Bravo!!!!!!!!!!!!! standing ovation, this is the best post I have ever read on any forum across the net.
Not that I didnt already know this but I wonder just how many Apple fanboys will still be in denial after reading your post. At some point even the most die hard fans will educate them self's enough to know that Apple has played a very well crafted game of deception for years. Trust me when I tell you that the switch to the Intel processor was only just the beginning of the secret veil starting to slowly reveal what has always been a huge game of deception by Apple.
Thank you
I completely agree with your post as well. The only market Apple is honest in is the iPod market. But they've even managed to work their magic on that as well. Just look at what they did with video accessories. The 5G and 5.5G iPods worked with countless video accessories that did all sorts of neat things. But starting in 2007, with the iPhone, iPod touch, 3G nano, and iPod classic, Apple built-in lock out chips that will only work with video out accessories that come with an Apple authentication chip. No longer could you buy a $10 video and audio cable for your iPod.. oh no, you have to buy a $50 Apple branded cable.
Look at what they did with the iPod games too. If you had bought any iPod games for your 5G or 5.5G iPod, even games released as little as a couple of weeks before the iPod revision in 2007, you had to go and re-purchase every single game to be able to play it on your new iPod. Thankfully Apple suffered enough backlash from that and they now have it so you can play those games on newer revision iPods and they did allow you to download for free or come to a compromise with them over the issue.
Apple is only mostly honest in that market because it's so cut-throat. If they tried the crap with the iPods that they do with their computers, the iPod would die nearly overnight.
On to other posts
Read like a raving troll that is mistaking his opinion as fact to me.
Truth hurts, huh? I pointed out facts. You can't resort to calling someone a troll just because you don't like to hear the truth. It is the truth that Apple reduces features while raising prices. You can look at their current line up and compare it to info available at everymac.com. Its also true that you can get nearly equal processing power (but considerably more GPU processing power) in a PC for about $2,000 less than the "entry" level Mac Pro. Again, look at the Mac Pro for truth in Apple's pricing policies. Previously the 8 core unit was standard at $2,799. Now its $3,299. You also used to be able to custom order a single quad-core unit for $2,299. Now that unit is the entry model at $200. Again, raising prices.
Troll, I think not! I have seen through the smoke screen that is Apple and until you do of course you will label me a troll.
Exactly! You get used to it though. Ever since I saw "the light" so to speak haha, a couple of years ago, people here have been calling me a troll when I point out even the small truth about Apple.
I'm not labeling you a troll, I'm labeling mosx a troll. There is no smoke screen, no reality distortion field. Apple doesn't make computers that are about raw specs and raw power. That people always want to compare Apple computers to these raw specs is their problem. Ultimately, it is them that are hurt by the fact that Apple doesn't want to compete in their niche and offer them a product and hence they come here and whine endlessly about things like the Apple tax.
Apple doesn't make computers that are about raw power? On the Mac mini page at Apple it says "Faster. Greener. Still mini." The iMac page "Stunning graphics. Faster performance. Double the memory." One of the main focuses on the MacBook page "Up to 5x faster NVIDIA graphics performance". And its not like Apple doesn't advertise their systems as such
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFRhSPNicgc Apple clearly pushes performance and speed aspects of their computers. In reality, their computers generally aren't as fast as those costing half as much. So nobody is being "hurt" by Apple. We're just pointing out the fact that their systems are not nearly as fast as Apple claims they are and they're charging near double the price for them.
If all Apple is was really just a trend, Microsoft wouldn't be paying this much attention, and neither would the general public. Trends are fickle and die out.
Apple's marketshare is still single digits outside of the US, low single digits I might add. In the US their marketshare is sort of like the Zune's marketshare in the MP3 market. Its there but it means nothing to the market leader.
Oh please. What you fail to admit is that most Mac users have extensive experience with Windows. I've been using that steaming pile of garbage posing as an OS 40 hours a week for 15 years. It's a miserable experience, pure and simple. You think we Mac users choose to pay more for our hardware and our software based on some irrational fantasy or something? No. We do it because it's better than the alternative.
Windows, and almost every other product that's crawled from the muck of Redmond, deserves every bit of derision thrown its way. Period.
Compare and contrast with the ignorant bullcrap the Apple haters like to spew about Macs, when they have little or no experience with the platform whatsoever.
That, my friend, is called FUD.
What you fail to admit is that I've been using a Mac for years now. I know from "extensive" experience that OS X is not up to par with Windows in many areas, even simple areas like hardware accelerated video playback. And that most of what Mac users say about Windows being bad is pure FUD.
Today, the Apple keynote drinking game involves having a drink every time Steve Jobs says "unbelievably thin". Before 2006, it was "unbelievably fast". Numbers. Benchmarks. Shootouts. They kept this charade up to the very day before the first Intel Macs were announced. Only then was it revealed that by switching from PPC to Intel, Macs suddenly became 3-6 times faster once powered by bona fide PC processors. He stood there and announced, between the lines, that everything they had been peddling up until that very day, was sh*t. And what did the crowd do? The crowd who had paid through their nose over and over for this underpowered crap, while trash-talking "Wintel"? They gave Steve a standing ovation.
Thats gotta be the best summary of events ever.
So wait, are you saying that if Intel processors are better today, then there is no chance at all that they could've been worse in 1999 ?
The Pentium II of 1999 vs the G3, and the Core vs the Cell is the exact same comparison ?
I remember Apple's benchmarks from those time periods. I remember on one of their product pages they were talking about game performance. They compared the PowerMac with a dedicated GPU to a Compaq costing half as much with onboard graphics, parading the fact that the PowerMac got about 10 more frames per second in Unreal. Whats even better about that benchmark (and every other PPC vs Intel comparison Apple has ever made) is that they gave NO information regarding drivers used in Windows, software settings, BIOS settings, etc. The funny thing is that at that time, I had a Compaq very similar to the one they used in the comparison. The only difference is that I had a RivaTNT GPU. My system had a higher frame-rate in Unreal than the Mac and comparison PC combined.
But anyway, that is one thing that Apple never did in their PPC vs. Intel arguments. They NEVER gave detailed specs regarding hardware or software settings on their comparison PCs. And the best part is can't remember a comparison between a G3, G4, or G5 against an AMD Athlon, Athlon XP, Athlon64, or Athlon64 X2. Let's not forget that up until the release of the Core 2 line, AMD's Athlon processors mopped the floor with Intel's offerings
Or are you guys seriously claiming the G3 was a bad processor and that the Pentium II curb stomped it ? That Altivec never was able to even remotely touch SSE or MMX ?
Apple was never able to prove that any of the PPC processors were faster. They gave vague synthetic benchmarks with no real detailed specs or settings. Back when Apple was trying to play the gaming card, in the late 90s, if the G3 and G4 had been faster than the P2 and P3, why didn't gamers choose Apple?
At that point in time, the PC gaming market was up for grabs. And if Apple had been the faster platform you can bet that game developers and game players would have chosen it. And again, let's not forget that AMD line of processors. Up until the end of 2006, AMD was the performance king.
Linux ran on both. Performance wasn't world aparts, but mhz for mhz, PPC was the better performer. Altivec was better than the first generation SSE found in Pentium IIIs and arguably better at some tasks than SSE2.
Altivec may or may not have been better than SSE early on.... and PPC might have been bettter "MHz for MHz", but you're never going to be able to convince sensible people that G4s running at half the clock speed of the Pentium 3 were better. Because thats basically how it was. As we entered the year 2000, the Athlon and Pentium 3 both took off in terms of clock speed. By the time Apple finally released PowerPC systems running at 1GHz we had Athlon XPs and P4s passing the 2GHz mark. By the time the 2GHz G5 launched, the Athlon64 was in full swing, preventing Apple from honestly holding the performance crown (other than their staged and cherry picked benchmarks against slower Intel processors), and the Pentium 4 was being overclocked to well over 3GHz.
What in the world are you talking about??? PowerPC chips were faster than Intel's offerings at the time.
Why does everyone forget AMD? From 1999 to 2006, AMD made the fastest desktop processors available for personal computers. The various Athlon lines mopped the floor with Intel. Starting in the year 2000, the top PPC chips generally ran at half the clock speed of Intel and AMD chips. By the time the G5 almost caught up in clock speed, Apple was announcing the switch to Intel and both Intel and AMD had revised cores several times and were both faster than what they had been at the G4 or G5 launch, and I don't mean that as in clock speed.
Not to mention that up until 2004-2005 when Apple did the switch, the PPCs we're following Intel just fine.
Not true at all. By that time PPC chips were running at about half the clock speed of Intel and AMD processors. Plus the Athlon64 had established itself as the fastest desktop processor.
Microsoft switched from Intel to PPC for the Xbox 360, the Cell processor is built around the POWER architecture, and is shipped in PS3s. PPC is still pretty much alive and as far as "blazingly" fast computations go, it's still king of the castle.
Heh, are you kidding? The Cell is a joke of a processor. It has one PPC core with a bunch co-processors tacked on for good measure.
Don't forget both the Cell and Xbox360 run at 3.2GHz. If they were so much more powerful than the Core 2 line, why would PC game ports of the same games have much lower clock speed requirements? PS3 games ported to the PC generally run better on a PC with a dual-core Athlon or Pentium D combined with a GeForce 8 card than they do on the PS3.
You do understand though that by the time that Mac Pro shipped, Intel had changed the MHZ game ? It wasn't about mhz anymore, it was about operations. Basically, they adopted the POWER philosophy that frequency wasn't the only thing that defined processors, a few years late though.
You can thank AMD for that, not Intel
In fact, it's not really the fact that you bash Apple that irritates me. It's mostly that you are always bashing Apple. If it's not something, it's something else.
I don't see any Apple bashing here. I see people pointing out facts about Apple. Pointing out facts does not equal bashing.
