BareFeat's Rob Morgan banned from testing Macs in Apple Sto...


Laslo Panaflex

macrumors 65816
May 1, 2003
1,292
0
Tokyo
That's cool, banned from the Apple Store (for testing only mind you) but will be sent test machines to his house, from Apple directly, I would take that too.
 

1macker1

macrumors 65816
Oct 9, 2003
1,375
0
A Higher Level
Blah. Why not let him use the machines in the store, this is where people buy Mac's from. A non-bias opinion on a non suped up machine. What's the problem.
 

Little Endian

macrumors 6502a
Apr 9, 2003
677
31
Honolulu
Rob Art Morgan is a Champion in the Apple Community as he is indeed the primary source for unbiased real world Performance testing on the Mac. It is sad that Apple has banned him from testing in it's retail stores. I firmly believe his accuracy in testing and that Apple is the one in error. Think about it, how the hell can the new imac G5 be litterally 2-3 times as fast as the old imac G4 in UTK4 and Halo when it has the same exact video card? Sure the G5 is much faster but it can't make that big of a difference in Games when the real bottleneck is the video card.
 

NusuniAdmin

macrumors 6502a
Nov 19, 2003
870
0
Apple just banned him because they cant accept that they lie about their speed on countless occasions. Like i said in another macrumors thread: I smell a class action coming against apple. Personally I think the gov should step in and go against apple for false advertising as well.
 

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,551
1,186
Actually,

1. In UT2004 and 2003, the CPU is a BIG factor in FPS because of bot AI. (Sound and physics etc. contribute, but bot AI in UT03/04 is apparently very CPU intensive.) Using no bots (only humans) in a match means the GPU is the biggest (but not only) FPS factor. More bots means the CPU becomes vital. Since I happen to play against bots quite a bit, I can tell you that adding bots slows things down noticeably. I'd love to play with teams of 16 on 16 in Onslaught but my G4 won't handle it. I can easily see a G5 tripling FPS in such situations.

2. EVERY computer maker tests processor speed in an ideal "best case" sitatuation. Usage varies--there are ONLY subjective opinions on what's a fair test--and so ALL makers pick the best case. Maybe they should all be sued--just be sure you first go after the folks who told you the size of your last TV :) In other words, it's marketing--don't single Apple out.
 

NinjaMonkey

macrumors regular
Nov 19, 2003
242
2
Maryland
NusuniAdmin said:
Apple just banned him because they cant accept that they lie about their speed on countless occasions. Like i said in another macrumors thread: I smell a class action coming against apple. Personally I think the gov should step in and go against apple for false advertising as well.
So it is a bad thing they banned him from testing in the store but are going to send him machines to test at home? Did you read the article?
 

Sharewaredemon

macrumors 68000
May 31, 2004
1,927
83
Cape Breton Island
Yeah but it says he is unlikely to be first in line, and one important thing about what he did was that he could get benchmarks of new machines before everyone else.
 

musicpyrite

macrumors 68000
Jan 6, 2004
1,639
0
Cape Cod
Wired said:
Apple confirmed that Morgan is no longer allowed to test store machines, but strongly denied the ban is related to Morgan's iMac G5 test results. Rather, the stores aren't appropriate venues for conducting performance tests, said Natalie Kerris, Apple's director of products and technology PR.
That sounds a lot like something MS would do if you ask me.
 

munkle

macrumors 68030
Aug 7, 2004
2,580
0
On a jet plane
NusuniAdmin said:
Apple just banned him because they cant accept that they lie about their speed on countless occasions. Like i said in another macrumors thread: I smell a class action coming against apple. Personally I think the gov should step in and go against apple for false advertising as well.
musicpyrite said:
That sounds a lot like something MS would do if you ask me.
I think some people are just reading the headline and not the article. Yes they banned him from testing in their stores, saying the stores were for selling computers and not testing labs, fair enough I think. BUT they did not ban him from testing, going so far as to send him an iMac to test on and promising to send him test machines in the future, all this after hearing that he made a living off his site. Basically Apple bent over backwards to accommodate the guy when they didn't really have to. Even he's happy with it

"They're making nice with me," he said. "It's a lot better than going to the store. I didn't expect this outcome, but I'll take it."
Hardly the actions of a company that can't handle the truth (to be said in Jack Nicholson voice) or one that is impersonating MS. So what are all you lot whinging about?!!
 

munkle

macrumors 68030
Aug 7, 2004
2,580
0
On a jet plane
Sharewaredemon said:
Yeah but it says he is unlikely to be first in line, and one important thing about what he did was that he could get benchmarks of new machines before everyone else.
But he's still getting them, Apple are hardly running away from having their computers tested on. Maybe he should strike up a relationship with an Apple reseller who will allow him to test on their machines.
 

musicpyrite

macrumors 68000
Jan 6, 2004
1,639
0
Cape Cod
Apple confirmed that Morgan is no longer allowed to test store machines, but strongly denied the ban is related to Morgan's iMac G5 test results. Rather, the stores aren't appropriate venues for conducting performance tests, said Natalie Kerris, Apple's director of products and technology PR.
I was mainly referring to the part about the ban being related to Morgan's testing. We all know that what Apple said about 'not being related to Morgan's testing' is total BS, and sounds a lot like what MS would do. If you are following the other MacBytes article about how Bulmar called all iPod owners thieves you might make the connection.
http://management.silicon.com/itpro/0,39024675,39124642,00.htm


munkle said:
I think some people are just reading the headline and not the article. Yes they banned him from testing in their stores, saying the stores were for selling computers and not testing labs, fair enough I think. BUT they did not ban him from testing, going so far as to send him an iMac to test on and promising to send him test machines in the future, all this after hearing that he made a living off his site. Basically Apple bent over backwards to accommodate the guy when they didn't really have to. Even he's happy with it
 

Dont Hurt Me

macrumors 603
Dec 21, 2002
6,056
6
Yahooville S.C.
nagromme said:
1. In UT2004 and 2003, the CPU is a BIG factor in FPS because of bot AI. (Sound and physics etc. contribute, but bot AI in UT03/04 is apparently very CPU intensive.) Using no bots (only humans) in a match means the GPU is the biggest (but not only) FPS factor. More bots means the CPU becomes vital. Since I happen to play against bots quite a bit, I can tell you that adding bots slows things down noticeably. I'd love to play with teams of 16 on 16 in Onslaught but my G4 won't handle it. I can easily see a G5 tripling FPS in such situations.

2. EVERY computer maker tests processor speed in an ideal "best case" sitatuation. Usage varies--there are ONLY subjective opinions on what's a fair test--and so ALL makers pick the best case. Maybe they should all be sued--just be sure you first go after the folks who told you the size of your last TV :) In other words, it's marketing--don't single Apple out.
Just for giggles i just ran Ut2004 on my new Aurora with 32 players(Bots)and with everything on at 1280 x 1024 and it didnt lag at all. :D very sweet.
 

Santaduck

macrumors 6502a
Oct 21, 2003
627
0
Honolulu
I've been assisting Barefeats with his benchmarks a bit, with my iMac G5.

He is VERY thorough-- if you've thought of it, he has. I've been helping mostly on the UT2004 side, where both we and Apple used my Santaduck benchmark, claiming a 212% benefit-- That's BENEFIT, therefore they are saying the speed of the G5 is 313% of the G4's-- quoting from Apple's caption: 'about 3 times frames per second as previous iMac".

If we use the same settings and the same hardware configuration, we should get this 313% result right? Sounds reasonable.

We've tried UT 3204, 3236, 3321 (3236 being the one Apple said they used, which was the latest at the time).

We've tried all resolution settings including the native 1440x900 as well as the 1024x768 that Apple says it used. Apple says it used minimum detail settings, but I've gotten best results at maximum.

Of course CPU usage is set to "highest" in the Energy Saver CP. No other application are running and even all finder windows are closed, and the network is turned off.

We've even experimented with patch order (stock + 3204 + 3236 +3321 different thatn stock + 3321) as well as the question if the patches alter anything outside the application bundle.

Rob-ART is still compiling results for both the G4 & G5 iMacs, but it seems like he is not even close to the neighborhood of a 212% benefit.

We are all awaiting Rob-ART's final results... but it looks like it's hard to Apple's Performance Marketing dep't has some explaining... perhaps their prototype iMac G5 was not exactly the same as the version that eventually went to retail. . .
________________________________________

For my contributions using 1G and 2G on an iMac G5 at UT2k4 (3204, 3236, and 3323), please see this thread at Macologist.org. Also you can download my Santaduck UT2004 benchmark.

The Barefeat's G5 game benchmarks are here.

________________________________________
 

solvs

macrumors 603
Jun 25, 2002
5,693
1
LaLaLand, CA
The iMac I played with at the Apple Store was pretty slow for some reason. I was going to ask them to reboot it to see if that was the problem, because people had been running things and playing with it all day, but I didn't get a chance because I had to go. The iBook was pretty slow too, even with more RAM. My Sister's boyfriend's iBook (same model) was comparatively much faster. I don't know what they do (or don't do) in the Apple Stores and CompUSA, but I'd rather they sent the guy a new test unit.

Which they are doing. It's BETTER for the guy. I don't know if it's better for us, but if you believe Apple's optimized benchmarks in the first place, I've got a bridge to sell you.
 

isus

macrumors regular
Jan 13, 2004
182
0
i find it hilarious that a website that small is his main source of income. then again, with all those ads, i guess all those ads help quite a bit.
 

Santaduck

macrumors 6502a
Oct 21, 2003
627
0
Honolulu
Note that Apple didn't specifically ban Robert Morgan.

The sent out a policy memo to all ARSs indicating that store machines are not available for testing purposes.

The timing of the memo 3 day after Apple was contacted by the Wired reporter about this very article about Robert Morgan is the main circumstantial connection.



Solvs: in-store iMacs are most certaily set to CPU usage "Automatic" (in Energy Saver Control Panel) to make the machines nice & quiet, which is the default setting. Benchmarks & spiffier speed will be seen if CPU usage is instead set to "Highest". Also the ARSs supposedly wipe & rewrite their HDs from scratch every day to remove any junk put on during the day.
 

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,551
1,186
Dont Hurt Me said:
Just for giggles i just ran Ut2004 on my new Aurora with 32 players(Bots)and with everything on at 1280 x 1024 and it didnt lag at all. :D very sweet.
I'm running a first-gen 15.2" AlBook with the old GPU--and a single 1.25 MHz G4. A great portable UT 2004 system for some matches--but I'm straddling the line where I can see the effects when I play a match that's just too big.
 

Santaduck

macrumors 6502a
Oct 21, 2003
627
0
Honolulu
Laslo Panaflex said:
That's cool, banned from the Apple Store (for testing only mind you) but will be sent test machines to his house, from Apple directly, I would take that too.
Yeah, Barefeats isn't the WSJ, and Robert isn't Walt Mossberg, but IMHO he *can* indeed be very influential. A lot of folks read his site, including one Wired reporter, so it behooves Apple to assist even the smaller and popular websites, whether or not they are the first place that Apple's shareholders may be reading news--

as we've seen with the Dan Rather blogging thing recently, it's now a different world on-line, and the leap of potential influence from small website to large website is smaller than we may think.

The iMac is a GREAT machine. More realistic numbers don't affect this opinion at all. However if Apple marketing is going to drop very specific numbers, I do want to see them after I drop my $1800. That said, I still love my iMac G5.
 

Santaduck

macrumors 6502a
Oct 21, 2003
627
0
Honolulu
Dont Hurt Me said:
What or how are you running it? resolution whats on off etc...
Rob-ART said Apple told him they used 1G RAM (512M + 512M), UT2004 version 3236, at 1024x768. We are trying comparing at both the "minimum" and "maximum" detail settings, and using UT3323 as well. The benchmark Apple said they used was the Asbestos Botmatch, which is a good choice because results from this map vary by less than 0.3 FPS from run to run.

On the G5 side, of course the CPU performance in Energy Saver Control Panel should be set to "highest". All other application should be quit, all finder windows closed, and probably the network connection turned off.

Both Apple and Barefeats are using my script utility, the Santduck Toolpak, available to download here:

http://www.santaduck.com/ut2k4/Santaduck_Toolpak_pub.sit

If you have an iMac G4 1.25 or an iMac G5 1.8 17" and can get close to these settings, please post your results here. Please note machine, RAM (and which dimm sizes), UT patch version, and benchmark settings.
 

aswitcher

macrumors 603
Oct 8, 2003
5,351
14
Canberra OZ
Well after all this drama I am hoping for 2 things.

1) My Powerbook still looks really good with its 128meg vram when speced out against the revised iMac G5 :)

2) In the next iMac revision, hopefully early next year, they offer a 128Meg Graphics card option
 

munkle

macrumors 68030
Aug 7, 2004
2,580
0
On a jet plane
musicpyrite said:
I was mainly referring to the part about the ban being related to Morgan's testing. We all know that what Apple said about 'not being related to Morgan's testing' is total BS, and sounds a lot like what MS would do. If you are following the other MacBytes article about how Bulmar called all iPod owners thieves you might make the connection.
http://management.silicon.com/itpro/0,39024675,39124642,00.htm
At a strech I might make the loose connection but I'm not one for jumping to conspiracy theories. I think you're overstating the importance of Robert's website and Apple's decision to make their stores a place for browsing and buying...and giving him a machine to test on is hardly the action of a company that is trying to shut the guy down.
 

thatwendigo

macrumors 6502a
Nov 17, 2003
992
0
Sum, Ergo Sum.
Dont Hurt Me said:
Just for giggles i just ran Ut2004 on my new Aurora with 32 players(Bots)and with everything on at 1280 x 1024 and it didnt lag at all. :D very sweet.
Minimum cost for an Aurora with similar basic specs (and an admittedly faster processor) and the 6800GT: $3,383

The system:
Alienware Aurora
Windows XP Pro
AMD Athlon 64 3500+
512MB PC3200
nVidia Geforce 6800 GT 256MB
80GB SATA
Plextor 12x DVD+/-RW
Norton Internet Security Professional 2004
NEC 20" LCD

Even without a monitor, you're still looking at $2,200 worth of machine. If Apple had a tower to cram the guts in rather than an all-in-one, they could toss a 6800 in for that price, too.