Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Blatant advertising about SL on Crucial ...
- Thread starter sammy2066
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
True enough but at the end of the day Crucial are just trying to make money. As for misleading advertising, I'm reminded of all those graphs that showed how powerPC chips were much faster than Intel... until the day Apple switched and suddenly had graphs showing the opposite. Hmmm.
Not saying what crucial are doing is right, just that there are things in the world more worthy of being upset over.
You do realize that 64bit applications and the system requires more memory then 32bit applications, so that statement isn't entirely untrue.
I wouldn't call it a blatant lie but rather advertising puffery - hyperbole you'd expect from advertisements. Either way, I'd not get too upset about it.
I wouldn't call it a blatant lie but rather advertising puffery - hyperbole you'd expect from advertisements. Either way, I'd not get too upset about it.
I call BS
Unless you can supply a link, I call BS. I just checked Crucial's site and that upper portion of your "screen shot" does not exist.
Here's the link: http://www.crucial.com/mac/index.aspx
Unless you can supply a link, I call BS. I just checked Crucial's site and that upper portion of your "screen shot" does not exist.
Here's the link: http://www.crucial.com/mac/index.aspx
You might be getting confused with the graphs Apple used to show why Intel was a good thing.. the Power Per Watt graph.
Unless you can supply a link, I call BS. I just checked Crucial's site and that upper portion of your "screen shot" does not exist.
Here's the link: http://www.crucial.com/mac/index.aspx
It's not BS. Mouse over the top of that page.
Attachments
That's just not true. 64bit applications and 64bit OSs can use more memory. They don't require it.
I assume you're right. I can't verify that myself as I live in France and instead of the BS ad I just get an ad for Crucial's forum (below).
I guess they can't put such misleading ads on websites that are displayed in Europe. It's kind of like television commercials in the US claiming things like "World's best fabric softener". Or: "4 out of dentists surveyed recommend sugarless gum for the patients who chew gum".
Attachments
SL requires 1GB of RAM, Leo only needed 512MB. Some early Intel machines shipped with 512MB, so there are quite a few people who need to get a RAM upgrade in order to run SL.
That the ad is misleading as it applies to maybe 2 percent of those who plan to upgrade to SL.
so what? its technically accurate. SL requires 1 gig. Leopard requires 512mb....so yea 2x as much is a valid statement. They are not lying
its not say as misleading as apple and their supercomputer iphones they advertise with no lag at all, with instant gps posisitioning and whatnot lol
Which a UK organization forced Apple to pull: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/26/iphone_ad_pulled/
The ads are the same and have been put back now, but they just have small print saying "Sequence shortened".
It makes me happy to say that my 3GS works as well as the ads, though
thats kinda my point
the apple ad was misleading
the crucial one is not as it is infact a true statement. its just how one interprets it
Exactly. When I first saw the OP's link I tried looking for some fine print and scratching my head. I read that SL takes 2x as Leopard which, it really does.
It's listed in the system requirements. The thing that is misleading is it conveys the impression that everybody will need more RAM because SL uses more memory. It's like the sugarless gum commercials that led many to believe that dentists recommend that people chew sugarless gum.
In Crucial's case, I'm just surprised that they would resort to such cheap ad campaigns. I've always viewed Crucial as a no-nonsense tech company.