Blatant advertising about SL on Crucial ...


bartzilla

macrumors 6502a
Aug 11, 2008
540
0
Talk about misleading advertising!
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.
 

maflynn

Moderator
Staff member
May 3, 2009
63,863
30,389
Boston
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.
 

kolax

macrumors G3
Mar 20, 2007
9,188
114
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.
You might be getting confused with the graphs Apple used to show why Intel was a good thing.. the Power Per Watt graph.
 

santos79

macrumors regular
Feb 25, 2009
129
0
It's not BS. Mouse over the top of that page.
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:
 

Attachments

J the Ninja

macrumors 68000
Jul 14, 2008
1,824
0
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.
 

dukebound85

macrumors P6
Jul 17, 2005
18,059
1,187
5045 feet above sea level
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
 

Richard1028

macrumors 68000
Jan 8, 2009
1,580
0
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. :D
 

sammy2066

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Oct 3, 2007
817
388
127.0.0.1
Sooo uh, SL doesn't run/install on a machine with 512MB RAM? If so, then the ad is completely justified.
 

santos79

macrumors regular
Feb 25, 2009
129
0
Sooo uh, SL doesn't run/install on a machine with 512MB RAM? If so, then the ad is completely justified.
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.