I'm sure that we all have seen the "Apple apology" ad for their PowerMac G3. My question is: is there anywhere that I can see the ORIGINAL ad that had him burning ot disco inferno (if there was one?) I'm pretty sure there is, but I just can't seem to find it. (THe one that came before the apology ad in other words)
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.
Original Pentium 2 toast
- Thread starter Lomoco
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Toasted Bunny
Great Ad.... Toasted Bunny
Has a picture of my old G3 9600 at the end.
You can find it here along with many others.
http://www.esm.psu.edu/Faculty/Gray/movies.html
http://pulsar.esm.psu.edu/Faculty/Gray/graphics/movies/toasted.mov
Great Ad.... Toasted Bunny
Has a picture of my old G3 9600 at the end.
You can find it here along with many others.
http://www.esm.psu.edu/Faculty/Gray/movies.html
http://pulsar.esm.psu.edu/Faculty/Gray/graphics/movies/toasted.mov
The real shame is the massive amount of revisionist history here... did any of you guys ever actually try pitting systems of that era against each other? I happen to do mathematics, so when I was curious how Blue Box ran on my PowerMac 8600/300 (which is a pre-G3 system), I compared it running Mathematica 2.2 against the following systems:
Mathematica is designed to take full advantage of as many CPUs as you can give it, so if what you guys are saying is true, then Dual Pentium II at 266 MHz should have easily out paced the single G3 at 233 MHz.
Alas, the results speak for themselves.
Additionally, I put together this graph to show why I happen to like the PowerPC 604e more than the G3 (PowerPC 750), but it also included a handful of other processors as references (including the Pentium II).
Guys, please check your facts before posting. If you don't actually know what you are saying, then avoid committing to erroneous statements that can be shot down... even buy a page that wasn't intended to do so.
Power Macintosh 9600 (PPC 604ev at 350MHz), 128MB RAM, 1MB L2 cache, Mac OS 8
Power Macintosh G3 (PPC 750 at 233 MHz), 64MB RAM, 512kb
Power Macintosh 9600 (PPC 604e at 233 MHz), 96MB RAM, 512kb
DEC AlphaStation 500 MHz, 512MB RAM
Dual Pentium II 266 MHz, 128MB, 512kb L2, Windows NT 4.0 Server (SP3)
Pentium Pro 200 MHz, 128MB RAM, NEXTSTEP 3.3
Pentium 133 MHz, 64MB RAM, 256bK L2, NEXTSTEP 3.3
SGI Indigo2 XL R4400sc 200 MHz, 2MB L2
The main reason for the choice of those systems was because a number of them are similar to systems I have (my SGI Indy uses an R4400sc at 175 MHz and my ThinkPad uses a Pentium at 133 MHz) and the others were comparable systems in 1997.Power Macintosh G3 (PPC 750 at 233 MHz), 64MB RAM, 512kb
Power Macintosh 9600 (PPC 604e at 233 MHz), 96MB RAM, 512kb
DEC AlphaStation 500 MHz, 512MB RAM
Dual Pentium II 266 MHz, 128MB, 512kb L2, Windows NT 4.0 Server (SP3)
Pentium Pro 200 MHz, 128MB RAM, NEXTSTEP 3.3
Pentium 133 MHz, 64MB RAM, 256bK L2, NEXTSTEP 3.3
SGI Indigo2 XL R4400sc 200 MHz, 2MB L2
Mathematica is designed to take full advantage of as many CPUs as you can give it, so if what you guys are saying is true, then Dual Pentium II at 266 MHz should have easily out paced the single G3 at 233 MHz.
Alas, the results speak for themselves.
Additionally, I put together this graph to show why I happen to like the PowerPC 604e more than the G3 (PowerPC 750), but it also included a handful of other processors as references (including the Pentium II).
Guys, please check your facts before posting. If you don't actually know what you are saying, then avoid committing to erroneous statements that can be shot down... even buy a page that wasn't intended to do so.
There's quite a bit of revisionist history in that list of comparisons when you consider what was actually comparably available on the market. e.g at the time the 400Mhz G3 machine was available, (cheaper) 500 / 550Mhz P3 machines were in circulation - which would have been closer in terms of computational ability, not to mention the lack of real-world differences when running general applications.
"Guys, please check your facts before posting. If you don't actually know what you are saying, then avoid committing to erroneous statements that can be shot down..."
Indeed.
"Guys, please check your facts before posting. If you don't actually know what you are saying, then avoid committing to erroneous statements that can be shot down..."
Indeed.
Seeing as I was comparing the period of the ad (1997), and the Pentium III wasn't released until 1999, it sure seems that you need to work on your history!
But yeah, the first PowerMac G3 400 (and 450) were released a month before the introduction of the Pentium III (at 450 and 500 MHz). The Pentium III marked the continuation of the linear progression of the Pentium line (MHz for MHz, the Pentium II and Pentium III were identical)... which was why some people wondered why Intel wasn't still calling it a Pentium II back then.
The first 550/600 MHz Pentium IIIs showed up at about the same time as the first G4 processors.
Which brings us back to the question... do you check your facts before speaking?
I hate to be wrong, and generally triple check information before posting, I would suggest that you should adopt a similar regiment. If you don't actually know this stuff, then don't attempt to argue it.
I, personally, know this era in PC hardware quite well as it is the era of most compatibility with NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP/Rhapsody systems, and it was the same period when SGI started selling Intel based workstations. Further, I was working PC tech support between 1997 and 2000. I know this period, I had both Macs and PCs of that period on my desk with similar apps, and you really should check your facts.
If you can't argue from historical facts, don't argue at all.
Great Ad.... Toasted Bunny
Has a picture of my old G3 9600 at the end.
You can find it here along with many others.
http://www.esm.psu.edu/Faculty/Gray/movies.html
http://pulsar.esm.psu.edu/Faculty/Gray/graphics/movies/toasted.mov
Yes, I've seen that one. What I'm looking for is the one that supposedly aired BEFORE that one. THe one where they actually toast him. Not the apology one.
No - we're still talking about the same differences in terms of the timeline. Fact is buddy, the market-equivalent Pentiums were always clocked higher so the differences were significantly less in terms of even raw benchmark-optimised performance.
I'm sure after dragging the CISC emulator ball & chain for what, two years? The G3's must have seemed like lightning machines to the Mac faithful. I switched from Apple to Windows in 1997-8. The reason? Higher productivity for less, higher system performance for less, a less unstable OS. I didn't have my integer blinkers on. Here's an idea - why not try doing some real work on a machine instead of sitting there looking at benchmarks all the time?
So a benchmark page created in February of 2006 and a graphic made in December of 2005 (both meant to compare PowerPC 604e systems with G3 systems) qualifies as all the time in your mind... grasping history seems to be the least of your issues.I'm sure after dragging the CISC emulator ball & chain for what, two years? The G3's must have seemed like lightning machines to the Mac faithful. I switched from Apple to Windows in 1997-8. The reason? Higher productivity for less, higher system performance for less, a less unstable OS. I didn't have my integer blinkers on. Here's an idea - why not try doing some real work on a machine instead of sitting there looking at benchmarks all the time?
Frankly, if benchmarks were all that mattered to me I'd have been flip-flopping between platforms as much as... well, as much as you, frankly.
But seeing as I spend my time on computers doing things, the comment seems a little odd. What can you do again? See, there is nearly nothing I can't do with my systems. I do tasks ranging from graphic design, page layout, web design, animation, 3D graphics and animation, effects and video editing, video capture, audio editing, blueprints and reverse engineering, and mathematics with my systems.
Computers for computers sake is about the most boring subject I know of... but maybe I've missed it, where are any displays of your handy work? Productiveness usually yield a product of some type, so you must have something to show for your productivity... right? This forum is teaming with examples of my work, but maybe you could point me towards examples of what you've done.
Unless you are just doing accounting and spreadsheets (which would have been the best reason for anyone to move to PCs)... in which case, never mind.
As for stability, I've been using Mac OS 8.6 as a productive OS for years without issues... maybe you were the cause of your stability problems. Most of the stability issues I recall the Mac community having ended with the release of Mac OS 8 (at least they did for me).
But if PCs were so much faster in 1997-98, why weren't those systems able to do video? In fact, Macs were designed for doing video pretty much from 1994 onwards, but you are saying that was in the ball & chain era, what was the excuse for the lack of performance in the PC market?
I'm using a PowerMac 8600 from 1997 to capture full length movies from my video tape collection to watch in iTunes... but from what you are saying I should be using a 1997 PC for this type of task (as it would be better, right). Care to point me in the direction of a PC from 1997 that can do this type of stuff?
No it's not odd, it's the Internets. Don't you know this is normal behaviour for a) a bunch of nerds who are deeply slighted by the merest throwaway comment about something they irrationally love to come up with a mammoth post in refutation in the ironclad belief that they're right?
In answer to your question, no idea apart from what's been linked already. I presume they pushed their usual BS factor too far, bringing cause for lawsuits & stuff.
That explains everything... you don't take your own statements seriously. I guess I hadn't realized that you expected the rest of us to take anything you say as a throwaway comment.
But that does clarify a lot of things about what you've said. And to think, all this time I thought you had something to say worth reading. Now to find out that you don't even consider your own statements in high regard sheds a new light on the subject.
Thanks for pointing this out.
Yes
I tried the second link. But what I'm looking for is the one that aired BEFORE that where it had him CATCHING on fire. I'm sure that it exists somewhere, but I just can't seem to find it. When it says "...would like to apologize for toasting the...", there must have been one before it for them to apologize for. One with that guy actually catching on fire. It must be out there somewhere...
I tried the second link. But what I'm looking for is the one that aired BEFORE that where it had him CATCHING on fire. I'm sure that it exists somewhere, but I just can't seem to find it. When it says "...would like to apologize for toasting the...", there must have been one before it for them to apologize for. One with that guy actually catching on fire. It must be out there somewhere...
That explains everything... you don't take your own statements seriously. I guess I hadn't realized that you expected the rest of us to take anything you say as a throwaway comment.
But that does clarify a lot of things about what you've said. And to think, all this time I thought you had something to say worth reading. Now to find out that you don't even consider your own statements in high regard sheds a new light on the subject.
Thanks for pointing this out.
True Nerds. I love'em.