Blatant advertising about SL on Crucial ...

Discussion in 'macOS' started by sammy2066, Oct 4, 2009.

  1. sammy2066 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2007
    #1
    Talk about misleading advertising!
     

    Attached Files:

  2. bartzilla macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    #2
    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.
     
  3. iPhone 62S macrumors 6502a

    iPhone 62S

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    #3
    In the words of FSJ...
    :p
     
  4. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #4
    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.
     
  5. santos79 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    #5
    I call BS

    :rolleyes:
    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
     
  6. kolax macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2007
    #6
    You might be getting confused with the graphs Apple used to show why Intel was a good thing.. the Power Per Watt graph.
     
  7. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #7

    It's not BS. Mouse over the top of that page.
     

    Attached Files:

  8. sneezymarble macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    #8
    That's just not true. 64bit applications and 64bit OSs can use more memory. They don't require it.
     
  9. santos79 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    #9
    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". :rolleyes:
     

    Attached Files:

  10. J the Ninja macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    #10
    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.
     
  11. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #11
    it does require 2x the ram so whats the issue again?
     
  12. santos79 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    #12
    That the ad is misleading as it applies to maybe 2 percent of those who plan to upgrade to SL.
     
  13. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #13

    Think of the children. :rolleyes:
     
  14. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #14
    Misleading advertising? You say that like it's something new! :rolleyes:
     
  15. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #15
    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
     
  16. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #16
    Yeah, I spent my time photoshopping the screen shot. :rolleyes:
     
  17. santos79 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    #17
    Which a UK organization forced Apple to pull: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/26/iphone_ad_pulled/
     
  18. iPhone 62S macrumors 6502a

    iPhone 62S

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    #18
    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 :D
     
  19. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #19
  20. Richard1028 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    #20
    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. :D
     
  21. sammy2066 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2007
    #21
    Sooo uh, SL doesn't run/install on a machine with 512MB RAM? If so, then the ad is completely justified.
     
  22. iPhone 62S macrumors 6502a

    iPhone 62S

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    #22
    I'm sure it will with a bit of hackery, but not officially no.
     
  23. santos79 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    #23
    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.
     
  24. bartzilla macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    #24
    Or I might not.
     
  25. sammy2066 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2007
    #25
    My thoughts exactly ...
     

Share This Page