Mac users: new Macs

[BoyElroy]

Thanks for the link. While the analysis was interesting, I was definitely taken aback by the venomous response he received from angry Mac users. Some of them sound more like religious fundamentalists than computer users. Yikes.

 

[Flasken]

Quote:

Originally posted by BoyElroy Thanks for the link. While the analysis was interesting, I was definitely taken aback by the venomous response he received from angry Mac users. Some of them sound more like religious fundamentalists than computer users. Yikes.

Yeah, even the replies from those who seem to know a bit about what they're talking about have sort of a religious overlay. Yikes

 

[CaptBubba]

Quote:

Originally posted by BoyElroy Thanks for the link. While the analysis was interesting, I was definitely taken aback by the venomous response he received from angry Mac users. Some of them sound more like religious fundamentalists than computer users. Yikes.

That's why I'm impressed about this thread, and that we haven't been beating each other over the head. I somewhat expected this kind of "benchmarks" from Apple, they have a bit of a reputation for "tweaking" benchmarks not only to be good for the G-whatever, but to be bad for the compitition. This is less problem based upon the coniving nature of apple, but instead the problem lies with benchmarks that can be unfairly tinkered with.

Unrelated note: why was fortran such a large part of the test? Is that language still in wide use in the desktop arena?

 

[MacDEF]

I'm going to comment on this sentence first, since it's at least rational:

Quote:

Originally posted by grinch i think in the long run it should be fairly obvious to anybody that you can't really trust a company's own benchmarks.

Well, yeah. You should never fully believe any company's own advertising spiel.



That said, on to the trolling...

Quote:

what apple did there is pretty pathetic though.

Sure. And the constant back-and-forth "benchmark" testing that AMD and Intel do to "prove" whose chips are faster is any more "honest"? Give me a break. When they do it, it's just advertising. When Apple does it, it's "dishonest." LOL


Quote:

oh well, i wish i had more money than brains so that i could afford to drop $4k on a new computer..

(Not only was that an idiotic statement, it doesn't even make sense, since the most expensive Mac is $3000

)


Quote:

thought i'd give you fanboys something to chew one with this link. it was written by one of your own, so you can't blame me heh.

LOL Funny how people who use both platforms and know more about them both than most people are called "fanboys" if they like Macs (or just the Mac OS), or even if they just happen to say something good about Macs, but are called "knowledgeable" or "computer experts" when they prefer Windows PCs. I find that the case is generally the opposite -- those who are so quick to criticize Apple and its users are generally anti-Apple people.

The other thing that's funny is that if one "disenchanted" Mac user writes something critical of Apple, legions of Wintel geeks trip over each other in the stampede to parade that user's comments around. "Ha ha, it was written by a Mac person. Therefore it must be the truth and all you Mac fanboys are wrong."

As for the article, the truth is that the kid who wrote that article didn't even attempt to present a rational, fair case. He didn't even bother to thoroughly read the documentation of the tests that he's so vehement in criticizing.

Apple's benchmarks are PR spin, there's no way of getting around that. From a technology point of view, the G5 is a pretty incredible chip, in a very impressive system. It's not as fast as Apple would have you believe, but it's nowhere near as slow as the kid who wrote that "article" claims. It's somewhere in between. Is it faster or slower than a P4 or Xeon system? I have no clue. And to be honest, I don't really care all that much, just like I don't really care all that much about which P4 or AMD chip is faster. Because in the real world, only a tiny, tiny proportion of users will ever come close to pushing any of these machines to their processing limits. I said that years ago, when the PowerPC was kicking x86 butt, and I still say it today, when the x86 chips seem to have an edge.

 

[grinch]

Quote:

Originally posted by MacDEF Sure. And the constant back-and-forth "benchmark" testing that AMD and Intel do to "prove" whose chips are faster is any more "honest"? Give me a break. When they do it, it's just advertising. When Apple does it, it's "dishonest." LOL

i agree with the fact that you can't trust company's own benchmarks and i did not mean for apple to be more untrustworthy than any other company in that respect. i apologize if i came off as feeling any differently. what i do feel is interesting though, is that people are saying the new processor is the fastest thing ever and when you peel back the marketing, this doesn't necessarily seem to be true. i thought it was an interesting point and i in no-way meant to crap the thread.

Quote:

(Not only was that an idiotic statement, it doesn't even make sense, since the most expensive Mac is $3000 )

the most expensive mac is $3k, and the cheapest monitor they have is $700, and a warranty that lasts past 90 days is $250. i was using the dual proc machine as a benchmark (pun intended) for price as i own a dual machine and can't ever go back to single-proc. this is the option that i'd buy. still, it just seems like a whole ****load of money to me.. but i'm guessing the top of the line intel dual xeon is equivalent, but the neat thing is intel also sells cheaper setups so that i could probably build a crazy dual xeon system easily for under $2k. this being made up of chips with the latest architecture and such.

Quote:

LOL Funny how people who use both platforms and know more about them both than most people are called "fanboys" if they like Macs (or just the Mac OS), or even if they just happen to say something good about Macs, but are called "knowledgeable" or "computer experts" when they prefer Windows PCs. I find that the case is generally the opposite -- those who are so quick to criticize Apple and its users are generally anti-Apple people. The other thing that's funny is that if one "disenchanted" Mac user writes something critical of Apple, legions of Wintel geeks trip over each other in the stampede to parade that user's comments around. "Ha ha, it was written by a Mac person. Therefore it must be the truth and all you Mac fanboys are wrong." As for the article, the truth is that the kid who wrote that article didn't even attempt to present a rational, fair case. He didn't even bother to thoroughly read the documentation of the tests that he's so vehement in criticizing. Apple's benchmarks are PR spin, there's no way of getting around that. From a technology point of view, the G5 is a pretty incredible chip, in a very impressive system. It's not as fast as Apple would have you believe, but it's nowhere near as slow as the kid who wrote that "article" claims. It's somewhere in between. Is it faster or slower than a P4 or Xeon system? I have no clue. And to be honest, I don't really care all that much, just like I don't really care all that much about which P4 or AMD chip is faster. Because in the real world, only a tiny, tiny proportion of users will ever come close to pushing any of these machines to their processing limits. I said that years ago, when the PowerPC was kicking x86 butt, and I still say it today, when the x86 chips seem to have an edge.

blah blah blah that troll picture is really dumb and is about as clever as a soap opera script. i was just trying to add some lively discussion about the new product. oh well, forgive me for attempting to throw some other angles of light on the subject.

 

[Flasken]

MacDEF,

While I generally see you as an Apple enthusiast with rational argumentation and meaningful responses - unlike many other apple enthusiast - you sometimes do come off as very emotional, defensive and touchy. I'm not sure if you're even aware of this, just as I'm not sure if the so called "fanboys" are aware of it, but sometimes rationalism does turn into strange claims and excuses.. This is coming from a completely neutral standpoint, and I only intend to give you a feeling of how you come off as a whole and am therefore not going to start with the random quoting and all that...

I think the reason for this occasional emotionality can be found with these questions:

Do you love Apple?
Do you love your Mac?

There must be some kind of irrational feeling involved, though it certainly isn't as substantial with you as it is with the people giving responses to the article...

By the way, I sure as hell don't love my wintel computer at all. If I had a mac and I loved it, would that make it superior to my wintel computer?

I do infact like the whole feel of the Apple franchise. Looking at presentation videos on their website gives me kind of an odd warm feeling. It's all perception and presentation, and Apple sure as hell are good at the last part.

Please try not to be insulted by this reply, and if you can honestly say that I'm totally wrong and that there aren't any emotions in play, simply say so without getting mad at me.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by grinch what i do feel is interesting though, is that people are saying the new processor is the fastest thing ever and when you peel back the marketing, this doesn't necessarily seem to be true.

Take a look at the ArsTechnica articles I posted earlier in the thread -- they'll give you a good, objective look at the 970/G5 chip.


Quote:

the most expensive mac is $3k, and the cheapest monitor they have is $700, and a warranty that lasts past 90 days is $250.

You don't have to buy an Apple monitor. My Mac system uses a Dell 18" flat-panel that cost <$400. The warranty on Apple products is 1 year, not 90 days. The total cost of the comparable dual-Xeon Dell system that I mentioned earlier, without a monitor, was over $4,000. I admit that I don't remember if the warranty was one or three years.



Quote:

i was using the dual proc machine as a benchmark (pun intended) for price as i own a dual machine and can't ever go back to single-proc. this is the option that i'd buy. still, it just seems like a whole ****load of money to me.. but i'm guessing the top of the line intel dual xeon is equivalent, but the neat thing is intel also sells cheaper setups so that i could probably build a crazy dual xeon system easily for under $2k. this being made up of chips with the latest architecture and such.

You can't buy a dual-Xeon system with similar specs from a "brand" company (Dell, HP, Compaq, Gateway, etc.) for less. That's the only point being made. As I mentioned above, Apple isn't competing for the $$$ of the "built-it-yourself" crowd, and neither are Dell, HP, and the like. You can always built your own PC and get better performance, given the time and patience.



Quote:

blah blah blah that troll picture is really dumb and is about as clever as a soap opera script. i was just trying to add some lively discussion about the new product. oh well, forgive me for attempting to throw some other angles of light on the subject.

Calling anyone who says anything positive about Apple or their products "fanboys" and mocking Apple users as having "more money than brains" is a troll. Mr. Troll only shows his face when other trolls are around

 

[cyberhazard]

Well I checked out spl's article and read the VeriTest G5 report. The fact is, there may be an unfair advantage going on here.
Both the Dell Dimension 8300 and the Precision 650 have 2GB of RAM. The PowerMac G5 has only 1.5GB. Whats up with that.

Bottom line, it seems that some intel using Zealots/Fanatics don't take an ass whooping very well.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by Flasken While I generally see you as an Apple enthusiast with rational argumentation and meaningful responses - unlike many other apple enthusiast - you sometimes do come off as very emotional, defensive and touchy. I'm not sure if you're even aware of this, just as I'm not sure if the so called "fanboys" are aware of it, but sometimes rationalism does turn into strange claims and excuses.This is coming from a completely neutral standpoint, and I only intend to give you a feeling of how you come off as a whole and am therefore not going to start with the random quoting and all that...

I think many Apple users DO come off as emotional and fanatical. There's no denying that. Just like many Republicans and Democrats wish that their more extremist party members would pipe down

many Mac users wish that their more fanatical platform brethren would shut up (or at least act civil).

However, it should also be pointed out that many of them feel that way because most Wintel PC users are ignorant and arrogant when it comes to Macs. They know nothing about them, and parrot factually incorrect information that they read in some column or Internet forum. I work in the industry, and I see it on a daily basis. Not just the idiots on the Wintel hardware forums -- even "respected" columnists. Because most Windows users don't know anything about Macs (or only "know" what they hear or read from other Windows users), they don't understand why someone would buy one or use one. Because they don't understand this, they treat Mac users like they're stupid or like they're idiots for using Macs. Just look at the Mac-related threads on Head-Fi: the vast majority of them include someone making stupid Mac-bashing comments, and most of the Mac/Windows debates are started by a non-Mac user making critical (and usually incorrect) statements about Macs.

Then there's the fact that for every "Mac fanatic," there are a dozen "Mac bashers" -- Windows users who are just as anti-Apple as the most pro-Apple people are pro-Apple. When 90% of the computer-user world uses a different platform, and a good number of those people are "Wintel geeks" who like trashing the Mac and Mac users, it's easy to see how Mac users would be defensive. After all, they have to spend half their time justifying why they use Macs.



But that's all about why some people are Mac "fanboys." What I find more interesting is your criticism of me personally. Sorry, flasken, but the problem here isn't my responses. It's that people tend to see any positive comments about Apple or their products as "emotional, defensive, and touchy." Look back at my comments in this thread: I've been critical of Apple's PR, but couched them in the context of the industry as a whole. I've pointed out objective articles about the new Apple/IBM processor (ones that aren't "gung ho" PR spiel). And do you see any "strange claims" in my responses? The most "emotional" I've gotten is to call a troll a troll -- nothing really exciting or hormonally charged

I'm a cross-platform person -- I've worked in IT with Unix, Mac OS, and Windows. I work in a job where I need to be aware of true costs and benefits. If I come off as "defending" Apple in these forums, it's not because I'm a "fanboy" or an "Apple enthusiast" -- it's because I'm actually educated on the topic and there are an inordinate number of ignorant comments made about Apple and, at times, even blatantly anti-Apple stuff that simply isn't factually correct. As a platform with single-digit market share, it's hard enough for Apple to compete in the tech market without people purposely or accidentally making disparaging, but incorrect, statements about them. Heck, if you read all of my comments on Head-Fi, I've given props to Windows, criticized Apple, commended Linux, and even taken issue with comments made by Apple fans. In general, I've been pretty fair.

The problem here, IMO, is that people (including some participating in this thread) view anyone who says anything pro-Apple as a "fanboy" and then filter comments through that lens. So you see me as an "Apple fan." Do I like Macs and the Mac OS? Yes, especially OS X, which is much, much better than OS 9 and before. However, I don't hate Windows or any other OS. I have lots of experience with them. Windows XP is, despite the superfluous eye candy, an excellent OS.


Quote:

There must be some kind of irrational feeling involved, though it certainly isn't as substantial with you as it is with the people giving responses to the article...

This is actually a funny point -- many Linux fans are just as fanatical about their OS as the extreme Mac users, but no one characterizes their attachment as "irrational." There's nothing "irrational" about liking your chosen OS, even loving it for what it does. People have different value systems, and different things are appealing to them.

Quote:

By the way, I sure as hell don't love my wintel computer at all. If I had a mac and I loved it, would that make it superior to my wintel computer?

For you, yes. And that's what it's all about

 

[BoyElroy]

Quote:

As for the article, the truth is that the kid who wrote that article didn't even attempt to present a rational, fair case. He didn't even bother to thoroughly read the documentation of the tests that he's so vehement in criticizing. --MacDef

Yo, MacDef, bit of an exageration, isn't it? At no point did I find the reviewer "vehement" in his analysis. If you disagree, big deal. Just don't go out of your way (like so many Mac worshippers) to twist and warp his words.

There are discrepencies in Apple's test claims. They have had certain issues before with test claims. Consequently, until an independent test lab can run some head to head comparisons, we should take these Apple claims with a grain o' salt. No biggie. Chill out.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by BoyElroy Yo, MacDef, bit of an exageration, isn't it? At no point did I find the reviewer "vehement" in his analysis. If you disagree, big deal. Just don't go out of your way (like so many Mac worshippers) to twist and warp his words.

Perhaps your own bias is showing?

"Warp his words?" Vehement means "expressing or showing intense feeling." You find nothing "vehement" with the phrase "Apple was attempting to deliberately MISLEAD me"? Note the all caps to emphasize "mislead." I call that "vehement," by definition -- not a convincing way to start an article that is supposed to be persuasive. And that was my point -- he began his argument by vehemently stating that Apple was deliberately trying to mislead him, yet his argument is unconvincing.

As for the "he's a Mac user, he he" comment Grinch made, I had fun reading some of the other stuff on his site this afternoon. If you really believe his "but I'm a Mac fan" comments, I've got some land in Florida to sell you

My issue with the guy is that he's not too bright. His analysis is flawed and not fully informed, and he doesn't even reply to legitimate criticism. Read his "responses" to "hate mail" (not mail sent to him; he went out and found posts on forums around the web and posted the "worst" to his site -- think he's really trying to be objective?). When someone made a good point (like where they pointed out that his assertion that few people use floating point was flawed), his response is to mock them.


The other thing I find interesting about this whole discussion is that in the keynote presentation, Jobs actually said, point blank, that the dual-G5 system is slower in some things than the dual-Xeon system; specifically, in integer calculations. On the other hand, they also did real-world demos showing the two machines in use, using apps optimized for each platform, so that guy's criticisms about the benchmarks aren't relevant to these other tests.

Basically, although I don't take Apple's benchmarks too seriously, I'll wait for *real* experts to do benchmarks, rather than some kid who doesn't understand basic programming selectively criticizing.


Quote:

There are discrepencies in Apple's test claims. They have had certain issues before with test claims. Consequently, until an independent test lab can run some head to head comparisons, we should take these Apple claims with a grain o' salt. No biggie. Chill out.

Chill out? Go back and read my posts in this thread. I clearly stated that Apple's test results were biased in their favor.

 

[aeberbach]

After having believed misleading claims about the speed of the G4 series (which I owned) I have no more respect for Apple's claims. The problem wasn't that it didn't do Photoshop well but that it wasn't snappy to use and real tasks like video were slow, possibly suffering from lack of memory bandwidth which I note the new architecture addresses.

The very best thing Apple could do - if it really is that fast - is to send a machine to a respected third party, somewhere nonpartisan and thorough like Arstechnica, NOT like Tom's Hardware. I would trust their tests and report more than anything Jobs could say. On the other hand if this is more G4 dodgy-benchmark smoke & mirrors it's about the worst thing they could do. Either way tests from other sources will appear eventually. Since I've decided not to think about buying one until I get 10.3 bundled rather than as a $129 extra that will be soon enough.

(edit: thoughts from Hannibal at ArsTechnica are up - he's the guy that wrote the nice two-part 970 article. He must have been reading this thread.)

 

[BoyElroy]

MacDef---

I think the fact that you're getting yourself so worked up over this is telling. Apple, like any big company, is capable of misjudgements. Nothing they do is above consumer criticism and to get so lathered up over one person's attempt to paint Apple's behavior in a certain light shows a degree of ill-considered intolerance on your part.

Isn't it within the realm of possibility that Apple has cooked the numbers? This is not the only website to question the somewhat odd numbers claimed by Apple. Apple is a company in financial trouble. Why is it so inconceivable to you that Apple may have stacked the decks in its favor? Does Apple represent all that is good and moral in this universe? I think not. They are in business to make money. Steve Jobs job, as it were, is to maximize shareholder value and make money. It is fundamentally no different than Microsoft or Enron.

Maybe Apple made a perfectly legitimate claim. Maybe they didn't. But the "no, my Apple would never do anything like that, officer" reaction of Mac supporters like yourself shows more than a hint of irrationality.

 

[Russ Arcuri]

Quote:

Originally posted by BoyElroy Isn't it within the realm of possibility that Apple has cooked the numbers?

Do you even bother reading what MacDEF wrote before responding to it? MacDEF already conceded, 2 or 3 times, that Apple's numbers are probably based on testing under biased conditions. He also pointed out that other companies are doing the same thing -- running tests for their products under optimized conditions.

What he didn't say, but probably should have, is that the numbers this so-called Mac "fan" published to contradict Apple's numbers are those pulled directly off of the Dell website. So somehow Apple's numbers represent dishonesty, and Dell's represent accuracy and fair reporting? If I was doing the testing at Dell, I certainly would run every test under as many different conditions as I could, and then only report the best numbers. All computer manufacturers are going to do the same thing. As MacDEF already pointed out, when Apple does this, they're accused of "dishonesty." When other companies do the same thing, it's either not questioned or minimized.

MacDEF suggested that we should wait for independent, unbiased testers to run these machines through real-world tryouts. It seems reasonable to me. Quote:

Apple is a company in financial trouble.

This is a common myth based on nothing. Most computer makers wish they had the financial stability that Apple currently enjoys. With over 4 billion dollars in cash available for R&D and investments, Apple is still going strong. Many investment houses have upgraded Apple's stock rating to "strong buy" and "buy" in the last month alone. Check your numbers and get back to me...

 

[orl2222]

And while on the subject, Mac's bluetooth support is sadly lacking. Lack of the usual bluetooth profiles used by PDAs and such. They basically only support certain bluetooth phones


I disagree. I use a Ibook for my work purposes, I have a bluetooth adpator running out of one of the usb ports. At one of my dealers the training coordinator/IT manager had a pocket pc beleive it or not, and i was able to transer a power point file to him. My Ibook automatically recognized it as a pocket pc, I clicked on it, then transfered the file.

As far as I'm concerned I still use my Dell pc as server, and also my Ibook. Heck, Ive got a Linskys wirlessless network set up at home, I can transer files from one to the other, and even print remotely from my Ibook to my windows printer. I am a mac user, and I love the fact that its mostly virius safe for now, and OSX is very very stable. My IBOOK HAS NEVER CRASHED! My windows machine running XP has a few times on me. I guess what im say is that with OSX, the distinction of purely MAc vs. PC is actually eroading away.

As I've often said in here, don't knock it till you try it. If we all had close minds on this board, we still all be listen to cheap ear buds, and buying our audio equipment at walmart.