker wants in they'll get in... You do what you have to do to stay as secure as possible and try to make yourself harder to hack then the next guy.

    After 10 girl friends with computer problems I would say yes. And their friends, lol.
     
  21. AlphaTech macrumors 601

    AlphaTech

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2001
    Location:
    Natick, MA
    #21
    Ludicrosity, a few things.. one, dump the peecee stuff from your sig.

    Two, the person using the peecee at work did normal activities with it that he has been doing for a few years now. It just decided to tell him to "f*ck off", it wasn't going to work and there was nothing that could be done about it. Pretty typical for windblowschunks.

    Peecee's end up costing just as much as Mac's by the time you are done. Add to that the fact that they (typically) don't have as long a lifespan. Plus the FACT that Mac's ARE easier to maintain and for tech's to work on. I should know, I'm a tech damnit. I work on BOTH Mac's and peecee's all damned day. By far, the peecee's are the worst.

    As for restarting every day. I shut my systems off when I am done for the day, or night depending on which system it is. The ONLY computer that I don't shut off regularly is the server that I built and maintain. I do have to reboot whenever m$ puts out a 'critical update' which is wayyyy too often for any 'modern' operating system. When has Apple released and update and listed it as 'critical'??? I would venture to say NEVER. They are all optional, if you don't want to run the update, no biggie.

    My home network is damned secure, and WITHOUT running any firewall software. I do have the latest airport base station in place. I was using the original several months back and wanted to host a UT blood-fest for my cousins and myself. Well, they couldn't even ping the IP addresses that my systems have. They couldn't get to my system no matter how hard they tried. One of them had some heavy duty tools to use all to no avail.

    Mac's by their very nature are secure systems. Add to that the fact that 99.5% (if not more) of the hackers and virus writers go after m$, and you are even smarter for having a Mac.

    Oh, and I don't use linux, nor do I have any interest in it at all. From everything I have seen about linux, it is not even close to being as easy to use as the Mac OS is. That includes OS 9 and OS X.
     
  22. Ludicrosity macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    #22
    Linux is a different kind of operating system... If you're not interested in it then there's no use in me trying to convince you it's a better OS. As a server OS, it's the best.

    I'm no network person but don't hackers want to bring down the most systems? If it's servers they're after wouldn't they go after UNIX based servers? Mac OS X is BSD isn't it? I'm not saying the Mac isn't secure, I just don't feel any safer on my Mac (now that I have one :)) than I do on my PC.
     

Share This Page