[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i]
[B]Speaking of cheaper, the [url=http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/72304/wo/9mja8exBDHtV2ZLCs061O34O9OX/0.0.7.1.0.5.21.1.8.1.0.0.0.1.0]G4[/url] has a massive price slash going on right now. It's now as inexpensive as an iMac, and is perfect for people who hate the iMac because their heads are pointy. [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm not even sure how to interpret that... :)
-R.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
I don't hate iMacs because their heads are pointy.
I hate iMacs because they're low spec and overpriced. However, the 2nd iMac case is funky.
Sorry Mac fans Mac just lost a potentail buyer in me with their shady false advertising on the new G5 and they [B]CHEATED[/B] on the tests to make the G5 look way better then in all reality is it slower, and I don't mean just a little slower, then a P4 3.06 hyperthreading. Apple did some major cheating and thought they would get away with it.
[URL=http://www.haxial.com/spls-soapbox/apple-powermac-G5/]Read the bullsh!t Apple tried to pull off here[/URL]
I am [B]VERY[/B] disappointed in them and they look just as bad as Nvidia did when Nvidia got busted cheating on 3DMark 2k3. I just hope people don't go blindly flocking to the store based on false advertising.
Oh great here we go... so a pc has never been rigged before to come out on top in benchmark tests? From what i've read Apple have been very honest and up front with how they did the test. Also the group that did the test for Apple has Intel as one of their clients. So you mean to say that they're gonna cheat to benefit Apple and piss off Intel who are a bigger client? I doubt it very much. From tests I've read done with certain apps like Adobe Premier the new G5's are very quick when compared to the latest Intel chips.
Anyway this whole mine is faster than yours debate is stupid. There is not one 'Independent Test' out there that is balanced. Apple usually use Photoshop as they're benchmark... PC users complain that its biased. When PC's are tested they use an Intel Complier which actually speeds the machines up... not really real world stuff there! At the end of the day it all falls down to real world experience. And Ranger 1 don't you think it would be wise to wait for 'proper' actual hands on tests of the new G5 before saying they're crap and Apple has lied. Personally I'm waiting for the first actual built G5's to ship at the end of August and the subsequent intensive tests that will follow. Only then will I pass judgement.
Mac users don't care if its 'not as fast' as what Intel/AMD can throw out. As long as its faster than what went before thats whats important. So for the moment mac users are gonna sit back and laugh at the sudden backlash and mud slinging thats coming from the PC users who have been scared by the new IBM chipset.
And I must point out that the guy who wrote that article is a prat! Mac users are fanatics... ok yes some are... so does that mean there's no PC fanatics out there who upgrade at the slightest change in processor spec so they can brag at lan parties? Geeez. Yes I love Macs and I think Apple make great stuff (like the iPod, show me anything from a pc company that comes close). And I criticise Apple... god they're not perfect! Anybody that dishes out blind praise is an idiot! Take the new G5... now only 1 optical drive, down from 2 in the G4... why???? Thats pissed me off. Also there's only 2 hard drive bays, down from 4 in the G4.... why??? I've heard that heat may have been an issue but I'm annoyed at the removal of these extra expansion features.
Anyway like I said I will wait for the first batch of decent hands on tests of the new G5 once it has actually shipped! And then we will have to wait and see how the 64bit Panther OS will fair on the 64bit processor.
If you read that acticle not is one spot of the article did he say apples were crap. They are indeed better at certain things. Apples cheated plain and simple to capture more of the market from intel and amd. It is really going to be a shame if they do pull it of because they resorted to cheating to do it. I'm still waiting for Apple to explain why they turned hyperthreading off on the multiprocessor test and turned it on for the single processor test. That article showed the scores without turning off hyperthreading and the 3.06 beat the apple in every test. The articles are already popping up against what apple did. I was reading a few forums where this same article has come up and it's funny how most Mac users I have seen read this article immediately say "He probably doesn't use a mac".
[URL=http://www.overclockers.com/tips00408/]http://www.overclockers.com/tips00408/[/URL] - That article sounds really biased but it shows what apple did was wrong. None of this would have come up if they never cheated and changed the scores intel got or a previously published article before they published their G5 article.
To summarize:
*Memory read-bypass was used for the benchmarking G5s because it is intended to be included with the shipping G5s.
*The Dells benchmarks were lower than Dells tests because Apple used the gcc compiler on both systems to level the playing field while Dell used Intel's own compiler which, unless something insanely illogical is going on, will not work on Apple's machines.
*Apple turned off hyperthreading and used Linux because the Dell scored higher that way, and would be happy to publish updated results with hyperthreading on and Windows running, as that would make the G5 look better than it already does.
Additionally, I take issue with the tone of the article.
[quote]Why didn't you find out then?? If the issue was important enough to respond, why didn't you take 5 minutes to call someone who would know the answer to that question? [b]Because you already knew the answer to the question, but didn't want to say it, because it is embarrassing.[/b][/quote]
I like the bolded section a lot. It always amuses me when people take supposition, mix it with a confrontational attitude, and call it fact. Okay, that's a lie. It bugs the hell out of me. It reminds me of an evil lawyer in a bad legal drama.
And going on about this "Subtracting one dollar to make the price look smaller" is positively asinine. I am insulted that this writer would go to the depths of pettiness to help prove his point. And why would he need to do it, unless the information he was giving didn't adequately show that "Apple is an evil propaganda organization that considers us idiotic sheep"?
Never mind all the half truths and such, like:
[quote]Furthermore, the claim that the benchmarks are "independent" is another example of Apple trying to mislead people because:
* On the first page of the Veritest report, it says:
"Test report prepared under contract from Apple Computer"
[/quote]Of course they had a contract! What, do you expect Apple to ship prototype computers to benchmark companies with a little yellow sticky note saying "Please compare to a WinTel computer in a fair and impartial manner and relay the results to Apple Computer, inc. On or before June 22, 2003. And don't tell anyone about this, okay?" They needed to arrange payment (unless the company is in the business of doing work for free) and make sure Veritest wouldn't blab about the G5 'till Apple was good and ready. Jeeze.
[quote]* In the "Key findings" on page 1 of the Veritest report, the negative key findings are mysteriously absent. [/quote]There's nothing really "mysterious" about that until you call it "mysterious", is there? I doubt that, say, many of the lines under "Key Findings" are blacked out, a la classified information released by the Freedom of Information Act
[quote]* Independent means that Apple had no influence on the report, when it is obvious that they did. [/quote]
Circular logic. How true to form. Apple influenced the report. Why? Because the G5 scored higher. Why is the G5 scoring higher false? Because Apple influenced the report. How do you know? Because the G5 scored higher...
And isn't odd how this guy never got any well thought out, rational replies from Mac users? Unless, of course, he is simply picking the most inane and abrasive letters of the lot to make himself look better. No, surely not! That would be exactly what he is accusing Apple of doing! And someone as intelligent and professional as the man who wrote this stunning deconstruction would never be so hypocritical. :rolleyes:
It only has one optical bay? And 2 internal HD bays? And no RAID?
That's...astounding...espcially considering that the "all in one" super drives have high seek latency times..and guess what? You then get to burn up your super drive doing menial tasks like installing applications, so when it dies, you have the honor and privlage of spending another $200+ on a super drive.
Calling it a heat issue is complete BS..well, maybe if they didn't encase the whole thing in a massive insulator (plastic) they wouldn't have so many thermal problems. But hey, form over function anyday right?
Well, Props to you, David of Mac, for standing up for macs *AND* being rational :D
I'm always annoyed at the Mac fanatics who rant about it being good just because it's a Mac, and the Windows/Linux fanatics rant about it being bad for the same reason.
Kejan... you can add FibreChannel PCI-X raid cards on the Apple Store. They're more for connecting the G5 to a bunch of Xserves or the Xraid device.
Yep I have the same concerns about burning out Superdrives. Thats why I added an additional cdrom to my dual 867 G4 so I don't use the Superdrive as much. I will get round to adding a cdrw instead at some point which would save the superdrive even more.
The 'heat issue' is what I've seen mentioned on a few forums so there's nothing official from Apple. The whole G5 case is in fact made of aluminium, the days of plastic case fittings on the pro towers is numbered. From the pictures the G5 looks more rugged, industrial and more functional that previous Apple designs.
1. Linux isn't mainstream [b]consumer[/b] yet, and using that to dis Microsoft, well, it's just a stupid remark. Linux isn't HT-aware yet, so it STILL cripples the test.
2. Using a compiler that's Mac Optimized but not intel optimized is even dumber. Who's going to compile a commercial app with a crap compiler? Most studios nowaday's actually use VectorC compiler for best executable speeds, and that has special modules that optimize for P3/P4/k6/Athlon (several applications nowadays are "CPU aware," and can even select the proper optimization to run).
3. Not using HT is like disabling a Turbo on a Saab 9-3 so you can compare it to a base VW Golf on an "even playing field." It's just plain...asinine.
4. Do some real world tests. Do some hardcore matrix math in a 64Kilocell Excel Spreadsheet, compare lightwave/maya render times, compare database search speeds. Run Gaming Demos: QDEMO1, UT2003demo, JK2demo...
Once again, I'm not subscribing to one platform being better than another...but, in this case, Apple really acted stupidly.
Now, if you want to compare Steve Jobs to Bill Gates, go rent "the pirates of Silicon Valley" sometime. Tell you what, Gates, at least, isn't a scuzzball. This was a hard one for me, because growing up I loved Macs, and finding out about Jobs and how he, well, treats folks, was very...disappointing.
All that aside, I think Apple really needs to re-focus their marketing. Taking on PCs/Microsoft head on will, ultimately, be self destructive for them because the Average PC life cycle is ~6 months, whereas apple turns out new configurations 1 to 1-1/2 years. Assuming that apple was actually right in this (heavily questionable) test, it will all be trivial when 4.0GHz HT CPUs come out in August (or thereabouts).
They really need to capitalize on their differences, rather than their "raw CPU power," I actually thought the "Think Different" campaign was very clever, and to the point.
I will say this, deleting and installing anything, be it software OR hardware, is still a closer to brainless task on a Mac than a PC. Allot of it has to do with the fact that they thought out the OS very well way back in 1984, making the programs and all thier settings encapsulated, rather than dispersed all through many ini & cfg files, and haphazardly strewn into a registry file. From a user's standpoint, the Mac is a clean, unintimidating machine. XP still has a ways to go to hit that simplicity level. It's going to be hard to get there with it, though, because all the users want as much "legacy compatibility" as possible.
But I ramble.
Short version: Get a new campaign, Apple. This one is just going to cost you.
I just don't understand how people cna call what Apple did as right. That is what this is all about. This all came up too about Nvidia cheating. I was an avid Nvidia supporter and even owned 3 generations of video cards from them(GF2, GF3, and GF4) I turned on them because it was wrong. I also bought an ATi 9800 pro because it was the better performer. It is no different from what Apple did. They are in the wrong plain and simple and there is no way to get around it. It is not only this guy who is making an article like this. They are popping up on other sites where the true scores on the Intel rigs are posted. They also "just happen to exclude" the tests performed(months in advance I might add) on those same machines where the playing field was even instead of crippling the P4 to dramaticly holding it back. To me it is not about which machine is better or which does what 3.2 seconds faster it is about the fact they CHEATED to capture more of the market. It is unethical and plain and simply unacceptable to do. They cheated and now they have to really work their way back to a respectable status they once had just like Nvidia has to do now.
You know, I just had a thought: If I worked in Marketing (knock on wood) for a major computer company, I would fudge those numbers until they tasted like Hershey's, because benchmarks are a subjective and variable measure of quality, yet they look objective and infallible. So I have to wonder, how many other computer companies creatively take advantage of their benchmarks?
My guess: All of them.
Case in point: The Quake 3 framerates on [url=http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/]this page[/url] have been contested as being too low for the PCs in question. Now, apparently, the reason for this is, the PC people who did those benchmarks did them with the sound turned off, as this causes a dramatic performance boost in PCs, and, therefore, make the numbers more impressive. There's no other reason to do this*, unless there is a strong movement in the PC community to play their games with the sound turned off, eliminating helpful aural cues (footsteps and such).
The difference is less dramatic on Macs, so Apple did their tests with the sound on (you know, how you would actually play the game), resulting in lower (but more realistic) benchmarks for the PC.
Ladies and gents, I give you marketing. It's not just for Apple anymore.
*Unless, of course, you're testing a video card exclusively or something, in which case you'd want to shut off anything that would affect performance excessively. However, in my book, you have to wonder about a computer that requires so much processing power for [i]sound[/i] that it noticeably affects [i]video[/i].
I don't think that anyone was saying Apple is the only one that does this. Everyone does this.
Hell, according to ATI, I should be getting 180FPS with everything turned on in Quake 3 Arena...but I dont.
I think that the point that this person was trying to make is that Apple was blatantly saying "this mac is the fastest PC on the planet,"' after noting several "questionable" settings on the two machines.
Some refer to this as "pulling an nVidia", after nVidia apparently wrote a driver to cheat on 3Dmark2003, making it appear to have a higher score than the Radeon 9800. Problem came up when you didn't see similar performance gains in production games. Problem got bigger when people that had the Pro version of 3Dmark2003 noticed a bunch of clipping planes that weren't supposed to be there when you moved the viewing camera in the app. They apparently did this to claim that the GeForce FX 5900 was faster than the Radeon9800Pro. Truth be known, the performance of both was nearly identical in gaming benchmarks.
This is why I prefer looking at pluralistic real-world benchmarks, that are based on an aggregate of the performance of both machines using the same software, each optimized for the system it's running on. Mostly because that's what most users care about. Too easy to cheat on "fixed" benchmarks.
I could give a rat's butt about MIPS, DIPS, FLIPS or DRIPS. All I care is "will Lightwave render faster?", "are software compile times quicker?", and "will it run Half Life 2?" ;)
Yeah they have a lot, it took me a few days to figure them all out. The main hogs are trueform and vsync. Vsync will hurt any card where you run into smoke on very high detail. Too bad nothing uses trueform.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
Yeah with Trueform 1942 got pretty ugly. Anyways vsync will limit your framerate to the refresh rate of your monitor at that resolution. So say your max refreshrate is 75Hz you will max out at 75fps but once you get in a big battle or there are lots of smoke expect a big performance hit and go down to about 30fps or less. Personally I think it is useless. I really don't see any difference in picture quality with it on.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
It's designed to stop tearing, because it means that the monitor only ever draws full frames rather than half-updated frames. The problem is that if it takes longer to draw a full frame than it takes to refresh the monitor, it'll start taking even longer before you see the frame. So if your computer is drawing frames faster than the refresh rate, it'll be OK, but if it draws them slower than the refresh rate the actual frame rate will drop significantly since it'll spend lots of time waiting.
sigh.... marketing execs are only one ladder on the evolutionary ladder from lawyers, I should know, I've been in PR and marketing, and unfortunately they are all bullshit powered. I made the mistake of being honest, trying to sell a product/service on its merits, ( gasp! what a concept) and I didnt last too long inside a regular commecial agency.
I'm not suprised Jobs pulled this, he's a showman, and all showmen rely on smoke and mirrors.
Anyways, on the actual benchmarking...
It's all a load of bollocks, lets face it, unless the performance figures are stupedously different then it rarely matters.
Like Rick said (paraphrasing), "Does it run what I want it to run ok?" A second here or there doesnt matter for shit.
And yeah... Mac should stick to innovation, to challenging norms. Leave the poly chucking and number crunching to the 'Engineers' computers, the PC's and Mini-comps and Sun Stations et al.
~~~~
Last but not least, Apple has finally worked out that metal frames (die cast ones),are the way to go. I hope they 'infect' all the new machines out there with such ideas. Everyone whos ever owned a Powerbook or iBook knows the quickest way to kill a Mac is flex it's case a little. Titanium and Aluminium chassis rock... if we can have them in $100 video recorders we sure as hell can have them in a PC frame/case. It really would be nice to actually have a proper frame rather than slides and rails in a crap pressed metal case. They also make brilliant heatsinks, reducing the need for and size of fans...
Anyways... marketing bullshit aside, the new Macs look pretty good both aesthetically and in terms of performance.
Now all I need is to go to Pakistan and sell one of my kidneys to buy one. :D
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rick [/i]
[B]All that said and done, I really have no biases. I have owned Apple IIs, PCs, 3 Macs, and a couple of (somewhat delapidated) SGIs during my life with computers. When I was younger, I did get into the whole Amiga/Mac debate (as JohnD can attest), but with age comes wisdom...I guess :) [/B][/QUOTE]
Ayup. We grew out of that after freshman year. I think we even wrote the IQP document on your Mac SE, with the audio work being on my Amiga 3000.
[quote][b]Now, I can say, without question, that the worst computer [i]ever[/i] was the Sun 386i, a DOS/UNIX hybrid that they later aborted and gave everyone who had one full credit towards a newer machine. [/B][/QUOTE]
Wow. It was worse than your AT&T PC 6300...the one you had during your freshman year, in that closet of a single dorm room in Stoddard Complex? That's impressive.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rick [/i]
[B]and "will it run Half Life 2?" ;)[/B][/QUOTE]
And damn you for that one :)
Half Life 2 will take 2/3 of my entertainment budget for the month it's released. Hopefully I'll still be employed by then, unless I sink a sub or something, eh?
Comments
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i]
[B]Speaking of cheaper, the [url=http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/72304/wo/9mja8exBDHtV2ZLCs061O34O9OX/0.0.7.1.0.5.21.1.8.1.0.0.0.1.0]G4[/url] has a massive price slash going on right now. It's now as inexpensive as an iMac, and is perfect for people who hate the iMac because their heads are pointy. [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm not even sure how to interpret that... :)
-R.
I hate iMacs because they're low spec and overpriced. However, the 2nd iMac case is funky.
:D
[URL=http://www.haxial.com/spls-soapbox/apple-powermac-G5/]Read the bullsh!t Apple tried to pull off here[/URL]
I am [B]VERY[/B] disappointed in them and they look just as bad as Nvidia did when Nvidia got busted cheating on 3DMark 2k3. I just hope people don't go blindly flocking to the store based on false advertising.
Anyway this whole mine is faster than yours debate is stupid. There is not one 'Independent Test' out there that is balanced. Apple usually use Photoshop as they're benchmark... PC users complain that its biased. When PC's are tested they use an Intel Complier which actually speeds the machines up... not really real world stuff there! At the end of the day it all falls down to real world experience. And Ranger 1 don't you think it would be wise to wait for 'proper' actual hands on tests of the new G5 before saying they're crap and Apple has lied. Personally I'm waiting for the first actual built G5's to ship at the end of August and the subsequent intensive tests that will follow. Only then will I pass judgement.
Mac users don't care if its 'not as fast' as what Intel/AMD can throw out. As long as its faster than what went before thats whats important. So for the moment mac users are gonna sit back and laugh at the sudden backlash and mud slinging thats coming from the PC users who have been scared by the new IBM chipset.
And I must point out that the guy who wrote that article is a prat! Mac users are fanatics... ok yes some are... so does that mean there's no PC fanatics out there who upgrade at the slightest change in processor spec so they can brag at lan parties? Geeez. Yes I love Macs and I think Apple make great stuff (like the iPod, show me anything from a pc company that comes close). And I criticise Apple... god they're not perfect! Anybody that dishes out blind praise is an idiot! Take the new G5... now only 1 optical drive, down from 2 in the G4... why???? Thats pissed me off. Also there's only 2 hard drive bays, down from 4 in the G4.... why??? I've heard that heat may have been an issue but I'm annoyed at the removal of these extra expansion features.
Anyway like I said I will wait for the first batch of decent hands on tests of the new G5 once it has actually shipped! And then we will have to wait and see how the 64bit Panther OS will fair on the 64bit processor.
[URL=http://www.overclockers.com/tips00408/]http://www.overclockers.com/tips00408/[/URL] - That article sounds really biased but it shows what apple did was wrong. None of this would have come up if they never cheated and changed the scores intel got or a previously published article before they published their G5 article.
To summarize:
*Memory read-bypass was used for the benchmarking G5s because it is intended to be included with the shipping G5s.
*The Dells benchmarks were lower than Dells tests because Apple used the gcc compiler on both systems to level the playing field while Dell used Intel's own compiler which, unless something insanely illogical is going on, will not work on Apple's machines.
*Apple turned off hyperthreading and used Linux because the Dell scored higher that way, and would be happy to publish updated results with hyperthreading on and Windows running, as that would make the G5 look better than it already does.
Additionally, I take issue with the tone of the article.
[quote]Why didn't you find out then?? If the issue was important enough to respond, why didn't you take 5 minutes to call someone who would know the answer to that question? [b]Because you already knew the answer to the question, but didn't want to say it, because it is embarrassing.[/b][/quote]
I like the bolded section a lot. It always amuses me when people take supposition, mix it with a confrontational attitude, and call it fact. Okay, that's a lie. It bugs the hell out of me. It reminds me of an evil lawyer in a bad legal drama.
And going on about this "Subtracting one dollar to make the price look smaller" is positively asinine. I am insulted that this writer would go to the depths of pettiness to help prove his point. And why would he need to do it, unless the information he was giving didn't adequately show that "Apple is an evil propaganda organization that considers us idiotic sheep"?
Never mind all the half truths and such, like:
[quote]Furthermore, the claim that the benchmarks are "independent" is another example of Apple trying to mislead people because:
* On the first page of the Veritest report, it says:
"Test report prepared under contract from Apple Computer"
[/quote]Of course they had a contract! What, do you expect Apple to ship prototype computers to benchmark companies with a little yellow sticky note saying "Please compare to a WinTel computer in a fair and impartial manner and relay the results to Apple Computer, inc. On or before June 22, 2003. And don't tell anyone about this, okay?" They needed to arrange payment (unless the company is in the business of doing work for free) and make sure Veritest wouldn't blab about the G5 'till Apple was good and ready. Jeeze.
[quote]* In the "Key findings" on page 1 of the Veritest report, the negative key findings are mysteriously absent. [/quote]There's nothing really "mysterious" about that until you call it "mysterious", is there? I doubt that, say, many of the lines under "Key Findings" are blacked out, a la classified information released by the Freedom of Information Act
[quote]* Independent means that Apple had no influence on the report, when it is obvious that they did. [/quote]
Circular logic. How true to form. Apple influenced the report. Why? Because the G5 scored higher. Why is the G5 scoring higher false? Because Apple influenced the report. How do you know? Because the G5 scored higher...
And isn't odd how this guy never got any well thought out, rational replies from Mac users? Unless, of course, he is simply picking the most inane and abrasive letters of the lot to make himself look better. No, surely not! That would be exactly what he is accusing Apple of doing! And someone as intelligent and professional as the man who wrote this stunning deconstruction would never be so hypocritical. :rolleyes:
That's...astounding...espcially considering that the "all in one" super drives have high seek latency times..and guess what? You then get to burn up your super drive doing menial tasks like installing applications, so when it dies, you have the honor and privlage of spending another $200+ on a super drive.
Calling it a heat issue is complete BS..well, maybe if they didn't encase the whole thing in a massive insulator (plastic) they wouldn't have so many thermal problems. But hey, form over function anyday right?
[B]I need 8 gigabytes of ram to play solitaire! [/B][/QUOTE]
lol..... I don't think solitaire is even included in an OS X install..... lol.....
I'm always annoyed at the Mac fanatics who rant about it being good just because it's a Mac, and the Windows/Linux fanatics rant about it being bad for the same reason.
Yep I have the same concerns about burning out Superdrives. Thats why I added an additional cdrom to my dual 867 G4 so I don't use the Superdrive as much. I will get round to adding a cdrw instead at some point which would save the superdrive even more.
The 'heat issue' is what I've seen mentioned on a few forums so there's nothing official from Apple. The whole G5 case is in fact made of aluminium, the days of plastic case fittings on the pro towers is numbered. From the pictures the G5 looks more rugged, industrial and more functional that previous Apple designs.
1. Linux isn't mainstream [b]consumer[/b] yet, and using that to dis Microsoft, well, it's just a stupid remark. Linux isn't HT-aware yet, so it STILL cripples the test.
2. Using a compiler that's Mac Optimized but not intel optimized is even dumber. Who's going to compile a commercial app with a crap compiler? Most studios nowaday's actually use VectorC compiler for best executable speeds, and that has special modules that optimize for P3/P4/k6/Athlon (several applications nowadays are "CPU aware," and can even select the proper optimization to run).
3. Not using HT is like disabling a Turbo on a Saab 9-3 so you can compare it to a base VW Golf on an "even playing field." It's just plain...asinine.
4. Do some real world tests. Do some hardcore matrix math in a 64Kilocell Excel Spreadsheet, compare lightwave/maya render times, compare database search speeds. Run Gaming Demos: QDEMO1, UT2003demo, JK2demo...
Once again, I'm not subscribing to one platform being better than another...but, in this case, Apple really acted stupidly.
Now, if you want to compare Steve Jobs to Bill Gates, go rent "the pirates of Silicon Valley" sometime. Tell you what, Gates, at least, isn't a scuzzball. This was a hard one for me, because growing up I loved Macs, and finding out about Jobs and how he, well, treats folks, was very...disappointing.
-R.
They really need to capitalize on their differences, rather than their "raw CPU power," I actually thought the "Think Different" campaign was very clever, and to the point.
I will say this, deleting and installing anything, be it software OR hardware, is still a closer to brainless task on a Mac than a PC. Allot of it has to do with the fact that they thought out the OS very well way back in 1984, making the programs and all thier settings encapsulated, rather than dispersed all through many ini & cfg files, and haphazardly strewn into a registry file. From a user's standpoint, the Mac is a clean, unintimidating machine. XP still has a ways to go to hit that simplicity level. It's going to be hard to get there with it, though, because all the users want as much "legacy compatibility" as possible.
But I ramble.
Short version: Get a new campaign, Apple. This one is just going to cost you.
-R.
SGI OWNZ j000!!!!!
:)
(just a little light humour)...
-R.
My guess: All of them.
Case in point: The Quake 3 framerates on [url=http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/]this page[/url] have been contested as being too low for the PCs in question. Now, apparently, the reason for this is, the PC people who did those benchmarks did them with the sound turned off, as this causes a dramatic performance boost in PCs, and, therefore, make the numbers more impressive. There's no other reason to do this*, unless there is a strong movement in the PC community to play their games with the sound turned off, eliminating helpful aural cues (footsteps and such).
The difference is less dramatic on Macs, so Apple did their tests with the sound on (you know, how you would actually play the game), resulting in lower (but more realistic) benchmarks for the PC.
Ladies and gents, I give you marketing. It's not just for Apple anymore.
*Unless, of course, you're testing a video card exclusively or something, in which case you'd want to shut off anything that would affect performance excessively. However, in my book, you have to wonder about a computer that requires so much processing power for [i]sound[/i] that it noticeably affects [i]video[/i].
Hell, according to ATI, I should be getting 180FPS with everything turned on in Quake 3 Arena...but I dont.
I think that the point that this person was trying to make is that Apple was blatantly saying "this mac is the fastest PC on the planet,"' after noting several "questionable" settings on the two machines.
Some refer to this as "pulling an nVidia", after nVidia apparently wrote a driver to cheat on 3Dmark2003, making it appear to have a higher score than the Radeon 9800. Problem came up when you didn't see similar performance gains in production games. Problem got bigger when people that had the Pro version of 3Dmark2003 noticed a bunch of clipping planes that weren't supposed to be there when you moved the viewing camera in the app. They apparently did this to claim that the GeForce FX 5900 was faster than the Radeon9800Pro. Truth be known, the performance of both was nearly identical in gaming benchmarks.
This is why I prefer looking at pluralistic real-world benchmarks, that are based on an aggregate of the performance of both machines using the same software, each optimized for the system it's running on. Mostly because that's what most users care about. Too easy to cheat on "fixed" benchmarks.
I could give a rat's butt about MIPS, DIPS, FLIPS or DRIPS. All I care is "will Lightwave render faster?", "are software compile times quicker?", and "will it run Half Life 2?" ;)
-R.
-R.
I'll have to double check vsync, though. I think I disabled that.
Thanks guys...
-R.
I'm not suprised Jobs pulled this, he's a showman, and all showmen rely on smoke and mirrors.
Anyways, on the actual benchmarking...
It's all a load of bollocks, lets face it, unless the performance figures are stupedously different then it rarely matters.
Like Rick said (paraphrasing), "Does it run what I want it to run ok?" A second here or there doesnt matter for shit.
And yeah... Mac should stick to innovation, to challenging norms. Leave the poly chucking and number crunching to the 'Engineers' computers, the PC's and Mini-comps and Sun Stations et al.
~~~~
Last but not least, Apple has finally worked out that metal frames (die cast ones),are the way to go. I hope they 'infect' all the new machines out there with such ideas. Everyone whos ever owned a Powerbook or iBook knows the quickest way to kill a Mac is flex it's case a little. Titanium and Aluminium chassis rock... if we can have them in $100 video recorders we sure as hell can have them in a PC frame/case. It really would be nice to actually have a proper frame rather than slides and rails in a crap pressed metal case. They also make brilliant heatsinks, reducing the need for and size of fans...
Anyways... marketing bullshit aside, the new Macs look pretty good both aesthetically and in terms of performance.
Now all I need is to go to Pakistan and sell one of my kidneys to buy one. :D
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rick [/i]
[B]All that said and done, I really have no biases. I have owned Apple IIs, PCs, 3 Macs, and a couple of (somewhat delapidated) SGIs during my life with computers. When I was younger, I did get into the whole Amiga/Mac debate (as JohnD can attest), but with age comes wisdom...I guess :) [/B][/QUOTE]
Ayup. We grew out of that after freshman year. I think we even wrote the IQP document on your Mac SE, with the audio work being on my Amiga 3000.
[quote][b]Now, I can say, without question, that the worst computer [i]ever[/i] was the Sun 386i, a DOS/UNIX hybrid that they later aborted and gave everyone who had one full credit towards a newer machine. [/B][/QUOTE]
Wow. It was worse than your AT&T PC 6300...the one you had during your freshman year, in that closet of a single dorm room in Stoddard Complex? That's impressive.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rick [/i]
[B]and "will it run Half Life 2?" ;)[/B][/QUOTE]
And damn you for that one :)
Half Life 2 will take 2/3 of my entertainment budget for the month it's released. Hopefully I'll still be employed by then, unless I sink a sub or something, eh?