Slashdot Mirror


Apple G5 Ads Banned In UK

Justen writes "The Independent Television Commission has quietly banned Apple from airing an advertisement (in QuickTime here) for the Power Mac G5 in the UK. The Committee says that, prior to the initial broadcast of the ad, it was critical of the assertion that the Power Mac G5 is "the world's fastest, most powerful personal computer." However, Apple supplied what was asserted to be "fair and even" data, based partially on SPEC benchmarks, which "substantiated" Apple's claims and "satisfied" the concerns of their "IT expert." However, the Committee says some "viewers complained that the advertising was misleading," and thus, after an investigation, it reversed its original decision. The Committee has now decided that the ad "should not be re-shown in its current form." Conspiracy theorists take note, Apple's sales in the UK are up 36%, so far, this year."

709 comments

  1. Conspiracy? Yes. by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    Conspiracy theorists take note, Apple's sales in the UK are up 36%, so far, this year.

    .. sure, but I'll also note that The site www.itc.org.uk is running Microsoft-IIS/4.0 on NT4/Windows 98. It's a ploy by Microsoft to bring that 36% number 'under control'..

    ..where's my tin foil hat?

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by markxsd · · Score: 3, Funny

      Independent IT expert becomes one of The Ten Most Overpaid Jobs In The U.K.

    2. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, just typically English. We have a fairly high standard of 'truth' in advertising here. I know its old fashioned but we beleive you can't just say any crap you want and be excused because 'its an advert'. Its called the dividing line between fact and fantasy.

      I saw the ad myself. I even remember thinking "thats a pretty bold claim" and wondering if anyone except me would even think to research/analyse/evaluate/complain.

      So people did complain. Good show!

      Because its simply NOT TRUE.

      Plenty of big iron boxes like Crays and IBM are obviously more powerful machines. The ad contains a blatently FALSE sataement.

      Apple merely wishes it were true. Which is not the same as it being true.

      btw I quite like Apple computers, and still do.

    3. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by AbbyNormal · · Score: 0

      Not after Slashdot is done with them.

      --
      Sig it.
    4. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by NightSpots · · Score: 2, Funny

      Up 36% ... to a whopping 136 total. Whoopdie-do.

    5. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by darkgreen · · Score: 4, Insightful
      big iron boxes like Crays and IBM are obviously more powerful

      While i would concede a point arguing that the current intel offerings are as fast or faster, I have to ask the question :

      what world do you live in where a Cray is considered a personal computer?!

      --
      You don't need Geeksintraining if you're on Slashdot.
    6. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by radio4fan · · Score: 1

      Plenty of big iron boxes like Crays and IBM are obviously more powerful machines. The ad contains a blatently FALSE sataement.


      Which is why it said "the world's fastest, most powerful personal computer".

    7. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you would classify those Crays as "personal computers?" The add _does_ claim that they are the world's fastest "personal computer"

    8. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by mahdi13 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I thought everyone used Crays as personal computers and that I was poor, stuck with a $2000 PC...
      phew! Thanks for clearing that up!

      --
      "Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
    9. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Xunker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since when was any "big iron" a personal computer, eh? How often have you seen a Cray for sale at CompUSA or Time?

      People made the same argument about Apple claiming it was the first 64-bit personal computer: "I have an Ultra 5 right here on my desk", but a Sun is not a personal computer, neither is an RS/6000, ad nauseum.

      And remember, in the USA, "the fastest" really means "as fast as the competition." As long as all three brands of washing powder clean as well as each other they are the "the best".

      --
      Hilary Rosen's speech was about her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money.
    10. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG to %new_catchphrase!

    11. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have a Cray?

      Sure I had to demolish the dining room to get it the house, but you should see it run Quake.

    12. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "%"???? Learn a real language, chump.

    13. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple said they were the fastest personal computer, you idiot. I don't know too many people with a cray in their office.

    14. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      System variables in windows, idiot....

    15. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 1
      but a Sun is not a personal computer, neither is an RS/6000, ad nauseum

      There were personal computers made that used Alphas, which were 64-bit.

    16. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by bensgroi · · Score: 0

      yeah, i'm sure MS is paranoid about Apple's daunting 2.5% market share in the UK.

      --
      You'll like being a dude!
    17. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      Plenty of big iron boxes like Crays and IBM are obviously more powerful machines. The ad contains a blatently FALSE sataement.

      The statement may indeed be false, but talking about "big iron" certainly doesn't prove that. Last I checked, an IBM zSeries was not a "personal computer."

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    18. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by kelzer · · Score: 1

      There were personal computers made that used Alphas, which were 64-bit.

      Oh, yeah, that's right! Now I remember seeing them at BestBuy a few years ago. Right next to the SGI Onyx boxes.

      --

      ---------------------------------------------
      SERENITY NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    19. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Nexum · · Score: 1

      As one of the only personal computer makers to be experiencing continued growth worldwide, as well as innovating on the platform whilst selling a quarter of a million computers every month worldwide - with half of them ex-us (ie mostly europe)...

      The company deserves more goddamn respect than you're giving sonny!

      :)

      --

      This sig has been deprecated.
    20. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by valmont · · Score: 1

      the ad clearly states PERSONAL computer. Cray does not qualify.

    21. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by the+morgawr · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      While i would concede a point arguing that the current intel offerings are as fast or faster

      The claim is that the G5 is the fastest personal computer. It'd dual processor @ 2GHz. Last I checked you couldn't get a personal dual processor system for the x86 platform. I find it hard to believe that for any reasonable work load, a dual processor system wouldn't beat a single proc one.

      --
      The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
    22. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 1

      It's not actually unusual for a company to be forced to pull a misleading advertisement. The laws in England regarding advertising are FAR stricter than this side of the pond. (Which is far too lax IMO.)

    23. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by DAldredge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then the dual Athlon MP/Tyan system sitting to my left must not be real! Thanks for letting me know!

      All joking aside, you have been able to buy dual processor desktops for A LONG time.

    24. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you. It's comments like that that make slashdot worth reading, even with all the crap flowing around.

    25. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by alex_ant · · Score: 0

      I'm sure it runs quake really well with no graphics hardware in emulation because id software never ported it to Unicos! hahaha meep meep snort snort AGH!! I'm missing mst3k!!!!!!!

    26. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by vslashg · · Score: 5, Funny

      So, seven people have replied to you now, saying that Crays and IBMs aren't "personal computers".

      Now, see, I'm above that. Adding an eighth such statement would only serve to increase the clutter and confusion. It's become accepted that we /.ers don't read the articles, but I don't want to shatter the illusion that we actually read each other's comments.

      So, just letting you know that, uhm, I'm not going to do that. You're welcome.

    27. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      The claim is that the G5 is the fastest personal computer. It'd dual processor @ 2GHz. Last I checked you couldn't get a personal dual processor system for the x86 platform.

      I have two in my house. One of them is so old (Pentium Pro) that I have yanked the motherboard out of the case and recycled it with a new motherboard. My main coding machine is a three year old dual Pentium III 650MHz box. That is also getting long in the tooth.

      I would not bother with a dual processor machine to replace it since the bottleneck for my applications is not the CPU, its the memory/CPU interface and the disk drives, not raw CPU speed.

      The definition of 'Personal Computer' is usually accepted to be computer for personal rather than shared use. By that criteria my machine definitely counts since it is speced the way it is to be used for video editing, it was hardly unusual at the time. Equally there are plenty of folk with dual processor intel boxes under their desks - I believe it is the standard setup for our engineering dept.

      So no, the G5 claim does not wash.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    28. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      You mean there were some cheaply hacked together computers using Alphas - which still were more expensive than Macs at the time.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    29. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's become accepted that we /.ers don't read the articles"

      Article? You mean this isn't a chat room?

    30. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by brownaroo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Yes and I would also like to let you know that I read all these redundent comments, but to go one better I read yours as well.

    31. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by the+morgawr · · Score: 3, Insightful
      you have been able to buy dual processor desktops for A LONG time.

      I know that, I run a dual Xeon System. The fact that you and I (not to mention other computer geeks) have these systems and probably use them as personal systems, does not make them "personal computers".

      Going to dell.com and looking under home, or students, you won't find dual processor systems. The same is true of almost every other x86 vendor. Apple on the other hand markets it's dual processor systems to home users.

      This leads to my conclusion: From the stand point of "personal computers" (and we can argue about what this really means all day), I'd be shocked if the highest end (dual processor) Apple couldn't out perform the highest end "personal computer" from an Intel vendor(which will inevitably be a UP).

      --
      The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
    32. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by scotch · · Score: 1
      From Merriam-Webster:

      Personal Computer: (n) any computer that is sold at Best Buy (tm)

      Wow - I guess you're correct!

      --
      XML causes global warming.
    33. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by the+morgawr · · Score: 1
      Read this this

      My claim was not that you can't get dual processor intel systems, but that if you call up any x86 vendor and ask for a personal computer, you won't be presented with the option of a dual processor configuration. If you call Apple you will. Therefore from at least one point of view their claim can be viewed as correct.

      --
      The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
    34. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I just did some surfing, for $750 you can buy a bare frame with motherboard and PSU that will take dual 3.2 MHz Xeon processors. It should be possible to fully kit out the machine for $3K all in, even if you go for insane amounts of RAM and a high end video card.

      And yes, $3K is definitely a personal machine. Its the same as Apple want for their G5.

      The slight of hand here is that Apple is classifying the competition as being something different. Basically the Apple definition of PC seems to be 'any computer less powerful than our flagship'.

      The UK Advertising council does not accept half truths.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    35. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not.. Windows environment variables begin and end with "%"

    36. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Until you can concretely define "personal computer" in a way that can be shown to be the generally accepted defintion people hearing the ad would assume, that qualifier is meaningless. I could claim that I have the fastest personal computer, if I define "personal computer" to be "A computer owned by me."

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    37. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by CelloJake · · Score: 1

      Price does not determine market entirely. The motherboard you chose was not probobly not developed for the general personal computing market. Secondly, you bought peices, not a personal computer. If toyota claims that it has the most horsepower of any sedan in its class it does not have to stand up to your ability to build an engine and chassis which have a higher peak horsepower.

      -Jacob

    38. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm new here, why is the parent flamebait?

    39. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by jazzis · · Score: 1

      Idiot moderator.....

    40. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " The laws in England regarding advertising are FAR stricter than this side of the pond. (Which is far too lax IMO.)"

      I'll say. Like that KFC ad that starts off with the wife talking about eating healthier, starting today, then pulling out some KFC? Well... yes, it does have less fat than a whopper, but since when is, "less fat than a whopper," the definition of, healthy? Anything deep fried in oil that's been boiling for hours on end is NOT healthy, PERIOD. Heating oil causes a variety of chemical changes to oil.

      Anyway enough with the rambling...

    41. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by CrowScape · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except for the fact that I can go to a newegg and buy a dual processor mother boards from a list that mixes them in with single processor mother boards. Now, are you contending that sites like newegg do not cater heavily to personal users?

      The enthusiast/do-it-yourself market throws a wrench in advertisment-based categories. Instead, price and capabilities become the things to look at, not what some .jpg image with an href tag says on the internet. Under those metrics, if the G5 is a personal computer, so is your dual Xeon.

      You also have to deal with the fact that in its marketing efforts Apple does go and compare it to Xeon based systems, so it can't go and say "don't compare me to a server/workstation" now.

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    42. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by gladbach · · Score: 1

      omg. give it up. You might not be able to go to dell, but there are plenty of smaller firms that you can order "personal dual cpu computers" from, esp over the internet. Said firms usually let you pick and choose what parts you want, build it, and ship it to you...

      It certainly is a "personal computer" In fact, I consider a "PC" any machine that a "single consumer" would buy, rather than a corporation would buy, such as a major "workstation"

      And yes, there are PLENTY of dual cpu motherboards that aren't designed as "server boards" and so on... just look around. they are all over the place.

      --
      "Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms,
    43. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by the+morgawr · · Score: 1
      We obviously have different definitions of personal computers. To me a "personal computer" is a complete system marketed to a single user for typical personal use.

      Yes, you can get high powered work stations if you are doing 3D or CAD. Yes, you can go buy a DP intel system from a vendor or from newegg. Yes, for a PC the G5 is probably WAY overkill.

      BUT that does not change the fact that unlike any DP x86 system it is marketed as a PC (as opposed to a workstation or a server). Citing a different market segment doesn't count.

      (Using another poster's example) If GM claims they have the highest horse power for a mid-sized sedan, they don't have to take into account my ability to build a higher horse power car by buying an engine, suspention, etc. They also don't have to point out that a Corvet Z06 has more hp.

      --
      The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
    44. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you had even cared to watch the ad before you open your Birtish mouth, you'd notice that it says "Personal Computer." So, Apple' claim is true. Anybody knows that a big iron cant be beat by a personal computer, at least not just yet.

    45. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by markomarko · · Score: 1

      It's too bad the British don't exert such rigorous standards over their press and government.

      ie. What sexed-up war? I mean, no-one has DISPROVEN the claim that Iraqis were capable of launching chemical weapons against the UK within an hour's notice...

      What hypcrite.

    46. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by CrowScape · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But that mid-sized sedan cannot, in fact, have the body of an SUV nor can it only have two doors. There are specifications that classify cars as a sedan. Any car meeting those specs is a sedan regardless of marketing.

      You say that you cannot cite a different market segment, but I am not doing that. I'm looking at people who want to spend $2000-3000 (or $4000, still in the range of a G5) for a computer that will run a wide and flexible range of software applications. Whether you call a machine in that range a personal computer or a workstation is neither here nor there as they perform the same function at the same cost. The link you clicked when you bought them does not change what they are.

      And again, Apple does feel that it is fair for them to cite a workstations in their ads, so they themselves were the first ones to open this door: http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    47. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Brit is a fool, no point arguing with him. He has his own definition of Personal Computer.

    48. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by CrowScape · · Score: 1

      My mistake. A sedan can have two doors, but it must have rear seating.

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    49. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Illbay · · Score: 1
      Now see? That's what WE need in the U.S.! An "objective" government-run agency to decide the merits of advertisement claims!

      What the hell were those Founding Fathers THINKING when they set up our Republic under the assumption that the People would be responsible for doing their OWN thinking?

      --
      Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
    50. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by the+morgawr · · Score: 1
      Price has nothing to do with market segement (and incedenatally, I miss spoke, "mid-sized sedan" is technically a "classification", the market segment would be "family car" or "luxury car", etc.). A market segment is determined by intended use. If apple markets the G5 as something a home user would want that's the market segement it's in. I have never seen an advertisement for a dual processor x86 system intened for the "home use" market segment.

      The gist of the banned add was that in that segment, the G5 was the fastest computer system. Based off of the evidence I have in front of me that's a plausible claim. While my personal opinion is that no one in that segment has a need for a G5, Apple has the right to try and prove me wrong.

      And yes they cite workstations on their website because they also target that market with a version of the G5 with more RAM, fiberchanel cards, etc. Running with the car analogy, Honda uses the same platform for many different cars. The fact that an Acura RSX is equivilant to a Civic with different body panels and a leather interior, does not mean that all cars built on the Civic platform are "near-lux" cars. Again, I think the workstation market segment is irrelevent to this discusion reguardless of the fact the the G5 has targeted configurations in both segments. (Note however, that due to 64-bit address space, more registers, and faster floating point, it is entirely possible that the G5 is faster then Xeons for some workloads. In which case the distinction made by the "personal computer" tag would be moot.)

      --
      The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
    51. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      Price does not determine market entirely. The motherboard you chose was not probobly not developed for the general personal computing market.

      So the fact that I can buy a machine that is faster, cheaper and more configurable is irrelevant because it is 'not built for the general personal computing market'?

      Hogwash! Any machine that is on the bleeding edge performance wise is not going to be a general market machine - particularly not the G5 which sells to a niche within a niche. Going for extreme performance more than doubles the price of the machine, I can pick up a perfectly OK single processor box for $1,200. The ONLY reason to spend more is if you are doing something that is NOT general purpose. Wait nine months and the $1,200 boxes will have caught up.

      As for buying 'pieces', the company concerned put together both my last 2 machines and shipped them to me complete for an extra $50. I would have self assembled but they really prefer to do it themselves since then we know who bent the pins on the CPU or whatever else might go wrong in self assembly.

      I think you Apple folks are really clutching at straws here.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    52. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      My claim was not that you can't get dual processor intel systems, but that if you call up any x86 vendor and ask for a personal computer, you won't be presented with the option of a dual processor configuration.

      Untrue, look at Viglen.co.uk. They offer a Genie Pro2 machine that has a dual processor option.

      Viglen is one of the largest UK distributors. Since we are talking about an ad banned in the UK for being unture that would seem to rebutt your claim.

      Call up viglen and ask them for a high performance personal computer costing in the region of GBP2000 and they will offer you that machine.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    53. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by arose · · Score: 1

      IBMs aren't "personal computers".

      So what does IBM PC mean again?

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    54. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by the+morgawr · · Score: 0, Troll
      Maybe I'm wrong but the computer to which I assume you are refering (the Genie Pro2 ) doesn't look targeted at the same market.

      I would email them to be sure but they don't have contact information for a home user. Leading me to believe that this company targets bigger customers (who would certianly have need for such machines in some cases) only.

      Let me pose this question: Does any company (other then Apple ) run ads for a dual processor personal computer in the UK, particularly one targeted at home users? I could be wrong here but my guess is that I'm not. To my knowledge Apple is the only company that markets (and sells) such a system. Furthermore both Intel and AMD claim that Xeons and MPs are for "workstations" or "professional systems" etc.

      --
      The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
    55. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by CrowScape · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Under the law, luxury car is >= $40,000 in the US. You get more tax on it. Yes, price has everything to do with market segment, and it's not determined by advertising but by, get this, THE MARKET. This is why you don't see dual processor machines advertised for home use, because they're too expensive and for the one segment that would spend the money (gamers) dual processors can even be a hinderance. So, PC makers adapted their advertising to fit the market. Despite this, the people who need the power for their personal use still have easy access to the proper systems. Thus, expense is the MAJOR component in the x86 world that determines how a computer will be marketed. Now, with Apple they handle a completely different market segment than Dell or HP does which has its own rules. This means that Apple's advertisment campaign is guilty of equivocation, switching between the x86 definition of personal computer, developed under the rules of the x86 marketplace, and Apple's definition of personal computer, developed under the rules of Apple's unique marketplace, as if they meant the same thing. It's still false advertising.

      And yes they cite workstations on their website because they also target that market with a version of the G5 with more RAM, fiberchanel cards, etc.

      Ah, but by your arguement Apple must have a seperate website for you to go to if you want to buy the G5 "Workstation", otherwise it wouldn't be a workstation. However, you can go to www.store.apple.com and notice that there's nothing to distinguish a G5 personal computer from a G5 workstation. Careful! You might buy the wrong one!

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    56. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by IM6100 · · Score: 2

      So it all comes down to 'marketing' and not what people do in the real world.

      How 'Apple' of you to feel that way.

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    57. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      So, by your defintion, a PC has to be manufactured by one vendor and sold in that vendor's case.

      Ooookay.

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    58. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      Yes. It's hard to believe.

      More. Expensive. Than. Macs.

      Kinda makes you twitch and want to run to the Apple store waving the plastic, huh?

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    59. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      Hay now. Take it easy. If you read the article summary, you'll see that it's climbed a whole .9 % recently (that's 36% of a 2.5% market share).

      Read that again and weep: point.nine.percent!

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    60. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by NightSpots · · Score: 1

      I give them a ton of respect. As a die-hard FreeBSD user, I appreciate the UI they've built on the BSD base, and I like seeing the source for things like Rendezvous coming out into the open.

      The only problem with Apple is the cost. If only their G5s could beat the 8 Dell 400SCs I can buy for the same price, I'd have one right now.

    61. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by anthony_philipp · · Score: 0

      cray's were fast for the day, but the cray 3 can easily be beaten my most desktops priced at under 1000 today.

    62. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by anthony_philipp · · Score: 0

      yeah but you havent seen apple computers at best buy for some time now have you.

    63. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Wah · · Score: 1

      Wrong example. This is yelling 'Hey, there's a really hot thing in here that burns!!!' in a crowded theatre, selling fire extinguishers outside, and pointing to the popcorn machine while people panic at the thought of dieing horribly by fire, err salivate at the thought of all those MIPS on a G5....

      --
      +&x
    64. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by anthonyrcalgary · · Score: 1

      Dunno about anyone else, but Dell will certainly sell you one if you want it. IBM and others probably would too, but I don't feel like checking. Didn't you watch the keynote? They compared a dual G5 to a dual Xeon (an x86 system).

      --
      When someone might yell at me, it has to be OpenBSD.
    65. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by monkeyfinger · · Score: 1
      I mean, no-one has DISPROVEN the claim that Iraqis were capable of launching chemical weapons against the UK within an hour's notice...

      The british government are lying fucks. They justified the war on Iraq because of this claim and now they cannot come up with any proof or reliable sources for that statement.

      The general concensus of Iraqi people seems to be that Saddam and co were evil bastards. I don't have a problem with him being kicked out, but I do have a problem with my government lying to us.

      "All governments are lying cocksusckers" - Bill Hicks

    66. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by dave1212 · · Score: 1

      You realize of course that those aren't personal computers.. right?

      Don't be such a pompous ass.

    67. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by pastafazou · · Score: 1

      Are you a moron, or just a troll?. How can you argue that by Apple claiming the G5 as a personal computer, that automatically limits the comparisons they can make to what every other manufacturer classifies as a personal computer (namely a single CPU Intel/AMD machine in your opinion). The fact is, Apple compared the G5 to dual Xeons and claimed it as the fastest personal computer. Whether or not it is doesn't really matter, they're making the claim against the best Intel has to offer. As far as what constitutes a personal computer, that's going to vary for every buyer! A writer doesn't need a Pentium 4 or high-end graphics, whereas a digital photography hobbiest would definitely want a powerful CPU and lots of RAM, and a gamer would want the best video card he could get etc. The only limitation as to what constitutes a Personal Computer is the word "Personal". My computer can be completely different from yours, yet still be a "personal" computer, even if I choose to buy it from a vendor's "workstation" category.

    68. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 1

      Hydrogenated oils are probably in there too, and a lot of products use it, and that stuff does FAR more damage than regular oils and fats because the human body doesn't know how to process it. (Do some research, it's outright terrifying.)

      Claiming KFC is healthier than a Whopper is like saying "KFC is better for you than shooting yourself in the head with a sawn off shotgun." Technically accurate, but still bollocks.

    69. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by cjfoste · · Score: 1

      clones...

    70. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but that did not even come close to making sense.

    71. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by pantherace · · Score: 1
      Ok, since you seem to want to be a "it's marketed as..." An Apple is not a PC it's a PowerPC, they don't call it a PC. They call it a Power PC!

      This arguement is about as fair as yours is.

      Oh yeah, and every time Apple or AMD claims to be the first 64-bit Personal computer, I would like to smack them over the head with my 300MHz Alpha. I am pretty sure that if the cases colided, it would beat a G5, given what most apple systems (and rackmount systems for their server line) have for cases :)

      So I claim: My 300MHz DEC alpha beats a dual G5*
      *On survivability when contacting the other at high speed. :)

    72. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by TomV · · Score: 1

      If we assume that 'personal computer' can include systems aimed at gamers (and since we're talking about high-performance PC's I feel this is a reasonable inclusion), then the existence of the Alienware Roswell range appears to provide compelling evidence that it is possible to buy an off-the-shelf dual-processor desktop systems intended for domestic use. This is just one company which I happen to be aware of - I'd be astonished if they have this market segment to themselves.

    73. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on where you use them. Oh yeah, writing several hundred lines of batch files in WindowsNT was a fucking barrel of laughs, sure. Ask me about nested FOR loops that have to run on both WindowsNT & Windows2000 one day. I fucking dare you.

    74. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you've got a huge magnet on your meter. I'd hate to see the bill for a Cray otherwise!

    75. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..no-one has DISPROVEN the claim that Iraqis were capable of launching chemical weapons against the UK within an hour's notice...

      No one has disproven you're a twelve headed purple mongoose either. By your logic, that makes you one. Nice work, Sherlock.

    76. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell were those Founding Fathers THINKING when they set up our Republic under the assumption that the People would be responsible for doing their OWN thinking?

      They sort of figured that the U.S wouldn't be lumbered with a lethergic, braindead, apathetic populous which is fast aproaching total brain-death while they sit through the forth episode of When insects attack! that day.

    77. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by minus9 · · Score: 1

      Personal Computer = Computer you can lift

    78. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Illbay · · Score: 1
      If you can show me the compelling interest of the state to make sure that its citizens are not "harmed" by aggressive advertising, I'd be interested to see it.

      Otherwise, the only reason for the state to intercede in a case like this is the assumption that the People are too stupid. Interesting hypothesis, since the powers of government are derived from those same people.

      Oh, but wait: This is Great Britain. Never mind.

      --
      Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
    79. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      I know it's a bit of a stretch for Apple to claim the Dual 2Ghz G5 as the world's 'fastest' (though it has better claim to the title than most), but that's advertising for you!

      Contrast Apple's exuberance with Intel's ludicrous Centrino ads, where some guy half way up Everest watches a little WMV of his daughter "thanks to Intel's Centrino wireless technology". They never actually explain what they're on about, and I hardly expect there to be a handy wireless access point available up EVERY mountain. It's bollocks, quite frankly, at least Apple's is DEBATABLE.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    80. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      I agree. HOWEVER we have a more serious problem - benchmarks are almost completely meaningless. Apple CAN claim the G5 is the 'fastest' if it can do ONE SINGLE OPERATION faster than ANY other computer - as can any other manufacturer if they can show likewise. I rather suspect that there has NEVER BEEN and NEVER WILL BE a 'world's fastest personal computer' by the ASA definition.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    81. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Where do you get the idea that personal computers means only home computers?

      For years, PCs were almost entirely only used in business and only over the last decade have they become the dominant platform in the home too. Even now, far more are sold for business use. Are you trying to say that the dual processor computer I'm using here at work isn't a PC?

    82. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Oh, yeah, that's right! Now I remember seeing them at BestBuy a few years ago. Right next to the SGI Onyx boxes.

      And my local computer shop doesn't sell Macs, so I guess they're not personal computers. If we're discounting machines on the basis of popularity, then Apple loses out too.

    83. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by the+morgawr · · Score: 1
      Under the law, luxury car is >= $40,000 in the US. You get more tax on it.

      While correct, this has nothing to do with what I said:

      The fact that an Acura RSX is equivilant to a Civic with different body panels and a leather interior, does not mean that all cars built on the Civic platform are "near-lux" cars.

      FYI, a Civic ranges in price from $13000 to $19000 and a RSX ranges from $20000 to $25000.

      Now back to the discussion; contrary to your belief, the target market segment of a product is determined by it's seller. A single product can target multiple markets. In the case of this ad, the target market is clearly home users.

      you don't see dual processor machines advertised for home use, because... That is true for x86 vendors, but you do see dual processor machines from Apple advertised for home use. The fact that the product is not a good fit for it's target audience has nothing to do with who that audience is.

      with Apple they handle a completely different market segment than Dell or HP does

      What is different? Apple and Dell both target home computer users. Are you saying there is a way to determine which home users will by Apple and which will by Dell? I don't think there is. When Joe P. User is looking to buy his machine, unless he is brand loyal, he's going to look at them both equally and compare them on their marginal value to him. Furthermore if you were right, and Apple has its own separate market, then they have done nothing wrong by claiming that this computer is the fastest THEY make (and hence in the market).

      by your arguement Apple must have a seperate website for you to go to if you want to buy the G5 "Workstation"

      I said nothing of the sort. I said that if you went to store.apple.com it would offer you a G5 reguardless of whether you were a home customer (which is assumed by default) or a Bussiness customer. Dell will not offer you a Xeon system if you tell it you are a home customer, and the company you listed doesn't sell to home customers.

      However, what might make this entire semantic argument moot is this: the G5 out-performs Xeon's on standardized synthetic benchmarks designed to measure the computing power of the chip(s) without other factors, once again Apple's claim is plausible. (It is also plausible that for realistic workloads it could out perform a Xeon system, but such workloads take other factors into account as well).

      Wrapping it up, I think the Apple ad does not classify as false or missleading advertising. The claim (from the ad) was that the G5 was the "fastest, most powerful" computer generally available to the general public (home users). I have yet to see a proponderence of evidence to the contrary. As that is the requisite for false and missleading advertising, this ad does not classify.

      --
      The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
    84. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by TKinias · · Score: 1

      scripsit Zeinfeld:

      The UK Advertising council does not accept half truths.

      So they banned those Intel `makes the Internet go faster' ads, too, right?

      --
      In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
    85. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by the+morgawr · · Score: 1

      I really don't feel like repeating myself for the nth time.

      --
      The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
    86. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Appantly not, because I say them on danish channels broadcasted from England, but they were banned in Denmark for being misleading. (some danish satelite channels are sent from england, because of more lenient advertising rules).

    87. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      You mean there were some cheaply hacked together computers using Alphas - which still were more expensive than Macs at the time.

      That, and faster than most later macs, up until G4.

    88. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be a Coupe.

    89. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by CrowScape · · Score: 1

      A couple more things before I leave you to dillusion. The gcc compiler on the Mac is not the same as the gcc compiler for x86. It's another instance of equivocation. Now, if Apple decided that they were going to use the most efficient compiler for both, or the most prevalent compiler for both, that would be a different story, instead they used compilers that are only alike in name only. And with the proper compilers, you could run a benchmark where a 486 comes out on top. Now, I wouldn't use that as a basis for a claim that the 486 is the faster cpu ever, but that's just me. As for Apple's photoshop tests, they've always used very selective filters to showcase their processor, which has, not surprisingly, always shown Apple with a significant performance "edge", and the one that wins it for Apple is RGB to CMYK conversion, which the PowerPC chip is absolutely brilliant at. The problem is that, outside a select few in the print industry, the most experiance anyone has had in RGB to CMYK conversions is running Apple's benchmark. Most independant benchmarks that use the hundreds of other functions not included in Apple's benchmark suite show x86s in the lead. I'm sorry, but you cannot take an single instance where a machine is faster and then use that to claim that the machine is just plain faster overall.

      Second, you'll notice in Apple's world AMD does not exist. You may not know this, but they've had a little processor out for a while now called the Opteron. There's a good reason Apple does not recognize AMD's existance. Where the G5 manages to just beat a Xeon, the Opteron utterly trounces a Xeon, and for a lesser cost. If the Opteron existed, there would be no place, aside from RGB to CMYK conversions in Photoshop, that the G5 could claim the performance crown. If the Opteron existed, there would be no doubt that Apple was a dirty, dirty liar in its advertising campaign. It's a good thing that, in Apple's reality distortion field, the Opteron does not exist.

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    90. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So can I assume that Microsoft isn't running any "Trusted computing" ads in the UK?

    91. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Wah · · Score: 1

      If you can show me the compelling interest of the state to make sure that its citizens are not "harmed" by aggressive advertising, I'd be interested to see it.

      see: Iraq. But I kid.

      You are setting a high bar for your state intervention requirement. Personally I would prefer that we have more stringent requirements for advertising claims. I don't think 'harm' needs to be shown, unless you would believe that broadcating misleading information 'harms' a marketplace, like I do.

      Having a mislead public is not good for a democracy or a free market.

      People make better decisions when they have better information. I think someone won a Nobel Prize for figuring out the mathematical correlation between the two.

      Having a useful filter as some point seems like a good idea. Creating a useful filter is a far more difficult task than just mentioning it, but if you get one that works, it sure would be nice to clean the feces out of the drinking water from time to time.

      --
      +&x
    92. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Illbay · · Score: 1
      Luckily in the U.S. we have this little item called the First Amendment, which states that except for very narrowly-defined instances, you are free to say whatever you want without government intervention.

      I like it like that.

      --
      Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
    93. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      Let me pose this question: Does any company (other then Apple ) run ads for a dual processor personal computer in the UK, particularly one targeted at home users?

      The ad Apple ran did not say 'fastest personal computer sold to people to use at home, but not as fast as other machines that are the same price but are mainly sold to a different buyer'.

      If Apple had sold the machine as the prettiest high performance machine on the market they would have had a point. Viglen sell largely to the home and education markets. They specialize in low cost machines for individual use and bulk sales to and through universities.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    94. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by nyseal · · Score: 1

      Washing powder? Now THAT'S a new one to me.....and yes; I do bathe on a daily basis!

      --
      [SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
    95. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Wah · · Score: 1

      Yes, you and me should be free to speak as we wish.

      Nike shouldn't.

      --
      +&x
    96. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by the+morgawr · · Score: 1
      *Throws hands up in exasperation*

      --bunch of benchmark mess--

      This is all acurate but again it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

      I have made two claims:

      1: That based off of target audience for the commercial, the Apple claim of being the fastest in that market was plausible.

      2: That if a G5 really was the fastest DP computer (as measured by synthetic benchmarks that focus solely on the power and speed of the CPU) this entire discussion was moot.

      Aside: I have no doubt that a dual Opteron system would crush the G5 but it doesn't target the same market. An Athlon FX does, but I doubt that it would out perform the dual G5.

      Conclusion: Since false advertising is a proponderance of evidence burden, and I don't feel there is enough evidence counter to apple's claim, I don't think it was false advertising.

      --
      The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
    97. Re:Conspiracy? Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We have a fairly high standard of 'truth' in advertising here.

      Keep it up!

      Here in America, you are allowed to trick and intentionally deceive people. You can't outright "lie", but you can do anything short of that. I think it is cause of real moral decline in the country. Children grow up seeing deception on TV and think it's ok to do that when they grow up.

      I've been was pretty mad with the whole "supercomputer" thing Apple did back when the G-whatever's started. Apple doesn't need to lie.

  2. Which conspiracy? by Suffering+Bastard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Conspiracy theorists take note, Apple's sales in the UK are up 36%, so far, this year.

    Which conspiracy theory should I be concerned with? The theory that the ITC is out to thwart Apple or the conspiracy between Apple and ITC to sell more Macs?

    Glad to see the UK take a stand for integrity in advertising.

    --
    "Molest me not with this pocket calculator stuff."
    - Deep Thought
    1. Re:Which conspiracy? by Rura+Penthe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What a shame such "integrity" doesn't actually extend to anything but a very few "unpopular" ads. How many people who complained about this ad were "that guy".

      You all know the one I'm talking about. The guy you knew in middle school who hated Macs for no apparent reason. The one who would crow about bad financial reports while you were just trying to eat your Jello. Or maybe it's a "tech" guy you know who can't understand why anyone would use a Mac. "Windows is everywhere, it's clearly better" he'll say. Or "It's good enough, who cares about using anything else, Macs suck".

      There is an astounding amount of vitriol between Windows zealots and Apple (and of course Apple zealots and Microsoft). I find it difficult to credit this ad's banishment in the UK to "integrity in advertising". Instead I'd chalk it up to "caving to zealotry" on the part of the politicos.

    2. Re:Which conspiracy? by theWrkncacnter · · Score: 1

      Amen brotha!

      --
      -1 (Troll) is antihammer
    3. Re:Which conspiracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None.

      The Mac here in the UK is practically non-existant as far as the market-place goes.

      It's pretty much off the radar.

      And "Jello"?

      The fact that the ITC *found* the ad was incorrect should surely be of far more importance than the alledged motivations of the plaintiff.

    4. Re:Which conspiracy? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I see that being a possibility.

      So far the only disagreeable zealotry I've found was one guy the pro Wintel side where many counterexamples were returned with profanity. I often wish computer zealots would get a grip, but man that one needed a padded cell.

    5. Re:Which conspiracy? by ThisIsFred · · Score: 1

      You all know the one I'm talking about. The guy you knew in middle school who hated Macs for no apparent reason.

      Yeah, his name was Fred. :p

      Seriously though, I find it a little unsettling that someone would jump on Apple for this reason. My understanding is that the Brits are a practical, well-educated people. I don't think they need to be told to take advertisements with a grain of salt.

      --
      Fred

      "A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
      -RMS
    6. Re:Which conspiracy? by Tom7 · · Score: 1, Troll

      I'm no zealot, in fact, I really like a lot of the Apple products, but stating that the G5 is the world's fastest personal computer is really just a lie.

    7. Re:Which conspiracy? by Ewan · · Score: 1

      The ITC also banned the Microsoft X-Box "Life is short" adverts which showed a birth to a death in 30 seconds, so if they banned the Apple advert because of Windows zealots, I imagine they banned the X-Box advert because of Apple zealots, right? :)

    8. Re:Which conspiracy? by Phil+Wilkins · · Score: 1

      Nintendo zealots surely?

    9. Re:Which conspiracy? by CatOne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Blatantly false? Hardly.

      It's pretty common knowledge that benchmark results depend in large part on who runs them. Apple ran some tests (carefully selected, no doubt) which did show the G5 was superior to everything on those tests. I'm not surprised, it's a VERY fast computer.

      But sure, if you used a different compiler on the PC, or if you ran a different set of tests, the PC could well be faster on those tests.

      Does that mean that Apple's claims are blatantly false and misleading? I don't really think so. It's a marketing spin on something that's true in some (but not all) cases.

    10. Re:Which conspiracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did they ban it? What for? It was around for a while. I'm not a Microsoft fan but I liked it, quite amusing.

    11. Re:Which conspiracy? by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's called the Independent Television Commission because it regulates independent (ie non-BBC) TV.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    12. Re:Which conspiracy? by jon3k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I could easily build a quad xeon monster and sit it on my desk, effectively making it a personal computer.

      personal computer [n. Abbr. PC ]
      "A computer built around a microprocessor for use by an individual, as in an office or at home or school."

      There claim was simply too broad. They also claimed it to be the first 64bit computer (maybe for personal use? who cares, they're still wrong).

      I was pretty shocked they made the claim myself. Seemed a little over the top to me.

      DISCLAIMER: I would *love* to own a new G5. For now I'll stick to building ~3ghz PC's for under $500.

    13. Re:Which conspiracy? by herulach · · Score: 1
      Yes, but they are also an independent regulator, as in non government or industry funded, from their website:
      As our name suggests, we're independent of the Government and of the broadcasters. We are funded by fees from our licensees, of which there are around 300 who between them hold nearly 600 licences.
      Just an aside all the telecoms regulators are getting amalgamated soon, dont know if this is a good or bad thing really, suppose someone must think its good. In the tradition of all British regulators its going to be OFCOM
    14. Re:Which conspiracy? by dipipanone · · Score: 0, Troll

      The Mac here in the UK is practically non-existant as far as the market-place goes.

      That's strange, because literally everyone that I know who owns a computer uses a Mac.

      It's pretty much off the radar.

      For sixteen year old fanboys, I'm sure that's true.

    15. Re:Which conspiracy? by CatOne · · Score: 1

      Well Apple builds full systems, I really think it *is* fair of them to compare against full systems from other premier vendors, and not "white box" systems. Their market is NOT people who have the skill set to buy a power supply, video card, RAM, mobo, etc. a Radeon 9800 Pro, and slap it all together.

      And I cry bullsh*t on the 3 GHz PC for under $500. Quote me a FULL system with 512 MB of RAM and a 160 MB SATA drive with an equivalent video card for that price ;-)

      I've used G5's, and I've also built a system -- Athlon 2800+ with 1 GB of RAM and a 120 GB SATA drive, nforce2, etc. The home-built system was about $1700 (could be a lot cheaper now -- the 2800+ is about $100 now and it was $380 when I got it). They're both good, and they're both fast. The G5 is probably faster, of course now there's the Athlon 64 (which wasn't shipping in commercial systems when the G5 launched).

    16. Re:Which conspiracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my god...kids in middle school are fighting about what OS is better...things sure have changed since I was in school.

    17. Re:Which conspiracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Well Apple builds full systems, I really think it *is* fair of them to compare against full systems from other premier vendors, and not "white box" systems. Their market is NOT people who have the skill set to buy a power supply, video card, RAM, mobo, etc. a Radeon 9800 Pro, and slap it all together."

      Well, they should say that instead of making absolute statements.

      Of course, it still wouldn't be true on either of the contentious statements - first 64bit desktop and fastest PC.

      "And I cry bullsh*t on the 3 GHz PC for under $500. Quote me a FULL system with 512 MB of RAM and a 160 MB SATA drive with an equivalent video card for that price ;-)"

      Uh... he said he'd build a 3GHz PC for $500. Not a 3GHz PC with x much ram, y much disk, etc.

      Which you can indeed do.

    18. Re:Which conspiracy? by jon3k · · Score: 1

      I *really* don't care what you think is fair. Look up the definition of personal computer, and tell me with a straight face that Apple's claims aren't WAAAY to broad.

      512MB of ram? 160MB freaking hard drive? Jesus dude, I'm talking about a machine your grandmother would check her email on. The last one I built actually does have 512MB of ram, but a 20GB ATA133 drive and a GeForce4 MX video card. And yes, it did come in right under $500, like it or not.

      If you don't think I could build a machine that will outperform a G5 for the same price, in almost every application, you live in a fantasy world.

    19. Re:Which conspiracy? by YOU+LIKEWISE+FAIL+IT · · Score: 1
      512MB of ram? 160MB freaking hard drive? Jesus dude, I'm talking about a machine your grandmother would check her email on.

      Your grandmother needs a 3Ghz box to check her email on? Who is she, Lady Ada Lovelace?

      YLFI
      --
      One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
    20. Re:Which conspiracy? by CatOne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sure you could build a system that will outperform a G5 for the same price, in every application.

      However, again comparing white box systems to full systems with a warranty by a major vendor really isn't fair. You need to compare to a system from a top tier vendor like Dell.

      Compare a dual Xeon from Dell to a G5, and you'll see they're fairly similar.

    21. Re:Which conspiracy? by pyros · · Score: 1
      I could easily build a quad xeon monster and sit it on my desk, effectively making it a personal computer.

      Despite your dictionary quote (which you failed to attribute, so we can't assume it's the official English (UK or US English) definition) I'd say that putting a computer on your desk does not effectively make it a personal computer. I'd think that for purposes of advertising, a personal computer is one produced and marketed as such. Go to dell.com, hp.com, or ibm.com and find me a quad xeon configuration of a system labeled as home user system.

      Please don't compare a whitebox [Wintel] PC with anything other than a whitebox Apple [PC]. The prices are so different because they are not in the same class and market.

    22. Re:Which conspiracy? by p7 · · Score: 1

      If you check the spec.org site, you can find numerous Intel and AMD 32bit processors that score higher than the numbers claimed by Apple. Last time this came around people argued that those numbers were biased by different compilers and optimizations. My take is those numbers are as good as the Apple numbers why should we believe that Dell, Intel and AMD are optimizing for SPEC and Apple isn't. Lastly as the complaint mentions depending on the application which computer is best varies widely.

    23. Re:Which conspiracy? by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 1

      There was a time when Apple annoyed Acorn fans by claiming to have the first 32-bit RISC personal computer (Or something like that) a good 5 years or so after Acorn did it.

    24. Re:Which conspiracy? by McSpew · · Score: 1

      The guy you knew in middle school who hated Macs for no apparent reason.

      Middle school? Hell, when I was in middle school, the Mac wasn't even a twinkle in Jef Raskin's eye yet. Steve and Steve were still living high on the Apple ][ hog. The ill-fated Apple III and Lisa hadn't even embarrassed the company yet. The Mac finally shipped during my junior year of high school, and the only reason to hate it then was it cost so damn much.

      Come to think of it, annoying Apple zealotry aside, price is still the only reason I haven't bought a Mac.

    25. Re:Which conspiracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seen the KFC is healthy ad? Guess what? They wouldn't run ads like that if at least some people didn't assume it was true. I'd say it makes loads of sense to make sure that all ads are completely true.

    26. Re:Which conspiracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That's strange, because literally everyone that I know who owns a computer uses a Mac."

      Unless you know everyone in the UK, that's hardly relevent.

      I've worked in IT in the UK for many years, known many, many people both in and outside the industry, and I can count the Mac owners on the fingers of one hand -- my wife being one of the few.

      However, I've also seen the sales figures and www access logs of some major websites - a much more accurate indicator. And they both indicate the Mac's a tiny niche - sub-1% in the case of the apache logs. More so than the logs of the US websites I've had access to would indicate.

      "For sixteen year old fanboys, I'm sure that's true."

      Oooh... ad hominem attacks! The last resort of the blatantly wrong.

      Interesting how someone stating facts can annoy the zealots.

      If you read the original poster's post, then your post, who comes over as the fanboy?

      And if you DO still believe it's the original poster... a fanboy of WHAT exactly?

    27. Re:Which conspiracy? by mr_sas · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up +1 funny

      The majority of Brits are just as ignorant as the majority of the public of other western nations.

    28. Re:Which conspiracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take Steve's cock out of your mouth, then read your post again. You might realize just how stupid you appear.

    29. Re:Which conspiracy? by jon3k · · Score: 1

      Then thats how Apple needs to phrase their claim.

      "Fastest personal computer, warrantied from a top tier vendor like dell."

      Just doesn't have the same ring, does it? :)

    30. Re:Which conspiracy? by jon3k · · Score: 1

      Please refer to the following URL:

      http://www.sgi.com/workstations/tezro/

      Now lets craft some real time rendering benchmarks running Alias|Wavefront's Maya 5.0 Unlimited vs. *giggle* the G5.

      Still want to claim its the fastest personal computer in the world?

      So because no Quad Xeons are MARKETED as a personal computer, they aren't? How the product is marketed is IRRELEVENT. Its how its utilized. I had a Dual 2.8ghz Xeon 1U (actually 3 of them) sitting at my desk for two months as a workstation before it went into production ... THUS MAKING IT A PERSONAL COMPUTER!

      If apple would have specified any of these constraints, we wouldn't be having this argument right now.

    31. Re:Which conspiracy? by AndrewRUK · · Score: 1

      According to the report on their website, it was "offensive, shocking and in bad taste."

    32. Re:Which conspiracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't say that only a grandma would use. Retard.

    33. Re:Which conspiracy? by mlyle · · Score: 2

      My Ford Expedition has the highest cargo capacity of any sports car. It's not what it's marketed as, it's how I drive.

    34. Re:Which conspiracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i can't wait to mod flaimbait crap like this down...

      Macs don't suck.
      There is no such thing as a windows zealot, just mac zealots.

      You're like a guy who can't stop talking about his cock because it is so small.

    35. Re:Which conspiracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The motivation for complaining about the ad is irrelevant. The ad isn't true. Just compare it with Athlon64 systems.

    36. Re:Which conspiracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Apples are way overpriced. People hang on to them for years after they've lost their punch because they are so expensive initially. Intel based computers are commodity items. Buy 'em by the bushel.

      Last week I found a Dell PII with 128K of memory and 7 Gig disk in someone's trash. It wasn't broken. The guy's wife saw me picking through the trash pile and she told me they had just bought a newer model. Think about that.

      I thought about it. That Dell in the trash heap was more powerful than most Mac's actually on someone's desktop. Heck, it was more powerful than last year's Mac. If you are wedded to Mac, you can't afford to upgrade. You are forced to live with your choice a long, long time.

    37. Re:Which conspiracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's a big difference between saying a computer is one of the fastest personal computers in the world, and saying the computer is the fastest computer in the world. The G5 was destroyed by the Athlon64, and never beat Opteron, which raises significant doubt to Apple's claim.

    38. Re:Which conspiracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you could build a system that will outperform a G5 for the same price, in every application." Outperform... i doubt it. Match the speed... maybe. Keep in mind, the price of the G5 comes with a lot more than fast processors and such. I spec'd out a PC with the same compontentsas the G5 and it came out to be $1000 more.

    39. Re:Which conspiracy? by pyros · · Score: 1

      thank you.

    40. Re:Which conspiracy? by bursch-X · · Score: 1

      My take is those numbers are as good as the Apple numbers why should we believe that Dell, Intel and AMD are optimizing for SPEC and Apple isn't.

      Well maybe with closed source compilers you don't get caught that easily when cheating and with gcc being GPLed it would immediately be clear if Apple were optimizing it for benchmarks.

      Ah, and by the way DUH.

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
    41. Re:Which conspiracy? by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      You need to compare to a system from a top tier vendor like Dell.

      Apple enthusiasts are always making claims like that. It seems the only way they can win a price battle is to choose the most expensive PC hardware vendor they can find.

      Back in the day it was always Compaq. "You can't compare that Compu-Add 386, it has to be a Compaq Deskpro 386!" Because at the time, Compaq's machines were priced even higher (if you can believe it) than IBM's machines.

      Sometimes Apple enthusiasts remind me of the kids when I was in High School (a long-long time ago now) who sneered at anybody who wasn't wearing Levi jeans. And years before that, the rich kid down the block who had the Schwinn bike. (all Schwinn-approved accessories, now. Don't compromise on the saddlebag, or you might as well be riding a Huffy!).

      Keep up that sort of comment. It helps people blow off anything else you say that might make sense.

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    42. Re:Which conspiracy? by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      And that big thick racing stripe makes a difference, too.

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    43. Re:Which conspiracy? by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      When I was in middle school, (well, High School, actually) we fought over who got the ASR-33 teletype (110 baud dialup to the timesharing system) and who got the Silent 700 or the CRT terminal (300 baud).

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    44. Re:Which conspiracy? by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      Dell PII with 128K of memory

      I have some 30-pin 64K SIMMs, but I've never seen a Pentium II box that took 30-pin SIMMs. Are you sure about that memory size?

      (rim-shot)

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    45. Re:Which conspiracy? by CrowScape · · Score: 1

      Damn, you need to learn about pricewatch. I've speced out machines that run circles around the G5 for $2100, with, amoung other things, a Quadro FX 1000 card (which I could probably get on EBay and knock $300 off the price of the system), a Western Digital Raptor drive, 1 GB ECC DDR400, the case, a Cooler Master Wavemaster, is no cheapy either (and far better looking than the cheese-grater facade of the G5), and this is with a freakin 3Ghz P4. Let me graduate to an Athlon 64 for a $100 more and it'll certainly outpace the single processor systems, and I could probably bring it up to a dual Opteron system with the same price as the dual G5. Keep in mind, Apple systems don't come with monitors in their base configurations, so stop including the price of that 21" LCD panel.

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    46. Re:Which conspiracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably all 8 of them.

      Yes, for those who didn't RTFA, the ad was yanked on the basis of 8 complaints. Read the complaint report. Why don't we get 10 people to complain about those Intel ads that said the Pentium makes the internet faster? What a load of shit.

    47. Re:Which conspiracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The problem is, that G5 is slower even in Apple selected benchmarks with Apple selected compiler when compared against Athlon64.

      Pentium4 is slow with GCC, naturally both were used in Apple tests.

    48. Re:Which conspiracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, exactly the comment I just made. I have been wondering about those adverts, surely they're a lot worse than the Mac one... at least apple supplied some benchmarks.

    49. Re:Which conspiracy? by Xrikcus · · Score: 1

      and as I recall Acorn won that case. Didn't they first buy the opposite adversing space and disagree with it and get sued by Apple? Maybe this is a case of chinese whispers though.

    50. Re:Which conspiracy? by dipipanone · · Score: 1

      Unless you know everyone in the UK, that's hardly relevent.

      Not at all. My point is that while Mac's may be off *his* radar, they aren't off mine. As I said, virtually everyone I know owns one.

      I've worked in IT in the UK for many years

      Well whoop-de-doo for you.

      And they both indicate the Mac's a tiny niche

      The sales figures are out there for anyone who can be bothered to check. Macs are about 3% of the market. While as a proportion of all boxes sold, that might not be great, in absolute terms, its a shitload of machines.

      Interesting how someone stating facts can annoy the zealots.

      It doesn't *annoy* me at all. I was simply making a point about the various niches that you refer to. In my experience, among older professionals working in creative industries, Macs have extremely high market penetration.

      Among 16 year old players of Unreal Tournament and Quake, or people who like to cut holes in their PC's and stick whizz-bang lights, nothing less than an Athlon or Pentium will do.

      If you read the original poster's post, then your post, who comes over as the fanboy?

      Hey, I wasn't accusing anyone of *being* a fanboy, but if the cap fits...

    51. Re:Which conspiracy? by DrXym · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It was pulled because it was at best misleading (there are PCs that have comparable performance to a G5 at the same price, even before it was released) and at worst, it is a bare faced lie. Zealotry has nothing to do with it I'm afraid. I own a Mac and a PC and I considered the claim highly dubious even as soon as it was made. It was doubly dubious in fact that it was touted as a 64-bit machine, failing to point out that nearly all of the OS and all of the software was still 32-bit rendering the claim rather specious and misleading.


      Apple have a long and illustrious track record of stretching the truth and this time they stepped over. I don't see what the fuss is. If they can't make claims are backed up by impartial facts and reality they deserve to be yanked every time.

    52. Re:Which conspiracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Build me a Final Cut Pro box then.

    53. Re:Which conspiracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please don't compare a whitebox [Wintel] PC with anything other than a whitebox Apple [PC].

      ..because you can't win your argument if we bring actual facts into it!

    54. Re:Which conspiracy? by bigsmelly · · Score: 1

      That's a bit silly, really.

      Your quote talks about a single microprocessor.

      Therefore a quad xeon monster is not a personal computer, because it has more than one microprocessor. I

      Then again. Any PC has more than one microprocessor.

      Burn the dictionary!!

    55. Re:Which conspiracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Acually, they banned the Xbox ad because a load of recently bereaved people wrote in and said that they were upset by the old guy crashing into grave ending.

      That's the other rule. You can't lie, and you can't cause undue offence or distress to people in a TV advert.

      I don't think it got as many complaints as the spoof adverts for embalming fluid, makeup for undertakers and so on that were actually adertising form TV programme though.

    56. Re:Which conspiracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh? And how would you come across the source for the specific version of gcc that they used for the SPEC benchmark?

    57. Re:Which conspiracy? by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      Despite your dictionary quote (which you failed to attribute, so we can't assume it's the official English (UK or US English) definition)...

      As ten seconds on dictionary.com will reveal, his quote is from The American Heritage(r) Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. IOW, it has no authority whatsoever in the UK, where this story took place.

      Not that there is an "official definition" of the term "personal computer". Only a handful of words have offical definitions of any sort, and those are basically limited to legal terms when used in court. Everything else is defined very loosely by usage. The ITC's decision was presumably based on what they deduced the average Briton would think of as a "personal computer", not whatever OED says.

    58. Re:Which conspiracy? by jon3k · · Score: 1

      And obviously the G5 wouldn't fall in that definition either, being a dual cpu machine.

      But the definition doesn't say it can *only* have one microprocessor, simply that its a machine built around a single microprocessor.

    59. Re:Which conspiracy? by jon3k · · Score: 1

      Again, poor analogy. We have to look at the definition of the term "sports car"

      The definition I found at dictionary.com was:
      "sports car
      n.
      An automobile equipped for racing, especially an aerodynamically shaped one-passenger or two-passenger vehicle having a low center of gravity and steering and suspension designed for precise control at high speeds."

      Your ford expidition doesn't fall into that definition.

      All these responses further illustrate my point. That Apple's claims are *FAR* to broad.

    60. Re:Which conspiracy? by ThisIsFred · · Score: 1

      You don't live here. You have no idea.

      --
      Fred

      "A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
      -RMS
    61. Re:Which conspiracy? by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Compare a dual Xeon from Dell to a G5, and you'll see they're fairly similar.

      That's the point. They are fairly similar, as would be dual Athlon64 or Opteron. Each might win a few benchmarks and lose in another, and thus claiming any one of them to be absolutely the fastest on the world is lying.

    62. Re:Which conspiracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yes, but as we have been through before, that definition--coming as it does from the American Heritage Dictionary--is clearly invalid in the UK.

      Stupid American. Your definitions mean nothing...

    63. Re:Which conspiracy? by laird · · Score: 1

      "I've speced out machines that run circles around the G5 for $2100 ... this is with a freakin 3Ghz P4".

      Cool, for $2,100 you've outperformed the $1,600 G5. I think that perhaps you could try to configure a PC to outperform the model that Apple claimed was the fastest personal computer; when people tried to pull together dual Xeon's, they were around $4-5K (depending on vendor) so $1-2K more than Apple's dual G5. You might be able to get the fastest PC price down to Apple's price by "white boxing" it...

      but even if the PC is more expensive than the dual G5, it's not clear that it could outperform it. The independent benchmarks that I've seen had either machine perform "best" on some tests, but overall the dual G5 outpeformed the fastest PC's, because when the PC was faster it was 10-20% faster, and when the Mac was faster, it was up to 50% faster. I suspect it had to do with which code could take advantage of the AltiVec instruction set, which is much more powerful/flexible than Intel's comparable SIMD instruction set...

    64. Re:Which conspiracy? by laird · · Score: 1

      "How the product is marketed is IRRELEVENT. Its how its utilized."

      Apple's claim is that the dual G5 is the fastest "personal computer" -- a market segment. If you're saying that you have the fastest computer in a market segment ("personal computers"), then how the product is marketed matters quite a bit, because that defines what's in the market segment. There are rather obviously high-end workstations that can outperform the dual G5, and they can fit on a desk, but that's not terribly relevant. That's like arguing that because there are astoundingly fast specialized racecars that a mass market sports car couldn't claim to be the "fastest car in its class".

      BTW, people have done some benchmarks of dial Xeon's against the Dual G5, and overall the G5 was faster. Of course, you could find some tests where the Xeon's were a little faster, but there were also tests where the G5's were a lot faster... and (though it doesn't affect performance) the fastest Xeon's cost $1-2K more than the G5. That would be (wait for it) because the dual Xeon's are sold as workstations, while the dual G5 is sold as a personal computer, thus larger volumes and lower margins. ;-)

    65. Re:Which conspiracy? by Lally+Singh · · Score: 1

      Actually, PPC is slow with GCC as well. Codewarrior and IBM's xlC blow it out of the water.

      So it's fair :-P

      --
      Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
    66. Re:Which conspiracy? by CrowScape · · Score: 1

      First, there is no $1,600 G5. They start at $1,999, plus the one I outperformed would be the $2399 model. Second, take a look over at www.boxxtech.com. You can compose a dual Opteron system for less than the price of a dual G5. Third, Opteron is better than a Xeon, far better in some respects, so if the G5 can only trade blows with a Xeon, the Opteron will simply beat it.

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    67. Re:Which conspiracy? by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      Jesus fucking christ, man. I'm trying to eat my goddamned Jello. It's a fucking computer.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
  3. Irony by Qwell · · Score: 0, Funny

    (in QuickTime here)
    Now THATS irony!

    --
    As of 10/06/03, I hate COBOL developers.
    1. Re:Irony by p4ul13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's an Apple commercial hosted on Apple's site. Ehh perhaps there's a new definition of 'irony' I haven't been informed of yet.

      --
      Paul Lenhart writes words!
    2. Re:Irony by mojowantshappy · · Score: 1
      (in QuickTime here)
      Now THATS irony!

      That an Apple ad is in quicktime? I think not.

      --

      This page was generated by a Barrel of Circus Midgets, and that is the way I like it!!!

    3. Re:Irony by Qwell · · Score: 1

      Well...that shut me up. I actually thought the video would be of the ban(wow, I'm an idiot now that I think about it)

      --
      As of 10/06/03, I hate COBOL developers.
    4. Re:Irony by cperciva · · Score: 1

      You're right: It isn't irony.

      On the other hand, it is preaching to the converted.

    5. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, are you aware that QuickTime is a product of Apple's?

    6. Re:Irony by Winged+Youth · · Score: 1

      irony, n. 1. A figure of speech in which the intended meaning is the opposite of that expressed by the words used; usually taking the form of sarcasm or ridicule in which laudatory expressions are used to imply condemnation or contempt. 2. fig. A condition of affairs or events of a character opposite to what was, or might naturally be, expected; a contradictory outcome of events as if in mockery of the promise and fitness of things.

      Brought to you by the OED online!

      --
      "p2p stabbing is such a vast, untapped market"
    7. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he's referring to that crappy brushed metal theme Quicktime uses by default.

    8. Re:Irony by infinite9 · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's an Apple commercial hosted on Apple's site

      He must be listening to Allanis Morrisette again.

      Don't ya think?

      --
      Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
    9. Re:Irony by attobyte · · Score: 0, Troll

      Well there is one more idiot, the one that modded you funny. :)

      --
      I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!

      Mike

  4. the FASTEST computers? Oh come on, now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    there's no way Apple can say that with a straight face. Of course the G5 isn't faster than a supercomputer, nor a cluster (beowulf) computer. Hell, most mainframes are arguably "faster" whatever that means.

    - Anne

    1. Re:the FASTEST computers? Oh come on, now by MuckSavage · · Score: 0

      Fastest PERSONAL computer, slick.

    2. Re:the FASTEST computers? Oh come on, now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, then, imagine a Beowulf cluster of G5's...then it's the fastest!!!

    3. Re:the FASTEST computers? Oh come on, now by TheMidget · · Score: 0

      It did not say, "the fastest computer", it said "the fastest personal computer". Is a mainframe a personal computer? Is a supercomputer a personal computer? Is a beowulf cluster one personal computer?

    4. Re:the FASTEST computers? Oh come on, now by Lightman_73 · · Score: 1

      "the world's fastest, most powerful personal computer."

      Before writing, be sure to have the brain connected.

    5. Re:the FASTEST computers? Oh come on, now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, the Pentium IVs that outperform the G5s do so in such an impersonal way.

    6. Re:the FASTEST computers? Oh come on, now by bhtooefr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sure about that? If so, click here.

    7. Re:the FASTEST computers? Oh come on, now by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      Something else isn't the fastest either...

      --
      Loading...
    8. Re:the FASTEST computers? Oh come on, now by MuckSavage · · Score: 1

      Like I would expect a non-biased comparison from "pcworld".

    9. Re:the FASTEST computers? Oh come on, now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those tests are far too well documented and done by someone other than a paid consultant to Apple Computer, Inc.. I call bias, and will have to rely instead on the glossy brochures from Apple that claim their computer is faster.

    10. Re:the FASTEST computers? Oh come on, now by MuckSavage · · Score: 1

      Stupid benchmarks, and juvenile "my processor is better than yours" arguments aside, I was pointing out that apple claims that the G5 is the fastest PERSONAL computer. I don't count beowulf clusters and supercomputers as PERSONAL computers. See, the key word here is PERSONAL.

    11. Re:the FASTEST computers? Oh come on, now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they are still liars. They don't lie about all computers, only PERSONAL computers.

      Why are benchmarks and arguments suddenly only stupid and juvenile when the Mac loses?

      Dumb ass.

    12. Re:the FASTEST computers? Oh come on, now by MuckSavage · · Score: 1

      Yawn.

    13. Re:the FASTEST computers? Oh come on, now by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Macworld did the mac testing for it, anyway.

    14. Re:the FASTEST computers? Oh come on, now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop using facts and logic! If Apple doesn't win, the test is unfair, biased, or wrong! That's just the way life is!

    15. Re:the FASTEST computers? Oh come on, now by Arker · · Score: 1

      Umm those numbers show Apple blowing the doors off the competition whenever the code is optimised for their processor, I think it proves exactly the opposite of what you think it does.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    16. Re:the FASTEST computers? Oh come on, now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wrong. Macworld provided stuff for the testing. They didn't do it.

    17. Re:the FASTEST computers? Oh come on, now by Llywelyn · · Score: 1

      Yep, because Premier 6, a discontinued and unoptimized software product, and Microsoft Word benchmarks between systems (some of which have RAID arrays or 256 MB graphics cards) is /completely/ valid...

      --
      Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
    18. Re:the FASTEST computers? Oh come on, now by callipygian-showsyst · · Score: 1
      Yep, because Premier 6, a discontinued and unoptimized software product

      I have in my hand a copy of Premiere 7 Pro. It's certainly not a discontinued and unoptomized product, and it's FAST on my Hyperthreaded 3.2 P4!

    19. Re:the FASTEST computers? Oh come on, now by screwballicus · · Score: 1

      Just to respond to all the virulent rebuttals:

      This test and Apple's own are opposite in principle. This one uses some of the most popular dual-platform applications on the market in each software category.

      Apple's uses abstract CPU benchmarks.

      Which is more worthwhile? Well, if you want to see the performance that Joe MacUser will actually be getting out of the applications he uses (such as can be found on both platforms), the PC World benchmark just makes more sense. Yeah, Premier is at the end of its lifespan. But your average mac user, frankly, does NOT LIKE CHANGE. So it's not unrealistic to include this in a "real world" benchmark, if this is to be considered such.

      Apple's test reflects what performance I will get if I use my Mac exclusively to run abstract CPU speed tests. PCWorld's benchmark reflects what performance Joe MacUser will be getting out of some of the most popular apps out there (which, remember, must be dual-platform to be useful for this benchmark).

    20. Re:the FASTEST computers? Oh come on, now by enjo13 · · Score: 1

      These are stupid benchmarks.

      In particular the performance comparisons between Word on the two different Machines. Word is a COMPLETELY seperate product with minimal code-in-common between the two platforms. Even the binary file format they save to is slightly different. What this basically shows is that Word on Windows is much more optimized than it is on the Mac. Shocking. You can likely make the same statement about the Premiere/Photoshop comparisons (although I know very little about those projects).

      I'm not sure what is going on with the Premiere tests, there is definitely something of interest there.

      These tests show how well one application runs in comparison to another on the two platforms. Notice that the performance winners where all over the place even among the PC models... I also question the accuracy of a PC Magazine with a stopwatch in hand.

      Just to much in this article that makes me say 'uhuh'.

      Disclaimer: I'm a PC hardware user, running Linux. Not a particular Mac fan... Just know statistical manipulation when I see it (well someties).

      --
      Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
    21. Re:the FASTEST computers? Oh come on, now by xswl0931 · · Score: 1

      The problem with benchmarks is that you have one group that only likes to look at synthetic benchmarks (you appear to be in that group). The other group would rather look at "real world" benchmarks. In this case, comparing Word on a PC and a Mac. You can argue that the PC version is more optimized, but from a customer point of view, these are the only two versions they can get. Given that fact, they should base their purchase decision on available processors running with available software, not theoritical software. In other words, you may be right that an PowerPC optimized version of Word would blow the doors off the x86 version, but we'll never see it (you are of course assuming the compiler Microsoft is using for the Mac version doesn't optimize for PowerPC which I can't deny or confirm).

    22. Re:the FASTEST computers? Oh come on, now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A single-CPU P4 system that stomps the dual PPC970 Mac into the ground and pisses all over its corpse is a personal computer. So is a dual Xeon system that does the same (and also has the time to take a dump on the already pissed-on G5 corpse), since we're talking 2-way SMP systems.

    23. Re:the FASTEST computers? Oh come on, now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the link: "Tests on PCs performed by the PC World Test Center; tests on Apple systems ****performed by**** the Macworld Test Center."

    24. Re:the FASTEST computers? Oh come on, now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " In Quake III, higher is better; elsewhere, lower is better. Best scores in bold." Now look at those scores again :)

    25. Re:the FASTEST computers? Oh come on, now by ashre · · Score: 1
      The problem with benchmarks is that you have one group that only likes to look at synthetic benchmarks (you appear to be in that group). The other group would rather look at "real world" benchmarks. In this case, comparing Word on a PC and a Mac.

      The PC World benchmark says the Athlon is faster in the real world. Well looking at SPEC published benchmarks for the Athlon FX-51:

      2GHz G5 (from Apple, not on SPEC): 840 (float), 800 (int)

      Athlon 64 3200+ (from AMD, on SPEC): 1266 (float), 1180 (int)

      That's about 50% faster for the Athlon, the G5 may have been the fastest personal computer when it was launched but it isn't any more.

    26. Re:the FASTEST computers? Oh come on, now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He meant discontinued and unoptimized for the Mac. Adobe anounced they will discontinue it after they realized that they would never be able to get the performance of FinalCut Pro for the same operations, and therefore people were migrating in droves.

      It would be interesting how the two platforms (Premier Pro on the P4, FinalCut Pro on the G5) compare when running equivalent tasks, since both are very well optimized. The Premier comparison on the Mac is pointless.

    27. Re:the FASTEST computers? Oh come on, now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Premiere is spelled with an "E" at the end.
      You are a stupid mac zealot.

    28. Re:the FASTEST computers? Oh come on, now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The testing methodology in that article is widely acknowledged to be unspeakably incompetent, and it reflects badly on you that you lack the critical reading skills to see that. Apple's testing was far more rigorous than PC World's.

    29. Re:the FASTEST computers? Oh come on, now by lucas+teh+geek · · Score: 1

      Stupid benchmarks, and juvenile "my processor is better than yours" arguments aside

      Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!

      --
      TIAEAE!
    30. Re:the FASTEST computers? Oh come on, now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why do I get 342 FPS using "high quality" settings at 1024*768 in Q3A ? I don't know how they tested the G5.

      Where is the After Effects benchmark? video encoding? heavy multitasking? people don't buy DP G5s for word processing and they don't buy a mac for Premiere either.

      None of the test are relevant and accurate at the same time.

    31. Re:the FASTEST computers? Oh come on, now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if they didn't do it in a hermetically sealed, all-mac environment, the results could be tainted!

    32. Re:the FASTEST computers? Oh come on, now by Ffakr · · Score: 1

      Um No YOU look at the scores again. The ONLY system that beat the dual 2GHz G5 in photoshop was a dual Opteron workstation with 246 processors. That machine isn't even available with 246s from the manufacturer yet!
      They had to pull a pre-release machine out to beat the G5 in Photoshop.
      Not to mention that the dual Optie was more even without the hugely expensive 246 processors.

      The other apps are a joke. Word? Come on. Premier hasn't been optimized for the Mac in years, FinalCut has seen to that. Even quake has been more optimised for the PC. The Mac patchs are afterthoughts to bring the Mac version up to the same feature set.

      --

      I'm not feeling witty so bite me

    33. Re:the FASTEST computers? Oh come on, now by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      Well, back in highschool, I used the beowulf cluster to do my research and stuff because it was the only computer in the library with no one on it (mostly because they didn't know how to work it, but also because they didn't have an account) does that count?

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  5. Censorship or standards? by Cyphertube · · Score: 5, Interesting

    While some Apple fans may consider this censorship, personally I applaud the enforcement of standards in advertising.

    If standards were forced for truth-in-advertising in the U.S., we'd not only never hear about the G5 being the fastest computer, we'd also not hear about how much we can do for so little from Microsoft. We'd also stop having the stupid claims in oversized truck and SUV ads, diet pills, etc.

    --
    Linux - because it doesn't leave that Steve Ballmer aftertaste.
    1. Re:Censorship or standards? by CoreDump · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, I got Windows XP after I saw the ads on TV. Imagine my dissapointment when I found it it wouldn't actually allow me to fly around. :(

      --

      ---
      Segmentation Fault ( core dumped )

    2. Re:Censorship or standards? by Carnildo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If the standards were enforced, there'd be a severe shortage of ad revenue for television programs.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    3. Re:Censorship or standards? by Talthane · · Score: 2, Informative

      The ITC isn't always correct. It is merely the body which takes an "official" view based on its assessment of the world to date and has power to act accordingly. This is roughly akin to some federal US government organisation banning something on the grounds it thinks it's harmful or somehow misleading, regardless of whether you think it's OK.

      While I think the ITC has a function in clear-cut cases, it's questionable whether it should take action in situations that are open to debate or subject to many variables.

      --
      "This is why men never share their feelings; because women always remember." -Just Shoot Me.
    4. Re:Censorship or standards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which claim about trucks or SUVs are misleading? I've never seen any ad for a truck/SUV that claimed it was something it was not. This sounds more like a rant about SUVs than anything pertinent to the topic.

      Maybe you should backup your claims.

    5. Re:Censorship or standards? by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

      I don't know if it'd really help much. The US advertising industry is remarkably complex and convoluted, partially to avoid being responsible for much of what they say. If you look closely, a huge number of them simply imply rather than come out and say something about the product, or twist events around to represent their product in ways that won't be applicable for the average user. Diet pills are a good example. A lot of them use normally fit or skinny people who've been recently bed ridden for for time, such as after breaking a bone. Since their normal body shape is normally slim, the diet company can put them on their product, and then when they return to what is normal for their body - the diet pill gets the credit when it was really the persons normal metabolism. And in that they wind up being able to state that a person took the diet pill and lost 80 lbs, both of which are completely factual, even though there might be no actual causation betwean the lost weight and the diet pill.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    6. Re:Censorship or standards? by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      And maybe we could use all that bandwidth for something that's actually productive.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    7. Re:Censorship or standards? by FrostedWheat · · Score: 1

      We'd also not hear about how much we can do for so little from Microsoft

      We still have those adverts in the UK. Hmmm... wonder if they can prove it.

    8. Re:Censorship or standards? by Rotten168 · · Score: 1

      Well things are done differently here. We have truth in advertising standards here, but you actually have to take the initiative in filing suit. How many truth in advertising lawsuits are successfully litigated here I dunno.

      People always want the government to be their mommy and do all the work for them.

    9. Re:Censorship or standards? by worm+eater · · Score: 1

      ...or every ad would be like a prescription drug ad, with lots of happy people dancing around in fields of flowers with their young children... "yeah, but what the hell does it DO?"

      --
      Maybe partying will help...
    10. Re:Censorship or standards? by fishbot · · Score: 1

      Imagine my disappointment when I discovered that my X-Box wouldn't propel me through the air to an early grave!

      These advertisers should think before that push these lies!

    11. Re:Censorship or standards? by zurab · · Score: 1
      If the standards were enforced, there'd be a severe shortage of ad revenue for television programs.


      Or, maybe, people would trust the messages delivered through advertisements more knowing advertizers cannot get away with flat out lies and half-truths. In effect, such increased trust would bring a greater value to an advertizing dollar, and, hence, increased use of the medium.

      You can argue either way.
    12. Re:Censorship or standards? by nullard · · Score: 1

      There used to be lots of ads for SUVs driving fast off road in snow or hilly terrain. When people bought the SUVs and tried to do what they had seen in the advertising, the rear axle snapped. There was a big stink about it in the news a few years ago.

      --


      t'nera semordnilap
    13. Re:Censorship or standards? by merlin_jim · · Score: 2, Interesting

      personally I applaud the enforcement of standards in advertising

      I for one welcome our new borg overlords!

      But seriously folks truth-in-advertising laws are a very good thing... see Niven's known world series for some good speculation on what might happen in a world where lying advertisers are put to death...

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    14. Re:Censorship or standards? by elvum · · Score: 1

      As well as the BBC, the UK has no shortage of advertising-funded TV stations that seem to have survived the last 10-30 years quite nicely, despite strongly-enforced advertising standards...

    15. Re:Censorship or standards? by steve_l · · Score: 1

      yes, the UK ad standards people are far fussier about advertising, and it makes a difference in what you get

      -car ads cant glorify speed or dangerous driving (you can only show legal stuff)

      -politicians arent allowed to advertise on TV at all. ('cos they all lie?)

      -you need to be able to substantiate your claims.

      -RSA inc once got chastised for saying their crypo solutions were better than OSS versions.

      Whereas in the US, nike claims that freedom of speech laws allow it to lie about how its subcontracted workers are treated. Quelle difference.

    16. Re:Censorship or standards? by BuckaBooBob · · Score: 1

      What about Microsofts Claim to Patch Faster than Linux/OS or be more secure?

      Or thier commitment to security the say that it is the job of a fireall to secure your computer.

      --
      Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
    17. Re:Censorship or standards? by identity0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      No no no, the ads were only meant to convey what using XP *feels like*. Continue using it for a extended period, and you'll be getting out-of-body experiences of flying in no time. You might even see a bright light at the end of a tunnel, and be transported to a glowing, happy place full of men in purple butterfly suits...

      Where's my meds?

    18. Re:Censorship or standards? by soft_guy · · Score: 2, Funny

      I got a G5 after seeing the ad. Imagine my relief when I was not blown through a wall of my house into a tree.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    19. Re:Censorship or standards? by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Omg, no sitcoms, reality shows, or sports. Whatever will we do? The plebs need to learn to entertain themselves.

    20. Re:Censorship or standards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >If the standards were enforced, there'd be a severe shortage of ad revenue for television programs.

      Aha - perhaps THAT'S the reason why British TV has so much less advertising than in the US!

    21. Re:Censorship or standards? by stor · · Score: 1

      Or maybe there would be more realistic and creative ads that don't attempt to sate the lusts of the mentally-challenged?

      Cheers
      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
    22. Re:Censorship or standards? by Hanji · · Score: 1

      Give credit where credit is due.

      (I acknowledge that you probably came up with this independently, but BBspot is just a damn funny site.)

      --
      A Minesweeper clone that doesn't suck
    23. Re:Censorship or standards? by rsborg · · Score: 1
      Yeah, I got Windows XP after I saw the ads on TV. Imagine my dissapointment when I found it it wouldn't actually allow me to fly around. :(

      You think you're disappointed? Take a look at these guys.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    24. Re:Censorship or standards? by forgotmypassword · · Score: 1

      Yes let's make BBC more like FOX!

    25. Re:Censorship or standards? by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      You mean the internet isn't faster with an Intel CPU?

      A friend of mine using a CheapAss(tm) cable ISP saw me downloading an ISO image over my mom-n-pop DSL ISP, and I was getting twice the speeds he was. This was totally against the hype/FUD/marketing he had been fed regarding DSL vs cable. So I told him it was because I was using Intel while he was using AMD. He bought it!

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    26. Re:Censorship or standards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I for one welcome our new borg overlords!"

      that doesn't even make much sense.

      seriously

    27. Re:Censorship or standards? by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      wonder if they can prove it.

      Those ads are obviously true, they just have a bit of a positive spin.

      next time you see the "do more with less" ads, interpret them as "we give you so little, try to make the best of it"

    28. Re:Censorship or standards? by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1


      Good point. However, I rather suspect, that, while the G5 ads have been pulled, Microsoft's ads and "stupid claims in oversized truck and SUV ads, diet pills, etc" remain on the air in the UK. Why do you suppose that is?

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    29. Re:Censorship or standards? by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      Who is we? the public? Have you watched public access recently?

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    30. Re:Censorship or standards? by tiled_rainbows · · Score: 1

      In the UK, we don't have advertisements for prescription drugs - they're banned. On the grounds, I think, that your doctor should be able to choose what drug to prescribe you without you the patient pestering him for whatever it was you saw on TV
      Which would make sense, were it not for all the money spent on promoting prescription drugs to doctors - free gifts, points schemes (like, you get points for prescribing drugs and can collect them to get stuff), free 'conferences' that are realy an excuse to spend weekend at a hotel eating driumking at the pharmecutical companies' expense, etc, etc, ad nauseam.

    31. Re:Censorship or standards? by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      No. I'm suggesting that we shouldn't be using our bandwidth for analog video. We should be using it for doing new things with TCP/IP.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    32. Re:Censorship or standards? by mlush · · Score: 1
      Good point. However, I rather suspect, that, while the G5 ads have been pulled, Microsoft's ads and "stupid claims in oversized truck and SUV ads, diet pills, etc" remain on the air in the UK. Why do you suppose that is?

      What UK Channels are you watching?? I've never seen a "diet pill ads" (the closest we get are ads for Special K) Car adverts tend to be along the lines of look how pretty our car is. its very quiet/efficent/whatever. Microsoft is mostly along the lines of 'Were Microsoft we can solve your problems'

    33. Re:Censorship or standards? by jacksonyee · · Score: 1

      Is that anything like the Old Testament law where prophets should be stoned if their prophecies were proven to be false?

      Neat!

      [begins polishing rocks]

    34. Re:Censorship or standards? by worm+eater · · Score: 1

      we don't have advertisements for prescription drugs - they're banned.

      Yeah, it was this way in the US until very recently. Frankly, I think it definately sets a bad precedent to have ads for prescription drugs. But compared with all the corruption in the pharmaceutical industry (some of which you pointed out), the TV ads are nothing. We need some 'doctor finance reform' legislation. It's sick what people get prescribed -- just so the doctor can get that new Prozac Porsche he's had his eye on.

      --
      Maybe partying will help...
    35. Re:Censorship or standards? by WNight · · Score: 1

      Why should I have to prosecute a truth-in-advertising case personally? Lying in advertising is fraud, a crime. The government should handle these cases.

    36. Re:Censorship or standards? by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Please, take an economics class!

      If the standards are same for everyone, the need to get ahead of competition would be the same. So companies would still spend a proportional part of their revenue on advertising.

      Also observe that countries with thougher advertising rules, have no shortage of ad-based television. The only difference infact is that the television is much less obnoxious.

    37. Re:Censorship or standards? by Rotten168 · · Score: 1

      Well, you have to bring up charges. The government cannot check every single ad that exists.

    38. Re:Censorship or standards? by nyseal · · Score: 1

      Achhhh.....bleh.....we never seem to see the light at the end of the tunnel. It's like being a priest who writes their sabbatical notes in Word 97 then cannot decipher them in Office XP Pro; hence not getting into heaven because they're stuck in purgatory. Jeez this sounds familiar. Try explaining THAT one to God.....'It was Bill's fault! I swear! Please Lord, let me in.....I swear I'll use OpenOffice from now to eternity!' God: 'Too late.....your soul was no longer mine in 1996; Bill had a bigger audience.'

      --
      [SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
    39. Re:Censorship or standards? by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      Go into the control panel and add the optional Windows component "Fly Around". You should at least RTFM or do some googling before you claim that Windows is missing a feature.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  6. UK Advertising laws are different. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I remember learning on a tour of Ben and Jerry's ice cream factory that in the UK, one cannot advertise anything that cannot be _PROVEN_. IIRC, Ben and Jerry's had to rename one of their flavors from something like "World's Best Ice Cream" to something else.

    This seems like an instance of _that_.

    PLEASE, no one make any "lickable" puns.

    -A

    1. Re:UK Advertising laws are different. by glesga_kiss · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Ben and Jerry's had to rename one of their flavors from something like "World's Best Ice Cream" to something else.

      That probably explains why Carlsberg advertise as "Probably the best lager in the world".

      Of course, it would leave Budweisser open to attack with their "king of beers" claim. Clearly wrong!!

    2. Re:UK Advertising laws are different. by venicebeach · · Score: 1

      I remember learning on a tour of Ben and Jerry's ice cream factory that in the UK, one cannot advertise anything that cannot be _PROVEN_.

      Does that mean you also can't advertise that Ben & Jerry's "tastes great!" or that it is "delicious"? Being restricted to that which can be "proven" seems a little too conservative. I mean you don't want to mislead the consumers, but what's wrong with little bragging about your own product?

    3. Re:UK Advertising laws are different. by Talthane · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, but you can't lay claim to something that is objectively proven by measurable criteria. Taste is subjective, speed is not.

      Of course, what counts as measurable criteria is decided by the ITC. Hence the complaints; although the ITC is incredibly powerful when it wants to be. Case in point - it can ban Apple from its second most lucrative market, even though this is a relatively small country in population terms.

      --
      "This is why men never share their feelings; because women always remember." -Just Shoot Me.
    4. Re:UK Advertising laws are different. by Dr_LHA · · Score: 1

      "Taste's great" or "delicious" is subjective though, it doesn't have to be proven, unless it tastes like dog shit in which the ITC might have rights to stop them saying it. What the ITC don't like is unproven things stated as fact. So "The Ultimate Driving Machine" is OK for BMW, but if they said "World's fastest car" it isn't.

    5. Re:UK Advertising laws are different. by Jaysyn · · Score: 4, Funny

      I always wondered about that, since it's an American beer, shouldn't it be the "President of Beers"?

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    6. Re:UK Advertising laws are different. by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you've ever tasted Budweiser, you'd claim it to be more like the "Intern Under the President's Desk" of beers.

    7. Re:UK Advertising laws are different. by Scott+Wood · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think Budweiser and our current President are of roughly comparable quality... :-P

    8. Re:UK Advertising laws are different. by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      I'll drink a Budweiser if that's all there is available...if Bush were the only available candidate for the 2004 election, I think I would leave the country.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    9. Re:UK Advertising laws are different. by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 1

      Speed is, apparently, relative. All sorts of companies come up with benchmarks all the time claiming that they're faster. The only way to objectively measure speed is to perform EXACTLY the same tasks and figure out which subject performed better. However, if you have cooked compilers meant only to boost your speed in those tests, or you only use tests that take advantage of your special resources and not those of the competitor, you're not being fair.

      It's impossible to be fair, in all practical terms. The SPEC results for the G5 may be lower than that of some Intel chips, but the 'real-world' benchmarks of Photoshop and Matlab may come down in favour of the G5. So, which one is faster? The one that can perform well on the artificial benchmark, or the one that would actually do more work for you if you sat at it? Suddenly, we're back in the realm of a subjective decision.

    10. Re:UK Advertising laws are different. by JamesP · · Score: 1

      The stupidest thing there is that the speed o a G5 is the same of a P4... zero miles per hour...

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    11. Re:UK Advertising laws are different. by identity0 · · Score: 1

      Okay, I'm not a beer nut, but I have read that tere's an interesting story behind that slogan...

      Apparently, there is a Czech town called Budweis where they have been brewing a beer called "Budejovicky" or "Budweiser"(Which means 'from Budweis') since 12th century or so. Since the 16th century, they have been called "The beer of kings", presumably because actual kings drank it. In the 19th century, the Anheuser-Busch company decided to make a beer styled after the Budweis beers, and called it Budweiser. Apparently they did not have a very creative marketing staff, so their slogan became "The king of beers", which they use to this day.

      Anheuser-Busch has apparently been strongarming people over that particular trademark, as well as suing over the 'Budweiser' trademark. That second link is particularly interesting, it has facts like how American Budweiser can't legally be called a 'beer' in Germany because they use rice in brewing and so forth.

      Speaking of 'Beer of Presidents', I wonder what Mr. Bush actually drinks?

    12. Re:UK Advertising laws are different. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coke, obviously.

    13. Re:UK Advertising laws are different. by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately for the rest of us, we can't pretend Bush is the only candidate, have a nice big bon-voyage party for a bunch of you, and then hold the regular bi-partisan election.

      But we can dream.

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    14. Re:UK Advertising laws are different. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anheuser-Busch has apparently been strongarming people over that particular trademark, as well as suing over the 'Budweiser' trademark.

      The Anheuser-Busch brewery pioneered the techniques that made international distribution of beers possible (artificial refrigeration + pasteurization of beer). They also bought the right to use the name Budweiser from the Czech town. (It was in Austria-Hungary at the time.) In most of countries where the trademark is being disputed, Anheuser-Busch's Budweiser has been available for decades longer than Ceske Budejovice's Budweiser.

      And whichever way each trademark dispute is decided, no one is prevented from selling beer -- it is just a question of which name can be used. For those reasons I am generally more sympathetic to A-B's claim.

      Well, it's also because I bought 12 bottles of "Budvar" at Trader Joe's, and two of them had gone off. The rest were fine quality, but I did not find them significantly better than A-B's Budweiser... maybe that is just because I'm not real big on pilseners anyway.

    15. Re:UK Advertising laws are different. by Lurks · · Score: 1

      My god, they're not even in the same league. One is a proper beer, the other is some watered down garbage. Any proper beer lover would have no difficulty telling which is which. AB's Budweiser is unlike any beer made anywhere else in the world, because elsewhere in the world people generally have a much better standard to compare against.

    16. Re:UK Advertising laws are different. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AB's Budweiser is unlike any beer made anywhere else in the world, because elsewhere in the world people generally have a much better standard to compare against.

      Yeah right. "Elsewhere in the world" most people drink Heineken, Budweiser, Stella Artois, Sapporo, etc. The fact is, the average joe wants a simple, clean-tasting beer.

      But if you think Budweiser is exceptionally bad, you are quite ignorant. Just try Busch Beer, Pabst Blue Ribbon, Old Milwaukee. Apparently there are people who actually drink that stuff... and I'm not even including "malt liquor" here.

    17. Re:UK Advertising laws are different. by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      Hold a regular bi-partisan election? Quite a few folks out there consistently vote libertarian, so I don't know where you get that our elections are bi-partisan.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    18. Re:UK Advertising laws are different. by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      Actually, hardly anybody votes for a third party. On the several rather rare instances where people have, it's generally went against the intentions of the people who voted for the third party.

      I.e.:

      Very few of the people who voted for Nader would rather have Bush than Gore as a president.

      Very few of the people who voted for Perot would rather have Clinton than Dole as a president.

      The US is a two party system mainly because that's how people polarize, to two 'extremes.' (Now-as to wether they are actual 'two extremes' or a left and right wing flapping on the same big stoopid bird is another matter...)

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    19. Re:UK Advertising laws are different. by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1
      The US is a two party system mainly because that's how people polarize, to two 'extremes.' (Now-as to wether they are actual 'two extremes' or a left and right wing flapping on the same big stoopid bird is another matter...)

      The two party system really has seemed to promote discussion of less worthy issues. I do not think that whether or not a President would nominate a judge who promises to overturn Roe v. Wade is a good way to assess his leadership skills, for example. That's why I encourage third party voting, since the left-right paradigm seems to have one big common platform: bigger federal government.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    20. Re:UK Advertising laws are different. by nyseal · · Score: 1

      Now THAT was funny!

      --
      [SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
    21. Re:UK Advertising laws are different. by nyseal · · Score: 1

      Speed, in this case, is indeed subjective.

      --
      [SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
  7. In other news... by m0rph3us0 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Mac's are also not faster than light.

    1. Re:In other news... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Mine is. I woke up, turned on the light, and the Mac was already there.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  8. Ah ha by DSLAMngu · · Score: 0

    Now "that's" pretty darned "funny" by any "standard." "LOL." In this case, technology has progressed faster than government. Obsolescence, specifically.

  9. Quotastic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    What's with all those "quotes" in the submitted "article"? Somebody seems to be very "satisfied" with this "comitee".

  10. It's now official: by burgburgburg · · Score: 0
    Intel owns it's own government.

    Obviously, their jealously over Microsoft's recent (2000) purchase of the US Government has gotten the better of them. Always having to keep up with the Gates.

  11. based partially on SPEC benchmarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Key word "partially." Compare the Apple results to the official x86/Xeon/etc. scores. For an even bigger laugh, compare the official results to the ones that Apple claimed the Intel machines scored.

    Maybe Al Franken should write a book about Steve Jobs and his advertising group. ;)

    1. Re:based partially on SPEC benchmarks by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      All benchmarks are biased. Marketing is simply a matter of selecting the benchmarks that are biased in the direction you want.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    2. Re:based partially on SPEC benchmarks by kc8apf · · Score: 3, Informative

      Maybe you should take a minute and actually look at what _you_ are comparing. The scores quoted by Apple for the Intel machines explicitly stated that GCC was used as the compiler to remove the compiler as a variable. The published scores on SPEC's website do not. You are comparing cows to telephone poles.

      Now, comparing G5 results with GCC to x86 results with GCC is pretty fair when you are comparing the hardware only, not the software. That is what they claimed to be showing.

      --
      kc8apf
    3. Re:based partially on SPEC benchmarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So they're not allowed to use any AltiVec optimized compilers from now on? They are limited to use compilers that work on both platforms?

      Intel can't use their best foot forward because IBM hasn't finished their platform-optimized compilers?

      AltiVec is just there, but never used, and doesn't get used by applications like Photoshop, which NEVER shows up as a benchmark?

      Please. GMAMFB. They should both be allowed to put their best foot forward, not try and emulate the potentially lagging performance of the other platform. Apple will trip all over themselves to update the benchmarks once IBM finishes their new compilers. Will they be cheating then?

    4. Re:based partially on SPEC benchmarks by ZackSchil · · Score: 1

      Mmm, troll...

      But yeah, I'd be interested in seeing both computers complete a suite of tests programmed by two different teams, specializing in their respective platform, using the best of their knowledge and the best compilers, assembly if necessary. Using GCC on both platform does not level the playing field, it's like making two left-handed fencers fight each-other with sabres in their right hands. Maybe one is more ambidextrous than the other, does that make him the better fencer? No, but he'll probably win.

    5. Re:based partially on SPEC benchmarks by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 1
      Now, comparing G5 results with GCC to x86 results with GCC is pretty fair when you are comparing the hardware only, not the software

      Wrong. The only way to compare the hardware is to use the best compiler for each: intel on x86 and IBM's compiler on G5. Using GCC on both doesn't eliminate the compiler as a variable, since GCC on x86 and GCC on G5 don't share ALL code (in particular, they have different code generators).

    6. Re:based partially on SPEC benchmarks by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      I don't see why you call that a troll, he's right, and further, you even agree with him!

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    7. Re:based partially on SPEC benchmarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The scores quoted by Apple for the Intel machines explicitly stated that GCC was used as the compiler to remove the compiler as a variable."

      But until one of the machine's can run the other's source-code, it obviously does NOT remove the "compiler as a variable".

      Optimizers vary wildly from platform to platform. The optimization takes place at the back-end, the very part that is completely different on different CPU archs.

      Thus, claiming the above is a red-herring. It's also irrelevent - the test of how fast a machine is, for the user, boils down to how fast it can complete a particular task.

      Comparing gcc results from totally different archs isn't any more "fair" than comparing icc vs gcc results from different archs. The code generation - the most important part of the compiler phase - is totally different regardless.

    8. Re:based partially on SPEC benchmarks by Attitude+Adjuster · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Couldn't disagree more!

      A standard compiler is not part of the SPEC benchmarking process, because what we're all interested in estimating is the ultimate hardware performance, not hardware + a compiler only some of us will use (and joe home user, be he windoze or mac user, won't be compiling anything with gcc himself.). If you want to measure hardware performance, you should use the compilers that actually make use the hardware in the way it was intended.

      GCC isn't taking advantage of the hardware in a uniform way between the the various x86 architectures and the Motorola G4 or IBM 970 chips, so I don't see how you can think its a truly level playing field either. Its certainly not using the exact same machine language in all cases.

      Why didn't Apple use IBM's XL compiler, which does have 970-specific optimizations - they could have, and shown us a real comparison against Intel and AMD? That would have saved everyone from this annoying fuss... I feel they were too busy attempting a quick PR victory using numbers that exaggerated the differences in chip speed.

      If you can afford to buy Apples products you can damn well get Intels compiler if you really need something to run fast, even if you are a running linux and wouldn't dream of actually buying other software.

      All misleading advertising should be challenged. Unless you are a technophile and read fine print you would be mislead by those ads - the spec scores are only one of the way they're exaggerating. This knee-jerk over-hyping and then fanatical defense of everthing Apple does (not specifically by you, I mean in general) exceeds that of the Microsoft apologists in volume. Its a pity, because its making ./ is go way down in signal-to-noise.

    9. Re:based partially on SPEC benchmarks by callipygian-showsyst · · Score: 2, Informative
      Wrong. The only way to compare the hardware is to use the best compiler for each: intel on x86 and IBM's compiler on G5

      Close! The way to compart the hardware is to use the compiler recommended by the Manufacturer for each product. Intel, for performance, would reccomend their own compiler while IBM, who contributed the G5 code generator to the GCC project, would recommend theirs (in this case, GCC.)

      Using "GCC" for both isn't fair because the code generators and optimizers are completely different. The only fair thing is to use what the Manufacturer suggests for optimum performance.

      Apple's initial benchmarks were weird, too, because they compared a machine that would not ship for FOUR months (and I'm being generous here) to a 6-month old DELL unit. Fair would be to ask Dell for a sample of a machine to be released next quarter and test against that.

      As it is, the P4, even crippled with HT turned off, BEAT the G5 with its faster bus in all the integer tests. By Apple's own admission.

    10. Re:based partially on SPEC benchmarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So to sum up your post:

      Waaa!!!!

    11. Re:based partially on SPEC benchmarks by ZackSchil · · Score: 1

      Trolling is a writing style that can easily be avoided with tact. He may not have been lying but he was trolling.

    12. Re:based partially on SPEC benchmarks by akuma(x86) · · Score: 1

      When you have 2 completely different instruction sets, you CANNOT remove the compiler as a variable.

      I'm sorry, it's just not possible in the same sense of the statement (2+2 = 5) is not possible.

      You have the x86 gcc backend and the PPC gcc backend code. They are completely different beasts. Many key optimizations for performance happen in the back-end.

      So what is "fair" in this respect? I think that SPEC has some very reasonable rules with regards to comparing computers of different instruction sets. You are allowed to use the best available compiler on the market to compile completely visible source code. You can see if the compiler was tuned *just* for the benchmark by examining the generated code. In fact many people have called shenanigans on Sun for some of their floating point optimizations which are IMHO quite suspect. All of this is in the open for critics to see and evaluate.

      If the only compiler on the market is one that produces crappy code for your system, then that's a fault of choosing a system that only has inferior compilers to choose from. It's all part of the choice you make in investing in one system or another.

      You may disagree, but what would you suggest as a better test? I'd love to see more compute-intensive application source code benchmarked outside of SPEC.

    13. Re:based partially on SPEC benchmarks by wirelessbuzzers · · Score: 1

      Close! The way to compart the hardware is to use the compiler recommended by the Manufacturer for each product. Intel, for performance, would reccomend their own compiler while IBM, who contributed the G5 code generator to the GCC project, would recommend theirs (in this case, GCC.)

      IBM's compiler is not GCC. Their C compiler for the PPC 970 beats the pants off of GCC, running some of the SPEC benchmarks several times faster (FP int). This is largely because IBM's optimizations for PPC processors got rejected from GCC for being too platform-specific.

      I would like to see an official SPEC matchup between a dual G5 with the IBM compiler and a new dual Xeon with Intel's.

      Apple's initial benchmarks were weird, too, because they compared a machine that would not ship for FOUR months (and I'm being generous here) to a 6-month old DELL unit. Fair would be to ask Dell for a sample of a machine to be released next quarter and test against that.

      Yeah, they cheated there.

      As it is, the P4, even crippled with HT turned off, BEAT the G5 with its faster bus in all the integer tests. By Apple's own admission.

      Yup, though not by much. According to Veritest, though, they ran the tests with and without HT, and without HT was faster. This may be because GCC did not optimize correctly for HT, but then we're back in the compiler argument again.

      Apple also installed a single-thread speed-demon malloc library on the Mac and, as far is I can tell, not on the PC, so they are definitely guilty of cheating. But they didn't cheat as much as you say, or more than anyone else cheats on their benchmarks. And in the US, you can say something is the best if you can make it look better than the competition without cheating more than the other guys do.

      --
      I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
    14. Re:based partially on SPEC benchmarks by nyseal · · Score: 1

      Should not the tests be based on the interactiveness of both platforms? That is where the true test lies. IBM will only be cheating if they claim that their compiliers will run just as fast on one platform as another; which may not be the case.

      --
      [SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
  12. Must buy G5 by mrycar · · Score: 3, Funny

    Must buy a G5. Must have Most Powerful Personal Computer (TM). Must believe advertising. They wouldn't lie to me.

    By the time the ad was out, it was no longer the most powerful computer.

    --
    Gator/Claria is Spyware.
    1. Re:Must buy G5 by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Must believe advertising. They wouldn't lie to me.

      Sure, we all realise that they don't tell the whole truth. The problem is that advertising also works on the subconsious level. Your brain uses a vast database to determine your response to any stimulus. Unfortunatly, that database is polluted with "information" from adverts. We find it next-to-impossible to differentiate between real knowledge and implanted knowledge.

      Don't believe me? Take a look at your shopping trolley next time you go grocery shopping. Most people go for brand names without even thinking about it, as they automatically assume they are "better".

    2. Re:Must buy G5 by DrEldarion · · Score: 1

      I think you mean: "Must" buy a "G5". "Must" have "Most Powerful Computer" (T"M)". "Must believe" "advertising". "They" "wouldn't" "lie" """""to"""" """""me""""".

    3. Re:Must buy G5 by PunchMonkey · · Score: 1

      Most people go for brand names without even thinking about it, as they automatically assume they are "better".

      Ummm... that's probably cause they usually are better. The few times I have tried a no-name brand product, I'm usually quite dissappointed and decide it's worth the extra 50 cents to get the name brand i like. Kraft Dinner, Frozen Pizza, Cheese, Butter, Margarine and toilet paper are just a few of the no name products i've tried that just sucked -- so i don't trust the "no-name" brand anymore... I assume that's how most other people come to that conclusion.

      --
      I'll have something intelligent to add one of these days...
    4. Re:Must buy G5 by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      The few times I have tried a no-name brand product, I'm usually quite dissappointed and decide it's worth the extra 50 cents to get the name brand i like.

      Sure, sometimes that's the case, especially with food. Let's face it, there is some really crap food out there! But many products are the exact same thing, produced in the exact same way at the same place as others of different brands. Personally, I worked in one factory that made frozen pizza for three different brand names! This sort of thing is incredibly common, especially with the supermarket's own name brands.

      No one makes shit these days. It's all sub-contracted.

  13. They did the right thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first time I saw that G5 ad here in the US I wondered how they could get away with total bullshit false advertising like that.

    1. Re:They did the right thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False advertising is the way of life in US. They invaded an enitre country (Iraq) based on false advertising.

      If you took away false advertising from US, the entire country would vanish.

    2. Re:They did the right thing by zpok · · Score: 1

      The first time I saw that G5 ad here in the US I wondered how they could get away with total bullshit false advertising like that.

      Yeah, as if those fans could really blow you through the wall. Sheez, what do they think we are, dumb?

      --
      I think, therefore I am...I think.
  14. A whole 8 viewers complained by burgburgburg · · Score: 0

    I would have thought that Intel had more UK employees then that. Or am I conspiracy-mongering again?

    1. Re:A whole 8 viewers complained by tornado2258 · · Score: 1

      You forget how small a country the UK is.

    2. Re:A whole 8 viewers complained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, a small country with 60 million population and and 1.5 million muslims according to the CIA Factbook

      Hence, UK must be on USA's hitlist in its "war on terror"

      In case the US 1,000 pound bombs don't find the target, the UK's geographic coordinates are 31 30 N, 34 45 E.

    3. Re:A whole 8 viewers complained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then?

      it's "than", dammit!

      THAN!

      English, mofo - do you speak it?

    4. Re:A whole 8 viewers complained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >You forget how small a country the UK is.

      Yup, tiny. That's why Americans always ask me "you live in London, do you know Tony Blair / the Queen / my friend Bob"?

    5. Re:A whole 8 viewers complained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In case the US 1,000 pound bombs don't find the target, the UK's geographic coordinates are 31 30 N, 34 45 E.

      funny guy, those coordinates are for Israel.

    6. Re:A whole 8 viewers complained by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      Naw, they're the coordinates for the Chinese Embassy.

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
  15. Superfalous? by DarkBlackFox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't think any particular computer can be considered "the fastest in the world." Each architecture is designed such that one will always outshine the other in a specific set of functions. Apple may be faster in benchmark X, while Intel is faster in benchmark Y, while AMD is faster in benchmark Z, etc. etc. Apple does have some validity to their claim, but so would Intel and AMD if they were to announce themselves as the fastest in the world to.

    That's after the fact though. Companies will always proclaim their products as "the best, the fastest, the strongest." It's a fact of marketing- what company would say "Our products are mediocre, behind X and Y" and expect decent sales?

    1. Re:Superfalous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're looking for "superfluous."

    2. Re:Superfalous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No, he meant Superphallus.

    3. Re:Superfalous? by DarkBlackFox · · Score: 1

      Naw, it's just Monday.

    4. Re:Superfalous? by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1
      I support these kinds of standards. Marketing is all about proclaiming how great your product is. But there is a line between superlatives ("they're the best desktop computers money can buy") vs. ("the world's fastest desktop computers"). Despite the fact that Slashdotters consider computer speed to be subjective because there are so many metrics for speed, most people see computer speed as a cut-and-dried issue. The reality is that saying a computer is the "fastest" without clarifying what it's the fastest at IS misleading to the majority of people, who will interpret that claim to mean it's the fastest at all computing tasks (because to them "speed" is like the speed of a car, measureable in absolute terms, they don't see all the complex interactions going on as relevant).


      I have no problem with Apple saying their computers are "the best" or them saying that their computers are "the fastest multimedia desktop machines" or something else, assuming it's substantiated by a fairly broad array of meaningful benchmark data. But having the government draw a line in the sand about this sort of thing isn't a bad idea at all.

    5. Re:Superfalous? by happyfrogcow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's after the fact though. Companies will always proclaim their products as "the best, the fastest, the strongest." It's a fact of marketing- what company would say "Our products are mediocre, behind X and Y" and expect decent sales?

      And slowly the world would be held up by millions of little white lies, which individually don't matter much, but together they form a flimsy foundation for what should be a trustworthy global community.

      Good job, Europe! I applaud you.

      marketing departments should be officially renamed to "The Department of Lies, Cheats, and Doublespeak" as should University curriculums which give degrees in Marketting.

    6. Re:Superfalous? by kfg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's a fact of marketing- what company would say "Our products are mediocre, behind X and Y" and expect decent sales?

      None of them, of course. Instead they would ignore the whole performance issue and point out that their computers looked more like yummy gumdrops than the competition.

      It's a fact of marketing.

      KFG

    7. Re:Superfalous? by Cyno · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that no chip manufacturer makes their chips as fast as possible because of financial concerns. Everything gets done because it makes money. Its just not profitable to make things too fast, since you need to make them faster to encourage people to upgrade, replace and buy more stuff.

      If only we could work on all this technology for the technology instead of the money. But that's impossible. Humans aren't intelligent enough to create a system that works without money. This has been proven.

    8. Re:Superfalous? by Brataccas · · Score: 1
      I don't think any particular yummy gumdrop can be considered the Platonic ideal. Each gumdrop is designed such that one will always outshine the other in a specific set of factors. ZuperSugarSweets may contain more sugar in benchmark X, while YummyInMyTummy is chewier and lasts longer in benchmark Y, while GelatinousSurprise is more flavorful in benchmark Z, etc. etc.

      Without any sort of government defined perfect yummy gumdrop, how can we possibly make up our own minds about which computer to buy?

      Sorry, just couldn't resist.

    9. Re:Superfalous? by Enonu · · Score: 1

      I totally agree. After all, I just executed 10 trillion NOP instructions in my head in less than 1 ns! Fear the "slack" architecture in its finest incarnation.

    10. Re:Superfalous? by kfg · · Score: 1

      Well, a good point actually, which is why I restrained my argument to comparisons of visual appearance. I seem to have neglected to add the further restraint that comparison would be made against the historical actuallization of manufactured gumdrops to date.

      Sloppy work really. Well below my usual standards.

      Still, who really seeks out the biege rectangular gumdrops? Ineed, does a rectangular shape even meet the government definition of drop?

      More research into advertising standards is needed.

      I sidestep the whole issue myself. Concerned that my tin foil hat might not be functioning up to spec ( you can't trust the manufacturers of anything these days) I have fallen back on whittling my own computers from scratch, using only locally produced renewable, hydrogen economy ready, biomass.

      I favor maple and knotty pine.

      Now if I could only remove the niggly little voice in the back of my head that says I'm only doing this because I've bought into the PR campaign of some politically motivated lobby group. . .

      Life is hard. It's harder when you're gullible.

      KFG

    11. Re:Superfalous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      speed" is like the speed of a car, measureable in absolute terms

      Would that be the 0-60 time? Or the 0-100 time? Or the quarter-mile time? Or speed at the quarter-mile? Or speed through a slalom course? Or lap time around a track?

    12. Re:Superfalous? by bccomm · · Score: 1

      Apple's G5 probably is the fastest personal computer around. An Opteron box may be faster, but it isn't any more a `personal computer' than [insert some Japanese supercomputer here] is. Until manufacturers start using the Opteron in systems, the G5 is still king for people who don't know how to build their own.

      Build a system that a fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it.

      BTW, I'm not calling Mac users fools, but there probably are more idiots running them than there are running tricked-out Opteron boxes :)
    13. Re:Superfalous? by Eminor · · Score: 1

      Actaully, the G5 is the fastesr Personal Computer on the market.

      The G5 is much faster than the AMD and Petium chips. I would like to see a benchmark where a current x86 beats a G5 that isn't rigged.

      NOTE: I am not an Apple Zealot. I am running an x86 (for now).

    14. Re:Superfalous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bugger that, I want a G5 to Clawhammer comparison, both are 64-bit chips that don't suck (sorry, Intel's server chips have pissed me off no end with their 4 different cores of which only one didn't lose data).

      Of course, I don't really need a 64 bit processor, I just have a small penis and need to compendsate... :)

    15. Re:Superfalous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google says G5 not fastest:

      http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/cint2000.htm l

      http://barefeats.com/g5c.html

      http://www3.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=1 15 876

    16. Re:Superfalous? by juhaz · · Score: 1

      An Opteron box may be faster, but it isn't any more a `personal computer' than [insert some Japanese supercomputer here] is. Until manufacturers start using the Opteron in systems, the G5 is still king for people who don't know how to build their own.

      Opteron as Opteron might not be marketed towards "personal computer", but Athlon64 FX is, at the moment, just a relabeled opteron (eg. just as fast, or maybe faster, if it runs on higher clockspeeds than opteron-opterons).

      And 64 FX's certainly are targeted to personal computers, the "enthusiast market" part of it, gamers that want most powerful hardware there is and other such speed freaks. And yes, you can get prebuilt systems that are clearly not meant to be servers.

  16. DIET PILLS?!?!? by milktoastman · · Score: 3, Offtopic

    I take diet pills so I can fit into my RED DRESS and be on TELEVISION!!!!

    1. Re:DIET PILLS?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not insightful. It's funny. Pls fx thx.

    2. Re:DIET PILLS?!?!? by Catullus · · Score: 1

      Fantastic. +1 Funny please.

    3. Re:DIET PILLS?!?!? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2

      Man, I hated Requiem for a Dream. (And Hey, moderator, it's NOT off topic if you understand the movie reference.) I hate it when I leave the theatre feeling dead tired because it was nothing but depression the whole way through and I had to fight to stay conscious.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  17. Eight viewers? by OECD · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They pulled the ad because EIGHT viewers complained? That's a little more responsive than over here in the US. (I'm not sure that's a good thing.)

    --
    One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
    1. Re:Eight viewers? by owlstead · · Score: 1

      So? If they think these readers are right (with substantial bases), they should pull the freakin plug.

      People these days aren't as responsive as they used to. There is no use ignoring the ones that do respond to such an ad.

      Still, there are many, many commercials that are totally over the top. I don't know why this commercial would be banned and others not.

    2. Re:Eight viewers? by bug-eyed+monster · · Score: 1

      They didn't pull the ad as a direct result of the complaints. The complaints started a new investigation, and they pulled the ad based on the results of that.

      If the second investigation had not found anything wrong with the claims, the ad would not have been pulled, complaints or not.

    3. Re:Eight viewers? by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 1

      No, they looked at the ad because eight people complained. They pulled it because there were personal computers that were more powerful, contrary to the specific claims of the advert.

  18. hello, ITC? craig barrett and hector ruiz here... by avi33 · · Score: 0

    ...and I must say, this Apple ads are downright misleading. We happen to have a couple of Itanium and Opteron...um, personal computers, right here. and let me tell ya, they may be a bit pricey, especially for the 8-way, blade...um, laptops, but they are just as fast as these here G5s I keep hearing about.

  19. TV Commercial Banned? by merikus · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I find this somewhat terrifying. While I agree that there should be some truth in advertising, I find it disturbing that eight people are able to file a complaint to an oversight board and have a commercial such as this pulled. Perhaps if Apple had clearly stated a falsehood I would agree that this commercial should be pulled. However, it seems to me that this issue is open to debate. What kind of evidence did this board want? What kind of tests would need to be done to prove Apple's assertion? I personally think that the advertiser should be given the benefit of the doubt unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the advertiser is promoting a falsehood. But I am an American, and I my cultural baggage informs my opinion, so who knows.

    1. Re:TV Commercial Banned? by c_waddington · · Score: 1

      The rules are quite different in the UK. Coming from the UK it didn't surprise me that the advert got pulled. The rules are quite clear - you cannot make a claim for a product that cannot be substantiated. As we all know, fast as the G5 is, it certainly cannot categorically claim to be the worlds fastest personal computer since there are other computers/processors that beat it (in certain benchmarks) . It doesn't really matter how many people complained or what their motives were - they were only bringing this claim to the attention of the Advertising Standard Comittee. That committee quite rightly found that Apple couldn't back up their claim and therefore was misleading the public. The UK always airs on the side of protecting the consumer rather than the advertiser. (I've lived in the US for five years now and I'm still shocked by the outrageous claims that appear in US ads.)

    2. Re:TV Commercial Banned? by merikus · · Score: 1

      That's very interesting. I didn't know about the different TV rules in the UK. I think in many ways it might be preferable to have stricter rules; I often find myself quite annoyed with the lies on TV and radio here. However, I have no doubt that any attempts to require facts in advertising would be quickly struck down in the USA, unfortunately.

    3. Re:TV Commercial Banned? by TomV · · Score: 1
      The ITC's Advertising Standards Code is quite clear here. If you check the section about misleading advertising you'll see how it could easily apply to these G5 ads:
      (2) Advertising is likely to be considered misleading if, for example, it contains a false statement, description, illustration or claim about a material fact or characteristic. Material characteristics include price, availability and performance. Any ambiguity which might give a misleading impression must be avoided.

      (3) Even if everything stated is literally true, an advertisement may still mislead if it conceals significant facts or creates a false impression of relevant aspects of the product or service.

      (4) Scientific terms or jargon, statistics and other technical information should not be used to make claims appear to have a scientific basis that they do not possess. Equally, statistics of limited validity must not be presented in such a way as to mislead, for instance by implying that they are universally true.

      (5) An advertisement may be misleading even if it does not directly lead to financial loss or a misguided purchasing decision. The ITC may also regard an advertisement as misleading if, for example, it causes viewers to waste their time making enquiries, only to find that offers are unavailable or that there are important limitations. This could involve encouraging viewers to visit shops, or to make lengthy telephone calls (including freephone calls).

      (6) When assessing whether an advertisement is misleading, the ITC considers the overall impression likely to be conveyed to a reasonable viewer. It does not consider the intentions of the advertiser, nor simply whether the advertising meets legal or other regulatory requirements.

      Moreover, the 8 complaints don't lead to the ad being banned. The 8 complaints (the first complaint, actually) lead to the ad being investigated by the ITC. If the ad is then found to be out of compliance with the code of conduct, then the Investigation leads to the ad being banned.
    4. Re:TV Commercial Banned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd check those 8 peoples connection with ms and intel and also I'd keep on checking their financials for next 2 years

  20. I can say by iomud · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have that G5 and it did indeed blow me out the side of my house.

    1. Re:I can say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Liar.

    2. Re:I can say by squarefish · · Score: 1

      and even with the hole in the side of your house- it will heat it during the coldest winter;)

      --
      Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
    3. Re:I can say by coopaq · · Score: 1
      I have that G5 and it did indeed blow me outside of my house.

      If you'd saved some money and bought a PC your wife might have done the same thing for you in the bedroom.

    4. Re:I can say by oolon · · Score: 1

      I would sue apple in that case. The G5 is clearly a ticking timebomb and the ad should be banned along with the computer on the grounds of public safety.

      James

    5. Re:I can say by rampant+mac · · Score: 1
      "If you'd saved some money and bought a PC your wife might have done the same thing for you in the bedroom."

      You're obviously not married. You must be confusing the "wife" and "girlfriend" stage. See, during the girlfriend stage, you can buy her a card or flowers and can possibly expect the aforementioned pleasantries. Once married, expect many titillating activities like "taking out the trash" or "mowing the lawn" or possibly "painting over the graffiti junior just wrote on the wall." It doesn't matter how much you spend; I could buy my wife a Ferrari and she'd complain that the leather interior clashes with our birdhouse.

      I really hate that birdhouse too.

      --
      I like big butts and I cannot lie.
    6. Re:I can say by dubiousmike · · Score: 1

      gives new meaning to "human interface port"

    7. Re:I can say by Skraggy · · Score: 1

      I hope you sue for personal injuries, damage to the property, and loss of earnings.

      --
      A Skoda is for life, not for casual humour.
  21. Wow. 8 whole viewers complained! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wonder how long till they ban IBM's Linux Ad once they discover that Linux is not an 8-year-old boy?

    But wait, there is more. I have installed Windows2003 on one of my computers, and contrary to Microsoft's TV ads, it didn't save me 5 cents per business transaction. I was hoping to make a killing on that.

    In UK, I Can't Believe It's Not Butter is simply known as I Swear It's Not Butter!

    1. Re:Wow. 8 whole viewers complained! by jon3k · · Score: 1

      1. I don't believe they ever make a direct claim that linux is, in fact, an 8 year old boy.

      2. Microsoft never says YOU WILL SAVE $0.05/transaction. Simple showed a commercial where one company did. Results may vary :)

      I see your point, you just chose very poor analogies.

    2. Re:Wow. 8 whole viewers complained! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I Can't Believe Its Not Butter was banned from airing any commercials for a lengthy period after its UK launch...

    3. Re:Wow. 8 whole viewers complained! by switcha · · Score: 1
      I wonder how long till they ban IBM's Linux Ad once they discover that Linux is not an 8-year-old boy?

      They caught that one right after they recieved an order for "50 Linux's" from an 'M. Jackson' in California.

      --
      You know what? ... A little club soda *did* get that out!
  22. Commercials by cepler · · Score: 1, Funny

    Since when did people start believing commercials?

    1. Re:Commercials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Since when do people still watch TV?

      I consider my TIVO to be an internet bridge for the cable box.

  23. Perception by rf0 · · Score: 0

    One thing is that people see personal computer and think Windows. Apple doesn't run Windows so as far as the public is concered that as they can't play the greatest game then its not a PC. Its one thing advertisers seem to forget is that most people think PC = Microsoft.

    Quite simply most of the general population is non technical

    Rus

    1. Re:Perception by herulach · · Score: 1

      Macs arent PCs, at least not in the way most people understand the term, they're macs, they might be personal computers, but then so is the pocket calculator i have next to me.

    2. Re:Perception by geoffspear · · Score: 1

      Dells aren't PCs, because they're not made by IBM. Please type out "PC-Compatible" instead of PC every time you use the term, or you are lying in whatever claim you are making.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
  24. The commercal is correctly blocked! by kandresen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In Norway we have similar rules: You cannot air commercial claiming something that might be false.

    That means you cannot say your price is cheaper or faster or whatevre unless we are talking about to totally identical products. We are not here. The processor in the mac is totally different from a processor from AMD, Intel, Sun, etc. I can guarantee that if you compare a totally specialized processor for only one single operation, then that processor might be faster than the G5 processor in that particular field.
    It will then be false to say the processor used in the G5 is faster, even though the other only was faster on lets say integar calculations...

    1. Re:The commercal is correctly blocked! by Llywelyn · · Score: 1

      "You cannot air commercial claiming something that might be false."

      "Hi, were sorry, but you can't state anything factual any of your commercials without including cited studies that have no contradiction, error bars on your statistics, and be sure to use guarded language before everything."

      Since, after all, anything that has a type-1 error (everything that involves statistics) /might/ be false.

      --
      Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
    2. Re:The commercal is correctly blocked! by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      Your comments are completely off point. Lets take you arguement and parallel it with something else, say for example cars. Would a commercial from Dodge be pulled because it claims to have built the fastest factory street-legal cars? By your standards it would simply because it doesn't have the same engine as the Honda or Mitsubishi. Would an ad from Chevrolet be banned by stating their Silverado has the most torgue of any other factory half-ton pickup? By your standards it would because they don't use the same hitch as Ford or Toyota. Your arguement is mute.

    3. Re:The commercal is correctly blocked! by OECD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In Norway we have similar rules: You cannot air commercial claiming something that might be false

      I think I prefer the US model (being a native, that's probably to be expected.) In the UK/Norway model, no car could be 'the fastest car', since it would have to be fastest at ALL distances, terrain, etc. Yeah, it's more accurate, but the annoying picky accuracy of grammar nazis.

      --
      One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
    4. Re:The commercal is correctly blocked! by cosmo7 · · Score: 1

      To unexpectedly reconverge on-topic, car ads in the UK are not allowed to suggest that cars go fast, as that would be promoting unsafe driving (I kid you not).

    5. Re:The commercal is correctly blocked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >In the UK/Norway model, no car could be 'the fastest car', since it would have to be fastest at ALL distances, terrain, etc. Yeah, it's more accurate, but the annoying picky accuracy of grammar nazis.

      In the UK you can't advertise a car on the basis of its speed - even if it's true. Reason being, it promotes reckless driving.

    6. Re:The commercal is correctly blocked! by soliptic · · Score: 1
      No, you misunderstand the way the law works.

      In that sort of situation, the advert can still make such statements provided the specify some detail/backup as well. So for example you can have adverts that say things like "the fastest car", it will come up with small print on screen saying something like "Source: Top Gear Magazine, 0-100bpm speed trials, July 2003" to clarify exactly what it means.

      Shampoo and beauty ads take this to outrageous levels, claiming in the voicover "makes your hair 70% more radiant!" [WTF?] and subtitling: "Source: 70% of women interviewed agreed it improved radiance".

      Carling (Lager) have a series of adverts based on subverting this law, "Probably the best lager in the world".

    7. Re:The commercal is correctly blocked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the light of your grammar disclaimer, you probably don't care, but the word you wanted was moot. Of course I suppose mute could be a pun in a written forum...

    8. Re:The commercal is correctly blocked! by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      You're right on both point. I couldn't remember the proper spelling but I thought mute might actually be more pointed. Thanks

    9. Re:The commercal is correctly blocked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I prefer the US model (being a native, that's probably to be expected.) In the UK/Norway model, no car could be 'the fastest car', since it would have to be fastest at ALL distances, terrain, etc. Yeah, it's more accurate, but the annoying picky accuracy of grammar nazis.

      That's not annoying picky accuracy, that's pretty vital. If there were no restrictions, all CPUs could be claimed to be fastest/best/sexiest, and advertising could make any bs claim with no qualifications. The European system forces advertising to stick to reality, so ads are actually (a little) useful and not just annoying propoganda no one takes seriously.

    10. Re:The commercal is correctly blocked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought mute might actually be more pointed...

      Sorry. It actually made you sound rather idiotic.

    11. Re:The commercal is correctly blocked! by Henriok · · Score: 1

      In Norway we have similar rules: You cannot air commercial claiming something that might be false.

      In Norway you also banned the Monty Python film "Life of Brian". Go figure.

      --

      - Henrik

      - when the Shadows descend -
    12. Re:The commercal is correctly blocked! by Eminor · · Score: 1

      Then we can't compare any processors.

      Logically, You should be able to compare processors by how fast they perform some common software functions.

    13. Re:The commercal is correctly blocked! by TomV · · Score: 1

      More significantly, ignoring for a moment that it's illegal in the UK to advertise a car based on speed anyway, it would *not* be the fastest car, since no car is (legally) faster than 70mph anyway. Ignoring special cicumstances like track days, which simply aren't relevant to the general viewing audience, the fact is that, legally, in the UK, a 1.0 Micra is just as fast as an M5.

    14. Re:The commercal is correctly blocked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know that alchohol ads in the U.S encourage the purchaser to "Enjoy our product in moderation", as otherwise they would be promoting alchoholism? (I kid you not)

    15. Re:The commercal is correctly blocked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Top speed and torque with respect to cars are absolute values that can be calculated and proven. Therefore if a manufacturer claimed their car had higher torque than any other equivalent car, it could be easily seen to be true or false, regardless of the manufacturer. "speed" of a computer is entirely different, and can be demonstrated and defined in many different ways. (3d rendering, pure number crunching, hard disk access latency, etc etc.) Here, it may not make sense for a manufacturer to claim they are the "fastest" as other manufacturers may be faster in different ways.

    16. Re:The commercal is correctly blocked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, outright lying is SOOOO much better than being accurate even at a risk of slight pickiness.

      Idiots.

    17. Re:The commercal is correctly blocked! by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Then we can't compare any processors.

      Well, we can't. Not accurately.

      Logically, You should be able to compare processors by how fast they perform some common software functions.

      Yes, but that can or should not be generalized too much, they are only valid for that very functionality tested. If your processor is faster than everything else in common software function a but slower in b, then it clearly is not "world's fastest processor".

    18. Re:The commercal is correctly blocked! by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      What about Opera... http://www.opera.no , "The fastest browser on World"?

      Don't be confused, I am one of their customers...

      But "fastest"?

  25. Standard comparison by SdnSeraphim · · Score: 1

    I've never run a mac, but what is faster always depends upon standards. Computer speed standards are a dime-a-dozen, which other computer manufacturers counter with their own standards. User groups insist their machine "feels" faster in real-world processing or that the standard is arbitrary. However, if there is a standard that is objective/quantifiable, the only concern is if the units are specified. Is 1 greater than 2? It is if you are comparing mach to miles/hour.

    The ad should be allowed if they specify the comparison standard. And as all things caveat emptor.

    --
    It is dangerous to be right on a subject on which the established authorities are wrong. - Voltaire
  26. It's not the world's fastest personal computer by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 1, Informative

    You can buy Athlon and P4 based computers that'll stomp on the G5 for certain tasks (Such as playing some games). Thus, I think Apple is misleading the consumer, since their advertising seems to lead the consumer thinking it's the fastest in general, which it clearly is not.

    I think the ITC is right to ban the advert, but then again, I think there are a lot of adverts on British TV that should be banned.

    1. Re:It's not the world's fastest personal computer by Geek+of+Tech · · Score: 1
      > You can buy Athlon and P4 based computers that'll stomp on the G5 for certain tasks (Such as playing some games).

      Wouldn't the real difference their be the effiency of the software, not the effiency of actual processor?

      --
      Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
    2. Re:It's not the world's fastest personal computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that'll stomp on the G5 for certain tasks


      Certain tasks like doing anything at all that involves anything besides running photoshop filters.

    3. Re:It's not the world's fastest personal computer by Llywelyn · · Score: 1

      > Thus, I think Apple is misleading the consumer, since
      >their advertising seems to lead the consumer thinking it's
      >the fastest in general, which it clearly is not.

      I can throw a test at the Earth Simulator (fastest computer in the world, top of the supercomputer chart) which would make an old G3 look fast in comparison.

      Just make sure that it is single threaded and can't be "vectorized" for any reasonable speed increase. The individual processors that make it up are very good at vector processing, but are crippled otherwise.

      Therefore, based on this standard, we cannot even claim that it is the top supercomputer in the world, despite that it is the first computer on the Top500 list (uh oh, that name is even misleading advertising). /All/ systems comparisons are hinge around what we are benchmarking on. If I pull out HMMer or BLAST benchmarks (which are real world, even though you don't use them) it will make the P4 look like a toy in comparison. On the other hand, there are things that the G5 does not do nearly as well in (though sometimes, like with Cinebench, this is more of software problem than one that has anything to do with hardware).

      --
      Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
    4. Re:It's not the world's fastest personal computer by krazo · · Score: 1

      >You can buy Athlon and P4 based computers that'll stomp on the G5 for certain tasks (Such as playing some games).

      That's totally true. My friend's G5 gets a framerate of 0 on 90% of the games on the market.

    5. Re:It's not the world's fastest personal computer by CoolMoDee · · Score: 1

      They have to be mac games for them to run silly.

      --
      Jisho - A Japanese English German Russian French Dictionary for the rest of us.
    6. Re:It's not the world's fastest personal computer by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 1

      No, the real difference would be the speed of the actual system.

    7. Re:It's not the world's fastest personal computer by Jack+Auf · · Score: 1

      -1 Troll. How in the world did this get modded up? Where are the benchmarks? Who did them? What games? Yet another referenceless, dataless troll.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - BF
    8. Re:It's not the world's fastest personal computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What games indeed. Everyone knows the mac has no games.

    9. Re:It's not the world's fastest personal computer by nyseal · · Score: 1

      Yes, but your single example of games is NOT what Apple is basing their example on; hell you can't even PLAY most AMD/Intel games on an Apple.

      --
      [SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
    10. Re:It's not the world's fastest personal computer by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 1

      And yet gaming is what an awful lot of people do with their personal computer.

  27. You can sometimes by Tim+Ward · · Score: 4, Informative

    one cannot advertise anything that cannot be _PROVEN_

    You can if it is "obvious" that it isn't meant to be taken seriously.

    Someone (possibly even CAMRA was it?? - must have been a very off day) once complained about the Heineken ads, on the grounds that it was not true that it "refreshed" some of "the parts other beers cannot reach" as illustrated on the advertisements.

    The complaint was thrown out as being daft, because it was perfectly clear that you weren't supposed to believe the advertisements in the first place.

  28. You really test these things? by twoallbeefpatties · · Score: 1

    Other banned ads included Burger King for claiming to have the best tasting fries, Ford for claiming to have the smoothest-running automobile, and Wal-Mart for claiming to have low prices everyday.

    --
    Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
    1. Re:You really test these things? by Theaetetus · · Score: 2, Informative
      Other banned ads included Burger King for claiming to have the best tasting fries, Ford for claiming to have the smoothest-running automobile, and Wal-Mart for claiming to have low prices everyday.

      In the US, we have a term called 'puffery', which refers to advertising that is clearly hyperbole, and is so outrageous that the average man-on-the-street (not your gullible aunt) would not believe it. Puffery is perfectly legal, which is why you can freely advertise "greatest fries in the world!"
      However, to claim "best testing fries", they have to have a disclaimer - Burger King has fine print saying "based on independent taste tests", McDonald's has fine print saying "based on sales". Both can therefore claim 'best-tasting fries' without having to measure 'taste'.

      Claiming a computer will blow you through the wall of your house is clearly puffery (and I'm wondering what the computer blows you with), but 'fastest personal computer' can be tested.

      The question here is how unbiased that test was - both Apple's and ITC's.

      -T

  29. Debunking other Apple ads by green+pizza · · Score: 1

    I'd like to see some organization go after some of Apple's other promotional material as well.

    Apple's G5 Introduction Video is full of heavily edited quotes and comments from various industry leaders. I would personally like to see the raw comments, not Apple's spin.

  30. Change of policy after next Top 500 ? by for_usenet · · Score: 1

    So do you think there will be a change in policy
    after the new Top 500 list comes out in about 2
    weeks ? ;-)

  31. The ITC by jd · · Score: 3, Insightful
    makes a lot of lousy decisions, but it's usually better than if no decisions were made at all.


    Adverts should be held to certain degrees of honesty and integrity. In the US, you can (almost) say what you like, and get away with it. It's very rare that anyone's disciplined in any way, shape or form for misleading or deceptive practices, even when it's blatantly obvious fraud of the consumer is intended.


    In England, a few hundred complaints is usually enough to spark an ITC investigation into wrongful advertising. However, they're slow, beaurocratic, and often act in ways which gives the product and the misleading claims far more publicity.


    Nonetheless, they do some good. When a rogue advert is found and stopped, it does help bring a touch of reality to the industry. People tend to be a bit more skeptical, a bit more suspicious of claims that seem too good to be true. Which is good! Because it seems too good to be true, it probably is.


    Here is one of those instances that I'd like each country to borrow a bit from the other. I'd like to see more free speech protection in the UK, but I'd also like to see commercial speech better regulated in the US.


    (Commercial speech should not have the same protections as other forms of speech. It should be protected, especially where it is true, but it shouldn't be absolved of all responsibility - it has a lot more weight and power than just some person you happen to meet, and that weight and power needs to be accompanied by responsibility.)


    Mindless Note: I honestly believe that the UK and the US sit on different halves of understanding how to make a civilization that can respect itself and others, while remaining strong, free and a damn good place to be. I don't pretend to know how to fit those halves together, or what bits of which are the good bits. All I know is that both countries achieve a degree of happiness in areas that the other can't, that both have strengths the other doesn't, and that on the level of individuals, the wisest are the ones who learn from others.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:The ITC by Emperor+Cezar · · Score: 1

      (Commercial speech should not have the same protections as other forms of speech. It should be protected, especially where it is true, but it shouldn't be absolved of all responsibility - it has a lot more weight and power than just some person you happen to meet, and that weight and power needs to be accompanied by responsibility.)


      Why is it that you have more rights than a group of people come together for a purpose?

      My point here is that a business should just be a group of people come togeather for a purpose. In the case of a business, that purpose is to make a livelihood. No government laws protecting "business", none to detriment it.

      EVERYONE should have the same right to free speech. A business is not a magical thing, it's a group of people. If you don't like that business, don't buy from it. Make something better, compete. Don't try to use the government as a tool to inforce your ideals on to other people.

    2. Re:The ITC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      stupid americans... argh...
      things work different in europe, boy :)
      and they work better!

    3. Re:The ITC by the+shoez · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Firstly... "a few hundred complaints" - when was the last time you heard of an advert getting "a few hundred" complaints.... a *few hundred* for gods sake. No! There are rarely that many complaints.

      Secondly, in the UK there is no such thing as freedom of speech, and there's no such thing as a right to silence.


      pedants rule O.K.



      tom

      --
      &lawyers($instruction);
    4. Re:The ITC by Dan-DAFC · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why is it that some government agency can say what some broadcaster puts on the air.

      The ITC is not a government agency. From the ITC website:

      As our name suggests, we're independent of the Government and of the broadcasters. We are funded by fees from our licensees, of which there are around 300 who between them hold nearly 600 licences.

      When an advertisement lies, at least in the US, you have the right to sue for false advertisement.

      In the UK, as you would expect, if you have been wronged in the eyes of the law you can sue. If you don't like the ITC's decision and you have good grounds, sue. We do however try to avoid the US disease of the lawsuit culture.

      Wait a second, they are all controled by the ITC.

      Half right. All commerical stations are controlled by the ITC. The BBC is self-regulating.

      --
      Suck figs.
    5. Re:The ITC by Emperor+Cezar · · Score: 1

      issuing licences that allow commercial television companies to broadcast analogue and digital services in and from the UK, whether the services are received by aerial, dish or cable;

      How can they issue licences if there is not a law requiring that you must have one to broadcast?

      It may not directly say that it is government, but it is.

    6. Re:The ITC by Nexus+Seven · · Score: 1

      Yes there are. These are both protected by the European convention on Human Rights

      You always have an absolute right to silence when you've been arrested. The change to the rights that are read to you simply make it clear that "it may harm your defense if you don't mention, when specifically questioned, something that you later rely on in court". Ie - the prosectution may question the believability your alibi if you don't mention it to the police when you're arrested and asked about it.

    7. Re:The ITC by the+shoez · · Score: 1

      Exactly! Ergo, no right to silence. But I think we digress :)

      --
      &lawyers($instruction);
    8. Re:The ITC by Nexus+Seven · · Score: 1

      A business is evidently different to an individual. It can't vote, it can't go to prison, it can't have children.

      But most importantly, an individual's "raison d'etre" is to pro-create, to take personal responsibility for the well being of others. A company's is to make as much money as possible. These two, very different, life-goals mean that the rights afforded to an individual will simply be (and are) abused by a corporation, which is inherently greedy.

      A corporation has no sense of ethics, no sense of guilt. It has no remorse, or any other feeling, because the buck doesn't stop anywhere - its ultimately distributed.

      If a company dumps industrial waste into a river and ends up killing people, the employees of that company (including the CEO), don't feel personally responsible. It was a group-led action, so it wasn't any particular person's fault. Hence, no remorse and no guilt.

    9. Re:The ITC by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      And Europeans say that America is the evil land squelching free speech.

      Behold the European socialist utopia where free speech means speech we like, and the rest of you can shut up or go to jail.

      But, never fear, brave European utopians. We in primitive America are not far behind you. Soon, we, too will be putting people in jail who don't speak the way we want them to. We already send them to re-orientation camps (sensitivity training).

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    10. Re:The ITC by Nexus+Seven · · Score: 1

      I think you're confusing "right to silence" with an expectation that being silent has no implications.

      Personally, I see a right to silence, as meaning no guilt will be inferred from that silence (which it isn't)

    11. Re:The ITC by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1
      Too right man! Advertisers never, ever tell untruths or half-truths, and can be absolutely trusted to use free speech to sell products on entirely reasonable and honourable grounds.

      The idea that advertisers might be accused of lying sickens me to my stomach- free speech is much more important than the negative outcome of any TV ad- no matter how much people are lied to and end up spending money on falsely advertised products! They should have known the adverts were lying!

      These censorous, fascist and outright communist Europeans need to learn a thing or two about the right way to let people uphold American rights just like all God-fearing American people in America, where there's no molly-coddling and everyone knows the adverts are full of it!

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    12. Re:The ITC by mr_sas · · Score: 1

      sure, but by the same logic that'd make the BBC representive of government wouldn't it?

    13. Re:The ITC by Emperor+Cezar · · Score: 1

      You could easily sue these businesses for false advertising. Getting any money back you lost. In addition, many people could do this causeing the business significant loses. If that is the case, why would a business lie? Because they are protected by law. A corporation is a seperate entity under the law. Giving the people who make decisions in the company immunity. Remove this immunity, people become directly responsible, decreasing drasticly that likelyhood that a crime (fraud) will be commited.

    14. Re:The ITC by Emperor+Cezar · · Score: 1

      Under American law a corporation is a legal entity, seperate from it's workers, and even CEOs. If you remove this "legal shield" it leave responsibility for "dumping industrial waste" or anything else in the hands of those who made the decision, and those who carried it out. When someone is legally liable for what they do you drasticly decrease the likelyhood that they will commit the crime in the first place because they will be held responsible.
      This "legal shield" is the major cause of corporate corruption in America today.

    15. Re:The ITC by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You could easily sue these businesses for false advertising.

      Suing is never easy or risk free. You can win and still be stuck with enormous legal costs, or you might be awarded costs, maybe. Or you lose, in which case you would lose big. In any case the lawyers win. And suing a well-healed corporation is even more risky, they can afford expensive lawyers that are more likely to win (if nothing else), or they can just buy you off (in which case the advert stands and other, less knowing people will get ripped off.)

      Personally I much prefer an 'umpire' to make the decisions- it's cheaper alround that way- sure they don't always make the absolute best decisions, but like an umpire in sport, they're usually pretty good and very rarely terrible.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    16. Re:The ITC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, if you follow that to its logical conclusion... our Monarch would own us all ;)

    17. Re:The ITC by cbriscoe · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      In America, we let people make informed decisions for themselves. In Brittain, the government makes decisions for the people. I guess your government just thinks you are too stupid to think for yourself.

    18. Re:The ITC by Lurks · · Score: 1
      There is only one true monopoly, and that's the government. Even though I doubt it, but what if microsoft had something to do with this? What are you gonna do? Go to another television station in the UK. Wait a second, they are all controled by the ITC.

      Huge difference between a minimum standards body like the ITC enforcing standards, than dictating content. That said, it works pretty well because the UK standard of television makes American television look neanderthal by comparison.

      To obtain a television broadcasting license, an operator must pitch what the content will be. That means X amount of own-made stuff, Y amount of educational, Z documentaries and things like that.

      That's why the UK has more than just the discovery channel putting out content other than sitcoms and bad sci-fis.

      The ITC often forces programs to apologies on air for blatantly inappropriate and biased programming. This is good. My God you could do with that in the US.

    19. Re:The ITC by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      That's what goverment IS, it's there to organise crap for the community and limit the power of private concerns. What the hell do you think government is FOR?

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    20. Re:The ITC by Emperor+Cezar · · Score: 1

      It's there to protect me from harming you, and you from harming me. That is what government is FOR.

    21. Re:The ITC by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      Well, that's what the ASA BELIEVES they're doing in this case.

      The fact that they're completely wrong is inconvenient.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    22. Re:The ITC by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like when the Prime Minister feed his daughter beef on TV to show that mad cow was not a danger in the country... Apparently the umpire was on a holiday.

    23. Re:The ITC by the+shoez · · Score: 1

      Exactly, and I agree with you because I didn't say (or I think imply) you would be guilty. If I use this "right to silence", enter a court and try to use a defence which wasn't discussed with the Police, I can be prevented from doing so. So I won't be assumed guilty, but I'll have to use an alternative defence. Hence my saying there is no right to silence.

      --
      &lawyers($instruction);
    24. Re:The ITC by nyseal · · Score: 1

      I agree with you on some points however in the US our basic freedoms are held pretty sacred. For example the right to free speech does NOT include hatred but it holds a certain tolerance for it because if one were to supress your expressions of free speech then someone else's would be in danger of infringement. I personally don't always like it but it makes me more aware of what's being said around me; especially politicians or hate groups. I know about them therefore I can make a personal choice. I've heard the phrase 'Your right to express yourself ends at your fist and begins at my nose'; but that is with the intent of physical violence. Generally speaking words don't kill; they offend. I would agree with you that the US does not have a good grasp on our basic freedoms (at least since 1776) but the basic concepts are there; and that's what needed to define a culture. Even if a revolution were to happen in America tomorrow, the basic premise of the Constitution would not be lost.....it defines our culture. If anything, it would bring us back to the origins of the authors; which may not be a bad thing. I think the bottom line is that the UK and Americans are fundamentally different cultures but that does not mean we can't coexist in a world economy. Especially when it comes to computer advertising.

      --
      [SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
    25. Re:The ITC by jd · · Score: 1
      I would agree with you on the free speech thing.


      I guess my basic point is that the UK and US both derived their cultures from the same starting point (the Constitution is based on the Magna Carta), but that both have found different ways to express essentially the same thing. There may be things we can learn from each other.


      I agree that the basic concepts are there in the US, at least for the most part. Hey, nobody said the US had to be perfect! :)


      I also agree that the UK and America may have become so different that they are fundamentally different cultures.


      Ultimately, what I'm left feeling is that the US probably doesn't have a good grasp on basic freedoms, as you noted yourself. The question is, how to improve that grasp. Has any other culture figured out a better understanding of some freedom X, which we can look at to improve our own?


      (Short version: I'm a programmer. I'm seeing a great program design, but the code is shot to shit in places. Those modules look fairly generic. Is there anything I can rip from some other code, as a patch?)

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  32. It's either Evil Microsoft Elves by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 1

    or space monkeys. Gotta be one of those two. It's just gotta.

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
  33. Conspiracy theorists take note by ArmorFiend · · Score: 2, Funny

    World's fastest processor? Now that apple no longer has the worlds god damned slowest processor, its no wonder their sales are picking up. I have a slide rule that can compute faster than my G4...

    1. Re:Conspiracy theorists take note by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      The best part is that from the time of the release of the 486 processor, up until the release of the G4, Apples have been the slowest thing around. Actually, there was also a period in there where Amigas with the same processors as currently-shipping macs were faster than Macintoshes, both because of MacOS and the lousy architecture of the systems. (I refer here specifically to the Amiga 2500 as compared to the Macintosh IIci.) An Amiga 2500 emulating a IIci was actually a faster "mac" than a IIci.

      The G4 brought Apple back into the land of competitveness again, but then they got stomped on for a while, and now they have the dual G5, which may be the fastest desktop computer. Certainly Intel claims that the Xeon is a "workstation" processor, so a dual Xeon can't even compete here unless they decide it's a desktop processor - likewise AMD's Opteron. And Athlon64 is only single CPU, unless you count the 64 FX... which is an Opteron :P

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  34. sales up 36%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So they sold 4 plus a ipod?

  35. it's getting close and PERSONAL by schappim · · Score: 1

    They said it is the world most powerful PERSONAL computer. Not the worlds most powerful computer, or worlds most powerful workstation... ~Marcus

    1. Re:it's getting close and PERSONAL by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1

      Hello! We're geeks. Our personal computers are clusters and supercomputers.

      --
      Engineering is the art of compromise.
    2. Re:it's getting close and PERSONAL by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      That's a fun double standard.

      If it has 2 P4 Xeon processors, it's then a workstation computer, and thus cant be compared.

      But it's ok for a Mac to have two G5 procs and still be a "personal" computer.

      If the computer that I own and sits on my desk has 4 3.2ghz Xeons and 16 gigs of ram, is it not my personal computer?

      It's irrelevant anyhow..

      In england, and many other countries, you cant claim absolutes like that in advertising. X86 and PPC architecture are fundamentally different. It's spurious to say one is "faster" than the other. It all depends what you're doing with it.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    3. Re:it's getting close and PERSONAL by schappim · · Score: 1

      yes but since when did you get 2 P4 Xeon (top of the line) processors for the price of a G5?

    4. Re:it's getting close and PERSONAL by schappim · · Score: 1

      for those who didn't get the above statement personal computing is a price thing...

    5. Re:it's getting close and PERSONAL by gonk · · Score: 1

      From Dell, of course.

    6. Re:it's getting close and PERSONAL by schappim · · Score: 1

      i wish....

    7. Re:it's getting close and PERSONAL by Hoser+McMoose · · Score: 1

      I really liked how the dual-processor G5 with PCI-X slots was considered the first 64-bit personal computer, but the single processor AMD Opteron systems with only plain old PCI slots was a 64-bit workstation.

    8. Re:it's getting close and PERSONAL by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      My Sun Ultra 1's (which I bought at auction for $12.50 each a few months ago) are 64-bit personal computers. I worked for a few years at a company where there were floors of QA people who each had an Ultra 1 on their desk, with keyboard, monitor, and mouse attached. They were being used as Personal Computers by the people whose cubes they were in. After awhile, the Ultra 1's were pulled* and shiney new Dell boxes were put in their place.

      If that doesn't qualify them as PCs, I don't know what would.

      (*there were both happy and unhappy people when the 'switch' happened)

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    9. Re:it's getting close and PERSONAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with Schappim, price is what makes the difference between a perrsonal computer and a workstation.

      The AMD Opteron systems were much more expensive than what the G5's are.

      Also one can expect that there will be such as thing called progress. What would we be all saying if there was no progress in the G5....

      " really liked how the dual-processor G5 with PCI-X slots was considered the first 64-bit personal computer, but the single processor AMD Opteron systems with only plain old PCI slots was a 64-bit workstation." - is redundant, so, the mac is cool, you've got features that one would normally get in a workstation in a pc... I am seriously thinking of switching...

    10. Re:it's getting close and PERSONAL by Hoser+McMoose · · Score: 1

      The single-processor Opteron systems could be had for about $2,000 when they first came out, quite a bit cheaper than the dual-processor PowerMac G5.

      The difference was the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field, nothing else.

    11. Re:it's getting close and PERSONAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even though you're an idiot, lets pretend for two seconds that you're not. Tell me, who decides at what price the cutof point is? Oh wait, let me guess. Apple, right?

      Apple lied. They got caught. End of story.

    12. Re:it's getting close and PERSONAL by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      I have seen people comparing SGI Onyx to Dell, based on "SGI is just 650Mhz", are you one of them?

    13. Re:it's getting close and PERSONAL by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      Sun Ultra 1 is a workstation when it shipped first...

      Its like Amiga 3000/4000 were workstation but 600/1200 was a PC...

  36. Re:Whiney bitches and whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    C-ya

  37. Real-world benchmarks by sjonke · · Score: 4, Funny

    In iTunes on my dual-G5 I can stop the M.C. Hammer track, "U Can't Touch This" in less than a 10th of second.

    --
    --- What?
    1. Re:Real-world benchmarks by Graff · · Score: 1
      In iTunes on my dual-G5 I can stop the M.C. Hammer track, "U Can't Touch This" in less than a 10th of second.

      Still not quick enough dammit! This is why we have to keep Moore's Law alive and kicking, we can't stop until computers can predict the future and stop that damn song BEFORE it is played!
    2. Re:Real-world benchmarks by happystink · · Score: 1

      Mod this up to +5, TIMELY!!

      --

      sig:
      See the "..for smart people" banners Wired runs here? Look elsewhere guys.

    3. Re:Real-world benchmarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Turn off computer containing the "infected" hard drive with the song on it.

      2. Open case, carefully remove drive whilst wearin thick rubber gloves.

      3. Put drive into thick plastic bag.

      4. Destroy drive safely, ideally at a car crushers or by firing it into the sun.

  38. One Undisputable Troll Fact by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 3, Funny
    2) No strait man would ever use something so gay.

    Strait man? Is that a man in a straight jacket? Some guy who monitors ship traffic in the Strait Of Gibraltar? Mark Knopfler?

    Lesson 1, Grasshopper: if you're going to troll, at least spell it correctly.

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
    1. Re:One Undisputable Troll Fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Strait man?

      Yeah. Unlike you, not every man takes it up his ass.

    2. Re:One Undisputable Troll Fact by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Unlike you, not every man takes it up his ass

      And the more homophobic they are, the more they want it...

      Shall I have a blond gay surfer email or meet you? Then maybe you can find love and get out of the closet.

      True love is so cute... :)

    3. Re:One Undisputable Troll Fact by CaptainBaz · · Score: 1
      Strait man? Is that a man in a straight jacket? Some guy who monitors ship traffic in the Strait Of Gibraltar? Mark Knopfler? Lesson 1, Grasshopper: if you're going to troll, at least spell it correctly.
      Yes indeed. I think you meant "straitjacket" :o)
  39. I'd like to see a beowulf cluster of these... :P by schappim · · Score: 1

    I'd like to see a beowulf cluster of these... :P

  40. Red Bull by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok if misleading ads should get pulled it's time to pull ALL red bull ads. I've downed many a can and I have YET to get my damn wings.

    1. Re:Red Bull by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      already did that. check new ads. no wings.

  41. BMW -- the pen-Ultimate Driving Machine... by ErnstKompressor · · Score: 1

    Eight complaints??? are they out of their minds? I believe that is why they call it advertising.

    Sheesh..."The New G5 -- quite possibly, almost nearly, on a good day, the fastest desktop computer in some part of the world."

    --
    We apologise for the fault in this post. Those responsible have been sacked. -- Signed RICHARD M. NIXON
    1. Re:BMW -- the pen-Ultimate Driving Machine... by Dan-DAFC · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not the number of complaints that's important, it's the nature of the complaint. One complaint would have been sufficient. It's not a popularity contest. As a silly and extreme example, if one person goes into a police station and accuses you of being a murderer the police will investigate. They won't wait until they get 100 complaints about you killing people. If you do something wrong it's still wrong regardless of how many people complain.

      --
      Suck figs.
  42. YOU FAIL IT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you cock-smoking teabagger.

    YOU FAIL IT!

  43. Re:Why even bother lying? by theWrkncacnter · · Score: 1

    Yeah sure, you've been paying attention recently, I can tell by your wonderful insight.

    --
    -1 (Troll) is antihammer
  44. Some British advertising standards by easychord · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.asa.org.uk/

    SUBSTANTIATION
    3.2 If there is a significant division of informed opinion about any claims made in a marketing communication they should not be portrayed as generally agreed.

    HONESTY
    6.1 Marketers should not exploit the credulity, lack of knowledge or inexperience of consumers.

    TRUTHFULNESS
    7.1 No marketing communication should mislead, or be likely to mislead, by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise.

    COMPARISONS WITH IDENTIFIED COMPETITORS AND/OR THEIR PRODUCTS
    18.1 Comparative claims are permitted in the interests of vigorous competition and public information. They should neither mislead nor be likely to mislead.
    18.2 They should compare products meeting the same needs or intended for the same purpose.
    18.3 They should objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative features of those products, which may include price.

    No reason why you couldn't apply these rules to microsoft or intel adverts and get them pulled. They are normally more careful though.

    1. Re:Some British advertising standards by Lightman_73 · · Score: 1

      They are normally more careful though.

      5 cents a transaction ? More careful ? Please.

    2. Re:Some British advertising standards by easychord · · Score: 1

      Start a letter writing campaign complaining about it. Hope you come up with a clear and hard to dispute way to describe how they are breaking the rules.

      Loadsaluck.

    3. Re:Some British advertising standards by the+shoez · · Score: 1

      It's also the reason you rarely find comparative advertising aired in the UK. The laws have only recently been relaxed to permit such claims, but companies usually steer well clear because it's a dangerous avenue to venture down.

      tom

      --
      &lawyers($instruction);
    4. Re:Some British advertising standards by Lightman_73 · · Score: 1

      TRUTHFULNESS

      7.1 No marketing communication should mislead, or be likely to mislead, by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise.


      5 cents. Now tell me based on what? It's misleading, probably inaccurate and altogether prolly false.

      Mind you, I'm not saying that Apple statement is true. I'm only saying that it's by no way the only false (or, maybe, open to interpretation/confutation) one.

  45. We nevre lieked yuo anyways! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Proof that the only people who care about making slashdot a better place are the trolls!

    Driving away the "serious" posters with advertising hell. Way to go Hemos & Taco!

  46. Apple UK PC sales up 36% by skinfitz · · Score: 1

    Apple UK PC sales up 36%

    And I throught they sold Macs..?

    1. Re:Apple UK PC sales up 36% by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      ..and I also throught I could smell. Doh.

  47. Speaking of misleading numbers... by winkydink · · Score: 1
    ...Apple's sales in the UK are up 36%, so far, this year.

    From what to what?

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:Speaking of misleading numbers... by dipipanone · · Score: 1, Funny

      From what to what?

      From what they were last year, to what they are now.

    2. Re:Speaking of misleading numbers... by winkydink · · Score: 1

      OK, using which basis then?

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    3. Re:Speaking of misleading numbers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Mac Zealot Translator-o-matic

      Apple have come up with some innovative products, but their market share remains tiny. Sadly, though, many buyers have been mislead by the marketing and eye-candy, and desperately try to justify their overpriced purchases to themselves on forums around the Net. Let's see what they really mean...

      "MacOS X is everything Linux wants to be."
      "Despite the fact that Linux is just code and can't WANT to be anything, I truly believe that it'd love to be a single-vendor, single-platform, sluggish half-proprietary OS with dwindling market share. Linux would love to throw away its impressively growing corporate takeup for that."

      "Apple hardware is for real computer lovers."
      "It's no hassle to use a plethora of keyboard combos to make up for the patronising one-button mouse. Despite the fact that my hands have FIVE fingers, and multiple-buttons make Web browsing so much more pleasant, I prefer my computer to be treat me like a special-needs child."

      "Aqua makes me so much more productive!"
      "My non-techie friends drool over the transparency and scaling effects, even though UI research has shown that they add practically nothing to getting real work done. It feels like KDE 2 on a Pentium 200, and I can't change to a light and fast WM, but those drop-shadows must make me work so quickly!"

      "OSX shows that Apple is committed to open source."
      "OpenDarwin.org and its community of about 27 is surely not just a token gesture by Apple. Pretty much nobody uses pure Darwin, and all the crucial components of the system are closed and require me to spend money just to get major OS updates, but they're really helping the community somehow."

      "You get what you pay for with Apple hardware."
      "My iBook was made by in Taiwan by AlphaTop and has design and build quality flaws (needing foam sheets jammed in to stop the common problem of the keyboard scratching the screen). But it's silvery and cost far more than an x86 laptop of better spec, so it must be much higher quality!"

      "...blah blah MHz myth blah..."
      "Although there's truth in PPC being more elegant than x86, it's crushing that the top-of-the-range 1.5 GHz chip is slaughtered by the equivalent 3 GHz Pentium 4. However, Steve Jobs showed some vague Photoshop filter benchmarks at the last MacWorld, so being a leprotard, I'm convinced."

  48. Is it possible... by Bun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...to mark an entire thread 'redundant'?

    --
    "Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
  49. Re:One word: Protectionism by tornado2258 · · Score: 1

    European cars are abysmal? Ever heard of Mercedes, Ferrari perhaps? The food point is true though but thats the french (or at least thats my excuse and I'm sticking to it).

  50. Letter to UK advertising association from Bill G by variable26 · · Score: 1

    Dear U.K.A.A.

    I who do I make the cheque out to that will stop the airing of the Apple G5 ad?

    Thanks,

    Bill Gates

  51. Re:One word: Protectionism by zpok · · Score: 1

    OK, name me 5 european computer brands.

    You might in general have a point, I couldn't say. But here specifically ...

    Two things:
    1) in Europe, statements like biggest, best, most satisfying, blablabla are frowned upon, whereas in the US everything is so biggest that you have to invent a whole range of superlatives for newerestbestest products.
    2) we also are a bit sceptical of advertising, and consumers react adversary to ads that they feel are incorrect, immoral or degeneratory. That's why those panels and advisory commisions are so rapid to respond. If not, they get regulations from above, better to do it themselves than to let politicians rule the game.

    That's why the G5 ad was banned.

    I don't think it's the best ad Apple ever made, and I think it's a bit silly to state you've got the fastest PC while there are so many better reasons to buy an Apple, but I understand why they did it - recover from the "Apple is slow" perception.

    What I don't understand is the reaction from those british complainers. For years they've been bombarded with the most ridiculous statements from PeeCee-makers and developers, and now that Apple joins that stupid game it suddenly bothers them...

    --
    I think, therefore I am...I think.
  52. Can't trash the opposition by markxsd · · Score: 1
    Something else you almost never see in UK advertising is a message like <no 1 competitor's name> isn't as big/fast/tasty/pretty/popular as <advertiser's brand>, even if there is quantifiable evidence to prove it. Advertising as highly regulated. To pull a fast one on the opposition just wouldn't be cricket old chap.

    The only ones who seem to be able to get away with trashy advertising are politicians with pre-election advertisements (on billboards, etc). Even those are tame by US standards.

    1. Re:Can't trash the opposition by AchmedHabib · · Score: 1

      Even those are tame by US standards.
      Yes and thank you for that, I would not call American campaings enlightning nor insightful.
      I don't get why Americans put up with the crap, I mean they are all the way down to calling each other names and just one step away from a (poor/bad)fist fight.

    2. Re:Can't trash the opposition by rosbif · · Score: 1

      Maybe back in the 1980's this was the case - I seem to remember a change in the rules on adverts about that time. Lots of examples in current UK advertising trashing the rest of the market - especially in "financial services" (is that an oxymoron or what...)

    3. Re:Can't trash the opposition by Holgate · · Score: 1

      In limited cases, yes: but it's still 'Persil washes whiter than Brand X', rather than 'Persil washes whiter than [Daz|Arial|Bold]' because direct comparisons on contentious issues are forbidden. Seeing 'Tylenol is better than Advil is better than Excedrin is better than Aleve is better than Tylenol' in American advertising, for me, is mind-boggling.

    4. Re:Can't trash the opposition by VendettaMF · · Score: 1

      Also because Persil, Daz, Ariel, Bold, all brandname dishwashing soaps & tablets, most bath and shower gels, shampoos and just about anything else that exists to dissolve grease while smelling nice are actually the same 3 base chemicals (with differring perfumes and colours added in after production) all manufactured by the one corporation, "Lever".

      --
      kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
    5. Re:Can't trash the opposition by Pope · · Score: 1

      That kind of comparison happens all the time in US and Canada: "Tide washes cleaner than the leading brand," where the leading brand's box is the direct competitor's, minus the name (colours and graphics are OK).

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    6. Re:Can't trash the opposition by topham · · Score: 1

      They are allowed to use the name; they choose not to because a significant portion of the time it is manufactured by the SAME COMPANY.

  53. Whiners? by Simple-Simmian · · Score: 0, Troll

    I have been reading the BBC website quite a bit.
    It seems the BBC (media in the UK in general) are fond of flapping their arms quite a bit and breaking into a panic or outrage.
    I am wonder if this "trading standards issue" this is an indication that the whole of the UK is prone to this stupidity?
    Is the UK turning into a nation of pussies and whiners expecting the goverment to protect them from their own stupidity and provide for their every need from the cradle to the grave?
    God how Britan has fallen.

    --
    If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
    Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
  54. The ITC by Emperor+Cezar · · Score: 1

    Why is it that some government agency can say what some broadcaster puts on the air.

    When an advertisement lies, at least in the US, you have the right to sue for false advertisement. This takes it in front of a court in the public spotlight to be resolved between the business and the consumer. I see the government's position in this to only regulate the frequencies used and the wattage of each station, no more.

    There is only one true monopoly, and that's the government. Even though I doubt it, but what if microsoft had something to do with this? What are you gonna do? Go to another television station in the UK. Wait a second, they are all controled by the ITC.

    NO, I can't spell. No, I do not have well formed grammer skills.

  55. PC means PC by aedan · · Score: 1

    I complained about a Dell ad a few years ago when they claimed to be the fastest PC. This was at the time when Apple was running the snail adverts. I got a letter back from the advertising standards council saying that the letters PC related only to machines with Intel chips in them and even if Apple machines were faster it didn't matter because Dell made PCs and Apple didn't.

  56. well, by Cheapoboy · · Score: 1

    "I" think the "guy who" submitted this "article" has "gone a bit (...) nuts" with the "quotes"

  57. www.top500.org lists Mac g5 soon as fastest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    www.top500.org lists Mac g5 soon as fastest cluster, per cpu and per dollar

    Additionally when it comes out in a week, the
    VT 'BigMac' will be numebr 3 overall.

    I'd say that speaks volumes.

    And a DUAL-g5 is faster than any dual-amd in any normal benchmark with source code, and a DUAL-g5 is faster than any dual-xeon in any benchmark with source code.

    Mac is fastest for computation in Nov 2003. is that so hard for british wintel fanboys to accept.

    I know british are not quick to embrace new emerging technologies but sheeesh.

  58. ADV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    appel sux pleaz go 2 ebay.cmo an get teh intle+windwo personal computer wich is realy teh fasest

  59. watch the WORDING of most TV ads by green+pizza · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The next time you watch TV ads, take note of the wording of their claims. It's usually something very vague, or followed by small print / fast talking disclaimer. People have gotten used to this.

    Apple, on the other hand, blatently lied, saying their new G5 was "the worlds fastest, most powerful personal computer". They didn't say it was faster at a certain task, nor did they even mention it requires a unique OS and unique software. To 90% of the population, a Personal Computer is an x86 box running MS Windows.

    Apple has made huge lies in their ads for years. They were finally caught. All I can say is "ITS ABOUT TIME!".

    The Dell Intern ads may be annoying as all hell, but at least they're honest.

    1. Re:watch the WORDING of most TV ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple has been using the term "personal computer" in their adverts since before IBM even entered the market. Furthermore, you pulled that complaint out of your ass -- it wasn't mentioned in the article.

    2. Re:watch the WORDING of most TV ads by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm not getting a Dell - they lied!

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    3. Re:watch the WORDING of most TV ads by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1

      On the subject of wording in ads, one thing I noticed while in the US was an advert for a painkiller (for some reason, painkillers are advertised much more heavily on TV in the US than the UK - no idea why) - they said something like "In laboratory tests, no other pain killer was more effective than (our product)".

      You'll notice they didn't say "(our product) is more effective than any other pain killer", because it wasn't. i.e. they were all the same, because they're all just aspirin, paracetamol, codeine, ibuprofen, etc.

      But then, it always makes me laugh that people buy 'brand name' pain-killers at something like 5-10x the price of no-name brands. What do they think - that they're buying *famous* paracetamol molecules or something? :)

    4. Re:watch the WORDING of most TV ads by Rick.C · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The most blatent example of weird ad wording, IMHO, was the Hostess Cupcakes ad several years ago. Mom gives the kids some cupcakes and says to the camera, "I like to know that my kids are getting a nutritional snack when they come home from school."

      Nutritional? She must have meant "nutritious," right? How can they possibly claim that Hostess Cupcakes are nutritious? But wait - when the ad company is spending big bucks to shoot an ad, wouldn't they just reshoot the scene if the actress blows the line? One would think.

      So they obviously meant "nutritional." I looked up the word in the dictionary and found that it simply means "edible."

      See? There is truth in advertising!

      --
      You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
      "Math in a song is good."-Linford
    5. Re:watch the WORDING of most TV ads by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2


      nor did they even mention it requires a unique OS and unique software.

      It is no more or less unique than ,say, Windows XP. Yes, Apple's ads lie a lot. Not mentioning that it uses a different OS than a competitor, however, wasn't an instance of that.


      To 90% of the population, a Personal Computer is an x86 box running MS Windows.

      It isn't Apple's job to make up for the ignorance of the consumer. In fact, when the general public is wrong, truth in advertising precludes catering to their notions.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    6. Re:watch the WORDING of most TV ads by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      It's good to know she's taking a stand and refusing to give her kids inedible snacks then! "Hostess Cupcakes are much better for my kids than those cardboard boxes the Henderson kids keep trying to eat!"

      (Plus, they're great at thwarting evildoers with their irresistable cream filling.)

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    7. Re:watch the WORDING of most TV ads by Rick.C · · Score: 1
      But then, it always makes me laugh that people buy 'brand name' pain-killers at something like 5-10x the price of no-name brands.

      For many products, I agree completely. For others, the difference isn't in the active ingredient, it's in the filler. Can't stand the taste of asprin? Maybe the name brand is coated. The name brand hydrocortizone cream soaks into your skin quickly and gets right to work. I tried a generic once that had a waxy cream base that just sat on top of my skin and didn't do anything. I've noticed that generic Vitamin C tends to turn brownish more quickly that the name brands do.

      The active ingredients are the same, but that's not always the whole story.
      --
      You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
      "Math in a song is good."-Linford
    8. Re:watch the WORDING of most TV ads by Chess_the_cat · · Score: 1
      To 90% of the population, a Personal Computer is an x86 box running MS Windows.

      Well 90% of the population is wrong then because Steve Jobs coined the term Personal Computer.

      --
      Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
    9. Re:watch the WORDING of most TV ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hehe. Reminds me of the current KFC ads. They're actually trying to promote that grease soaked chicken as a "healthy alternative." To what?? A gallon of premium ice cream? I about died laughing.

    10. Re:watch the WORDING of most TV ads by jtcm · · Score: 1
      So they obviously meant "nutritional." I looked up the word in the dictionary and found that it simply means "edible."

      I don't mean to nitpick, but here's the definiton of "nutritional":
      Nu*tri"tion*al\, a. Of or pertaining to nutrition; as, nutritional changes. Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, (C) 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc

      Don't get me wrong, I hate misleading advertising too. There's one Energizer commercial (or is it Duracel?) with the annoying driver yammering away. The passenger with the gameboy's batteries die first, then the cd player guy, while the dude with the mp3 player lasts forever...the implication was he was using the new Energizer batteries, but each of those devices would die in the same order if you used the same betteries in each...

      --
      this is my real sig.
      --
      @ASP.NET's parent-teacher meeting: "Little Johnny.NET is very bright, but he doesn't play well with others."
    11. Re:watch the WORDING of most TV ads by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      > they obviously meant "nutritional." I looked up the word in the dictionary and found that it simply means "edible."

      Ah, like "organic" food, then. (What's inorganic food supposed to be? Pure salt?)

    12. Re:watch the WORDING of most TV ads by onyxruby · · Score: 1

      Not really, one of the ads shows the interns in a room full of tech support people. The only way you get US based tech support anymore is if you have a server in the Enterprise group (confirmed by former techs at Dell). Since some people still make purchasing decisions based on support US employees, the ad is deceiving and dishonest as it gives the impression that joe sixpack will get American based tech support.

    13. Re:watch the WORDING of most TV ads by BEHiker57W · · Score: 1

      I bought the generic brand acetominophen for toddlers. Acetominophen for toddlers comes in a thick liquid with a dropper so that kids can suck it up easily. My little girl liked the Tylenol (TM) brand so much that when she had a need for it, she would eagerly lean up out of the crib for it. The generic brand quickly turned her off. Sometimes it's just about the flavor. So that's one (and only one) drug where I buy the name brand and try to ignore the extra 50% markup.

    14. Re:watch the WORDING of most TV ads by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1

      Yeah, keep that one in a high cupboard though :-)

    15. Re:watch the WORDING of most TV ads by nyseal · · Score: 1

      Just FYI.....in regard to your last statement. The Dell ads claim to have award winning customer service. I know from personal experience this is not true and I would never buy a Dell product again in my lifetime because of their lack of customer service. Not only are the ads annoying, they're false as well.

      --
      [SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
  60. Centrino? by VapourFloppy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    OK, if it was decided that the G5 ad couldn't be shown, when are they going to get around to banning the STUPID Centrino ad they're showing in the UK at the moment? It shows a mountaineer halfway up Mt Everest talking to his kids using his wireless-enabled Centrino laptop. I don't think anyone has installed a WiFi hotspot up Everest, so I can't see it's entirely representative of the technology.

    Yeah, OK, it says "service depends on availability of WiFi hotspots" in small letters at the bottom of the screen, but come on - the implication of the main ad is just ridiculous! Especially for the 99% of people who have no idea what it's all about.

    It's a bit like the P3 (I think) advert that claimed that a new processor would speed up your downloads - that one got pulled fairly quick :)

    --
    -- "There's no explaining the things that might happen; there's now a new home for technology in fashion."
    1. Re:Centrino? by Lochin+Rabbar · · Score: 1

      The Apple claim was explicit and an outright lie, the Intel claim is implicit and untrue. I think the distinction is bogus, and agree that Intel is being blatantly dishonest and misleading, However,that will be the reasoning behind why one advert gets pulled and not the other.

    2. Re:Centrino? by fredmosby · · Score: 1

      Would a lap top even work at that temperature?

    3. Re:Centrino? by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

      I actually got two calls to my home line from clients after these commercials aired, they wanted to can plans for WiFi networks and get 'centrinos' instead, because they thought they wouldn't have to go through the trouble of rigging up their houses with access points. Intel commercials make me want to barf.

      --
      "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    4. Re:Centrino? by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      The Virginia Tech supercomputer disagrees with you.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    5. Re:Centrino? by Lochin+Rabbar · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, but one gets the feeling that the folks at Virginia Tech haven't grasped what a computer is for.

      To help keep the ambitious job on schedule, "we used an assembly line of volunteer students to unpack computers and perform many of the routine but time consuming functions." Patricia Arvin, associate vice president of information systems and computing,... [emphasis mine]

      http://computing.vt.edu/research_computing/teras cale/pressrelease.html

    6. Re:Centrino? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's talking about plugging in cables and configuring software, genius. It's not like they've got students working out discrete cosine transforms on a slide rule because it's faster than letting the cluster do it...

    7. Re:Centrino? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No shit sherlock, if you weren't so fucking sure of your own intellectual superiority you might learn that apparently ridiculous claims are often made as a joke. I bet your always the life and soul of the party.

    8. Re:Centrino? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you complained yet?

      While we're on the subject, has anyone else noticed how the quality of the video displayed on 3's video phones deterioted after a couple of weeks? The original advert showed video quality my VCR would have been proud of. The current run has the video quality toned down to a level far more likely to be acurate..

    9. Re:Centrino? by Ilgaz · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I now use a 1600mhz G5, yes entry level...

      I'd love to see your face when I converted d a mpeg1 to mpeg4 , 80mb file in 70 secs...

      Or play Quake 3 beta (altivec beta testing stuff) in 1280*960 at 200 fps...

      Or playing a game with no lag, sametime getting a fax and printing it with no problem.

      btw this machine is plain 256 mb, I'll post again when I move to gigabyte levels.

      I now believe Mhz is really, really a big lie...

    10. Re:Centrino? by Lochin+Rabbar · · Score: 1

      Did I say that the G5 wasn't a blazingly fast computer, or did I say anything which can reasonably be construed as implying such. I'll give you a hint, the answer is no. So why do you think I would so surprised at the performance of a G5. If you take the time to actually read and comprehend my previous post. You will discover the point I was making is that the Intel adverts are every bit as misleading and dishonest as the Apple ones. I was saying that the difference between an explicit lie and an implicit lie is bogus, (the test of a lie being the meaning that the receiver of a statement is intended to take from it). I was saying that the ITC should pull the Intel advert, because it purposefully deceives the viewer.

      The G5 is good computer, and in my opinion it is a good thing that Apple hardware is once again competitive with X86 architectures. However it is demonstrably not the fastest personal computer in existence, and was not so when the adverts were being aired. Therefor the Apple statement was a lie, and the were rightly called on it. Just as Intel should be called on their lies.

      Why is it that you feel so defensive about your choice of computer that you have to rush to its defense when ever anyone implies that it might not be absolute perfection. It's only a computer like any other, in four years time it'll seem obsolete and useless, just like any other PC ever bought. Deal with reality, computers are tools, and investing your identity in the brand of hardware you buy is a silly thing to do. Brand loyalty is for gullible and the sheer extent of loyalty Apple instills in its devotees is worrying.

    11. Re:Centrino? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, nor at that altitude.

  61. Re:One word: Protectionism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your comment is flamebait, but I'll bite:

    The Independent Television Commission is not a government agency and has no interest in enforcing supposed EU regulations. And even if it were protecting British interests, just which UK home grown product is Apple Computer competing with?

    All cars in Britain are subject to the same EU environmental standards and it's not to protect the British car industry because it died a long time ago.

    Your final comment is bollocks. Britain has high standards precisely because of BSE. There has not been a recorded case of BSE in the UK for many years. Something which cannot be said of continental Europe or North America.

  62. Not a single expansion slot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Judging by the picture of the G5 in that ad, there's no room for another 5 1/4" drive. How gay is that? I mean, what if I wanted to buy a DVD burner or something? Would I have to buy a whole new computer? In the Mac world - Yes.

    1. Re:Not a single expansion slot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the G5s come with a DVD burner already built in.

    2. Re:Not a single expansion slot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but it is intolerably slow at everything, not just DVD-R. If I were buying a G5 tomorrow, I would get the cheapest possible internal optical and swap it out with a decent component as soon as I got it. I understand wanting to simplify and all, but there is a reason why so many PC manufacturers use two different optical drives. These superdrives are still in the gimmick phase, and using nearly seven year old speeds. The lack of space for a second optical means resorting to a more expensive external drive.

  63. Hyper Security by Llywelyn · · Score: 1

    So are the Intel adds which imply Hyper Threading will make your computer more secure banned?

    --
    Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
  64. Re:Apple has been outright lying for 20 years.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they won't piss off, they are ghey zealot mods... The only reason I even bother to post here is because it gets their panties in a bunch.

    Fucking assholes mods.

  65. Perhaps Apple should take a different approach by twocents · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Tired of viruses, ugly looking icons, a confusing line of operating systems? Want to have the power of BSD in a stylish design? Hate Windows and are not so sure yet about Linux? Well, then buy Mac."

    I'm not trolling with my love for Apple here. Instead, just pointing out some ways for Apple to go about being a larger thorn without having to argue their point. Novell has been known for their outspoken attitude at times, so perhaps it's not so far fetched to imagine a Novell ad in the near future promoting Linux in a similar vein?

    1. Re:Perhaps Apple should take a different approach by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      People viewing television advertisements are not going to know what 'Linux' is, and they're certainly not going to know what 'BSD' is.

      Why would Apple's thrust in television advertising be to be a 'bigger thorn'??

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
  66. Truth in Advertising by dafz1 · · Score: 1

    I think this is a good thing, as long as the ax swings both ways(e.g. Intel saying they make the fastest chips, M$ saying Windows XP is the most stable version yet). It's difficult for any computer manufacturer to say they are the fastest, most powerful, etc. because that's true for only a very short period of time.

    Too bad we couldn't apply this in the US. Especially during the campaign season. Imagine politicians can't throw mud at each other. Better yet, imagine if they can't mention their opponent at all. Then they really would be at a loss for something to say.

    1. Re:Truth in Advertising by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      Yep, the candidate could say whatever he liked about himself, and no one could expose his lies.

      Unless, of course, you are absolutely insane enough to suggest that the GOVERNMENT oversee the truthfulness of government candidates...

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
  67. SPEC has been BS and numbers since day one, but... by green+pizza · · Score: 1

    Everyone in the UNIX world knows that SPEC numbers have been BS since day one. Almost every smart vendor has tweaked their compilers and runtime environment in every which way to allow for the fastest possible SPEC marks. Don't believe me? Dig around the usenet and SPEC archives. Every time SPEC updates their CPU suite, the major UNIX vendors scramble to tweak their compilers. The lag time is usually about a month. The score differences make for some fun and entertaining reading.

    At any rate, Apple is the first company to cheat at SPEC **AND** brag about it in an international ad campagin. Why someone else hasn't made a fuss yet is beyond me.

    It's about time, Apple. Shape up or ship out.

    Listening to Steve Job's BS is fun for a little while, but after a year he starts to sound like that annoying relative that is constantly trying to sell you the latest get rich scheme each month.

  68. of course... by Sebastopol · · Score: 1

    ...36% of 3% (global market share) is 1%....

    tee hee...

    --
    https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    1. Re:of course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah but its not global, it is just in the UK. So all 200 people that bought Macs in the UK. That went up 36%, so now there are 272 purchases! I bet 99% of that was iPods though. ;)

  69. Well, G5's DO make up the #3 supercomputer... by CatOne · · Score: 1

    In the world... so they must not TOTALLY suck w.r.t. performance.

    I'm talking about VA tech, BTW. Have a looksie at the news ;-)

    1. Re:Well, G5's DO make up the #3 supercomputer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad its a linux cluster based on Xeons, idiot. Now go back and play with your useless shiny plastic piece of junk. And thank apple for stealing open source software and saying they are "stable". Fucking pitiful morons :)

    2. Re:Well, G5's DO make up the #3 supercomputer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, the person was referring to the NEW G5 cluster which has not been added to the list YET, but has been in the news for the past two months.

      2200 G5's running OS X. for a total cost of 5M+ - the cheapest, most powerful supercomputer, to date.

      Fucking pitiful moron. ;)

  70. Re:One word: Protectionism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    European cars are abysmal? Ever heard of Mercedes, Ferrari perhaps?

    No, he said British cars - you know, Lotus, Rolls Royce, Aston Martin, Bentley, TVR, Land Rover - are no good. Or maybe he meant all those cars he watches at Indiecar or Formula One, you know, the ones all made by Lola in the UK because no-one else besides Ferrari knows how to make them.

  71. 1877 by beavis88 · · Score: 1

    I believe this was the year that a US judge ruled that corporations have the same basic rights, including freedom of speech, as individuals. It's been downhill ever since...

    1. Re:1877 by Simple-Simmian · · Score: 1

      Corperate speech is not free. When was the last time you saw a advertisement for tobacco on TV or heard one on radio? Ever see anyone drinking beer in a beer advertisement? Corperate speech can and is restricted by law. The only advertisements tobbaco companies my put on TV or radio are anti smoking advertisements. It's legal to restrict commercial speech.

      --
      If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
      Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
    2. Re:1877 by jd · · Score: 1
      I think you're perhaps both right, though correct me if I'm wrong. :)


      I do know that corporate free speech is, as it stands, not granted full first amendment status and is limited within certain parameters.


      I'm not sure if this was a relatively recent change, or one made atr the time corporate entities were first legally recognised.


      Either way, corporate speech is certainly held to different standards today (a good thing), although I would argue that the standards are still too frequently abused.


      eg: Diet pills and products that don't work and couldn't work. Why sould it take a comprehensive study + ban from the FDA? Indeed, if the products aren't actually harmful, why the ban at all? Why not just allow for the adverts to be banned, if the adverts are shown to be untrue? Why leave all of the power and control in the hands of a single agency that's way too small to monitor every product that exists today?


      IMHO, people (and the Government) need to be empowered to say when an advert goes too far, be able to take it to court and - if the court agrees that the advert is deliberately misleading for the purpose of commisioning what would otherwise be a crime (eg: fraud) - then the court should be able to stop the advert and order the advertiser to compensate those defrauded.


      IMHO, this also works when Governments do their own advertising (re-election stuff, campaigns to promote Ideology X, etc) - people and corporations should have same right as above - if it can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the adverts are deliberately deceptive for the purpose of carrying out what would otherwise be a crime, the courts should be able to ban those ads and order the payment of compensation.


      I don't hear any -direct- advertising for tobacco on radio, but I do hear adverts for Philip Morris and I do hear adverts for places that solely and explicitly sell tobacco.


      Let's see how this would work, with the above scheme. People object, but as the adverts cannot reasonably be construed as harmful, such a case would be thrown out.


      What about radio shows that are solely about tobacco products, which promote those products, and which assist in the development of the addiction?


      Again, a court would probably rule that since the only people likely to listen to such a show would be those who agree with it in the first place, it is demonstrably not inflicting any additional harm. It might be twee, but twee is not a crime.


      The fast food issue - big in the news recently - would be a good test of such a system, requiring the prosecution to provide actual demonstrable proof of directly-attributable harm, such that the defence cannot find flaws in the argument.


      In my books, whether the end result was guilty or innocent, the fact that proof - and not campaign donations - was the requirement, and that such proof was publicly given and publicly available, makes it possible for critics and skeptics to understand why decisions are make and whether those decisions are correct.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  72. Apple Fake Benchmarks by Bigpunter · · Score: 1

    Hi everyone, I e-mailed Apple about this not long ago and I am over the moon the ad is not being showed anymore. I own a HP ZX6k with dual IA-64's. It is most definetly faster than a dual G5!!!!

    1. Re:Apple Fake Benchmarks by Hitchcock_Blonde · · Score: 1

      Err... I think your HP ZX6k with dual IA-64's would be considered a Workstation, not a PC. The G5 ad clearly states that it is the fastest Personal Computer.

      --
      Karma Schmarma
    2. Re:Apple Fake Benchmarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd consider anything with dual CPUs a workstation - even the G5.

      And if you are the lucky owner of a single CPU G5, then it's not the fastest personal computer is it, cos the 2 CPU version is faster...

      That said, both personal computers and workstations need software, so I dunno what a dual IA-64 box counts as...

    3. Re:Apple Fake Benchmarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please, and a computer capable of 8GB of RAM, dual 2ghz 64bit processors, PCI-X, with a 1gz central bus that costs over $3,000USD is a Personal Computer?! Ha ha ha.

  73. Just had to add "Probably"..... by openmtl · · Score: 1

    Thats all the Carlsberg beer adverts do, probably. You got to understand we're different over here. And according to the ITC at least 8 of us are REALLY different.

    --

  74. Let's start the list. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Funny
    Dear ITC, please ban ads from the following companies for over-the-top claims:
    1. BMW - "The Ultimate Driving Machine". Yeah, says who? I happen to like the Lexus better. I haven't seen evidence from any independent rating agencies to prove this.
    2. UPS - "Moving at the speed of bussiness". I have a copy of my physics text in front of me, and the speed of business is not a well-known constant. I haven't seen any independent ratings studying the speed of business and whether UPS can actually keep up.
    3. Guiness - "Guiness is good for you". Right then, next.
    4. Coca Cola - "Coke is it" What is it and how do we really know that Coke is it? Again, independent review is needed to see what 'it' really is, and whether, in fact, Coke is it or not it.
    5. Burger King - "We do it your way". No they don't. My way is devoid of entrails, non-wilted lettuce, and with a proper roll that is very much not like a sponge, so Burger King is misrepresenting 'my way'. They do it one of their ways, but not at all my way.
    6. British Airways - "The worlds favorite airline". Right, everyone in the world just loves British Air, especially for the cuisine. That's why Lufthansa gets such a bad rap.
    7. Acura - "The True Definition of Luxury. Yours." I've never once spoken with anybody at Acura, and I don't much know that I've ever reflected on the true definition of luxury, so malarky.
    8. Sun Microsystems - "We're the . in .com". They're not, really. Noone is. It's a bloody ASCII character, not a company. How pretentious.
    9. Qwest - "Ride the light". Light has no mass. It cannot be ridden.
    10. Budweiser - "The king of beers". Right. In fact, please ban the sale of Budweiser itself, not just the ads.
    11. Panasonic - "Just slightly ahead of our time" A company bloody claiming to engage in time travel! Einstein would have a coronary.
    12. Slashdot - "Stuff that matters". Ha!
    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Let's start the list. by madprof · · Score: 1

      BMW's claim is not something you can objectively prove. So it's a subjective statement that passes fine. And so it goes for most of the ad lines you've given.
      Guiness's claim is ancient and the ITC would give them a kicking for that these days.

      Apple actually claimed to have the fastest personal computer in the world. That's not the "best" or the "world's favourite" or even "the king of PCs" - it's an objective claim.
      And so they got judged objectively. And were found wanting. Tough cheese.

    2. Re:Let's start the list. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      none of those are something that can be proven, or would be taken as fact. (guinness aside, but isn't that ancient? they wouldn't get away with it now).

      if bmw advertised it's m5 as the fastest road car.. they would get a kick on their ass(as it's not the fastest road car).

      or if british air advertised that it has the fastest/cheapest flight across the atlantic when they didn't. they would definetely get a kick up their ass for that.

      or if some supermarket advertised that it was going to sell g5's for 50$ per unit, and only sold something like 2 units(when there would be thousands of people coming to do the shopping there to buy it) at that price. they'd get some bigger trouble for that..

      no company says their product is mediocre(they just refrain from saying it, call it economical or something else). but saying just blatant lie(or extending the facts creatively, living partly in denial) is asking for trouble of some degree(false advertising, or just plain illegal advertising which depends on the local laws of course, can end up the company in much bigger trouble too).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Let's start the list. by BenjyD · · Score: 1

      British Airways - "The worlds favorite airline". Right, everyone in the world just loves British Air, especially for the cuisine. That's why Lufthansa gets such a bad rap.

      Four complaints were made about that advert (one from a competitor, but the ITC found in favour of BA, as there was an argument for saying it was true in international flights.

      The ITC will only act over claims in adverts that a reasonable person could consider to be a statement of fact, rather than just a slogan. So saying "The best personal computer in the world" is OK, but saying it's the fastest implies a statement presented as fact that can be objectively disproven, and therefore is not allowed. These laws are in place to protect the consumer - otherwise Mcdonalds could advertise their burgers as "healthy and fat free".

    4. Re:Let's start the list. by nacturation · · Score: 1

      9. Qwest - "Ride the light". Light has no mass. It cannot be ridden.

      Light does have mass, as photons are particles. Do a google search for "solar sail" and you'll see that you can, indeed, "ride" light. However, given that Qwest is not a vendor of solar sails, it should still be thrown out. :)

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    5. Re:Let's start the list. by kurt555gs · · Score: 1

      hmmmmm

      I have a Dual G5 Mac with the 23" studio display, and a BMW M5.

      and Ill whip the but of the Lexus driving Intel using previous poster any day of the week. :-)

      Actually the G5 is beautiful, and it really is fast. Along with Panther ... it is a wonderfull experince for a geek.

      I have read Opteron benchmarks vs G5's that show the amd is faster in some things , slower in others

      However, the total package of the 'big mac' is truely awesome.

      AND, No lexus, none, not one is faster than my BMW M5 .....

      lol

      --
      * Carthago Delenda Est *
    6. Re:Let's start the list. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Light does have mass, as photons are particles.

      Photons are massless force carrying particles. They transmit momentum via electromagnetic radiation.

    7. Re:Let's start the list. by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      Wish I had mod points for parent. MOD PARENT UP! Funniest thing I've read all day!

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    8. Re:Let's start the list. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but I don't think the poster meant that the particles had rest mass.
      Anyway, photons do have momentum, so you can ride them.

    9. Re:Let's start the list. by kinnell · · Score: 1
      Guiness - "Guiness is good for you". Right then, next.

      Actually Guiness is good for you. Some time ago, it was actually served to hospital patients in the UK - hence the slogan. Of course this depends on the quantity consumed, but you could say the same about vitamin C.

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    10. Re:Let's start the list. by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Guiness - "Guiness is good for you". Right then, next.

      AFAIK they haven't been allowed to use that slogan in the UK for a long time. (Haven't heard 2 or 3 of the other ones, so I'd guess you're US-based, right?)

      Still, good post. I couldn't believe the Ben and Jerry's example given elsewhere, considering Sainsbury's can say things like "Everyone's Favourite Ingredient" (and that's not the worst. Yeah, I know they changed their slogan, but that's because everyone hated it, not because it was deemed misleading).

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    11. Re:Let's start the list. by mraymer · · Score: 1
      Slashdot - "Stuff that matters". Ha!

      Slashdotters, you've got to learn not to insult the site you're wasting your time posting lists of things at. It makes you look pretty silly and opens you up to smart-ass retorts from people like myself.

      Anyway, here's a couple of ads to ban:

      1) Any Intel Ad Ever Made - It always has nothing to do with Intel processors. The ad may have something to do with computing in general, but even then it will focus on things that any processor from this century can do, like watching movies or burning CDs.

      2) Movies can no longer say "The Number One Movie in America" in their ads. This is too misleading, as there are so many box office calculating tricks that can throw pretty rotten movies in this category.

      Well, I guess those are the only two that irk me, but I don't pay much attention to television ads. I do remember when the G5 ad first started airing, though, and I remember thinking that someone was going to throw a fit over that statement. It seems you can't air a damn thing without pissing someone off.

      --

      "To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking

    12. Re:Let's start the list. by mlush · · Score: 1
      Panasonic - "Just slightly ahead of our time" A company bloody claiming to engage in time travel! Einstein would have a coronary.

      Not if their R&D is stuck somewhere in the 19th Centuary

    13. Re:Let's start the list. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I seem to remember that some reaserch was done a number of years ago saying that you could live on 47 pints of Guinness , 1 pint of orange juice and 1 pint of milk a day as it actually contained a very balenced selection of vitamins and minerals not to mention the reasonable calorie content. The healthy state of your liver might be called into question though :)

    14. Re:Let's start the list. by ollyg · · Score: 1

      > British Airways - The worlds favorite airline

      actually they were allowed to say this by the ITC, as they were at the time shifting more passengers internationally (hence, The World...) than other airlines.

      the really busy US carriers are mostly due to their domestic (internal) market, and not overseas.

      not sure if the BA claim still holds, tho.

      regards,
      oliver.

    15. Re:Let's start the list. by misterpies · · Score: 1


      Actually quite a few of these ads have now been pulled in the UK (if they were ever used here - cars were never sold as Acuras in the UK. We knew they were just fancy Hondas)

      * Guinness is good for you hasn't been used for decades, and is now only seen on old posters in pseudo-Irish pubs

      * British Airways was only allowed to advertise itself as the "world's favourite airline" because it carried more international passengers than any other airline. However it has now been overtaken (not sure by whom) and the slogan has been dropped.

      --
      The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
    16. Re:Let's start the list. by Frodo2002 · · Score: 1
      Qwest - "Ride the light". Light has no mass. It cannot be ridden.

      I agree with all your other points, but I do have to take issue with this one. Although light does not have mass, it is still a wave, and it has momentum. In fact there are examples in physics of particles "surfing" on electromagnetic waves. Ask the guys over at SLAC (Stanford Linear Accelerator Center) how they accelerate the electrons in their accelerator. They will tell you "radio waves". Basically the electrons "surf" down the accelerator on electromagentic waves. So, in conclusion, "riding the light" is not as much of a misnomer as you think it is.

    17. Re:Let's start the list. by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      According to Einstein: Energy either has or is mass, and so do photons (since they can't rest).

    18. Re:Let's start the list. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      So, in conclusion, "riding the light" is not as much of a misnomer as you think it is.

      If they were advertising to electrons I'd agree with 'ya. :)

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    19. Re:Let's start the list. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Apple actually claimed to have the fastest personal computer in the world. That's not the "best" or the "world's favourite" or even "the king of PCs" - it's an objective claim.

      But they didn't claim to have the fastest silicon, they claimed to have the fastest PC. The PC is hardware + OS + software. Many people find that they get work done on a Mac far faster than they can on a PC with Windows or even linux. So, unless you're going to setup a lab with a usability study with time trials, that's a subjective measure.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    20. Re:Let's start the list. by madprof · · Score: 1

      That is not what they meant at all. If they had wanted to claim world-beating productivity with Mac OS X then they would have used the word 'productivity'.
      As it was they made a big fuss about the G5 processor and said it was the most powerful PC in the world.
      That is obviously about the silicon, and not about the software.
      This is why the ITC banned the advert.

  75. "Expert"? by jon_eccleston · · Score: 1

    Due to the technical nature of the advertiser's response, the ITC asked the BACC to refer the complaints and the response to the BACC's expert.

    BACC guy #1: Hey, you seen the reply we got from Apple?
    BACC guy #2: Yeah, what the hell does that crap mean, anyway?
    BACC guy #1: I dunno... hey, doesn't Bill in Accounts have an Amiga? They're almost like Apples, right?
    BACC guy #2: Yeah, right! Hey, Bill! Which is better -- Mac or PC?
    Bill: Well, that's a difficult question to answer...
    BACC guy #1: Keep it short.
    BACC guy #2: And simple.
    Bill: Well, they're pretty much the same, as far as normal users a...
    BACC guy #1: Woah, that's it...
    BACC guy #2: *writes* "the G5 is generally as fast as the best Intel-based workstations currently available" -- thanks Bill!
    Bill: But, uh...

  76. Windows2003 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "I have installed Windows2003 on one of my computers, and contrary to Microsoft's TV ads, it didn't save me 5 cents per business transaction"

    Does this mean that if I get a warez copy that it will spit out a nickel every business transaction?

  77. What happened to QuickTime? by ttyp0 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Anyone else notice you can no longer download the quicktime viewer? When you go to apple.com/quicktime you're redirected to download iTunes.

    1. Re:What happened to QuickTime? by SillyWilly · · Score: 1

      No you're not. You get a page with QuickTime in the middle and a link to download QuickTime...

      --
      Online & Feelin' Fine
  78. Maybe not just one... by Nexum · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... but get a few mates with their G5's together and it bloody well is the fastest personal computer.

    --

    This sig has been deprecated.
    1. Re:Maybe not just one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but then its no longer a personal computer

  79. tut tut by djupedal · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Know why Englishmen drink warm beer?

    They all use Lucas [TM] refrigerators.

    Not many people know that the manufacturer of Land Rovers attempted to market a computer. Why did they stop? They could not find a way to get it to leak oil

    And thus the British disdain for anything truly useful :)

  80. Better: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should not ban the ad but mod it (-1, Ridiculous)

  81. Warmth! by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
    OK, if it was decided that the G5 ad couldn't be shown, when are they going to get around to banning the STUPID Centrino ad they're showing in the UK at the moment? It shows a mountaineer halfway up Mt Everest talking to his kids using his wireless-enabled Centrino laptop. I don't think anyone has installed a WiFi hotspot up Everest, so I can't see it's entirely representative of the technology.

    Nah, he's using a satellite phone with a diesel generator. However, the warmth coming from the laptop is enough to keep him nice and toasty, so he can run out to crank the generator once an hour and keep talking to his kids. ;)

    -T

  82. What about ... ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... the part where it blows you through the door? That's still true, isn't it? Or can't they prove that, either?

  83. Better! by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 1

    Now come back in one billion years when you have evolved. :-)

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
  84. Re:SPEC has been BS and numbers since day one, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone in the UNIX world knows that SPEC numbers have been BS since day one. Almost every smart vendor has tweaked their compilers and runtime environment in every which way to allow for the fastest possible SPEC marks. Don't believe me? Dig around the usenet and SPEC archives. Every time SPEC updates their CPU suite, the major UNIX vendors scramble to tweak their compilers. The lag time is usually about a month. The score differences make for some fun and entertaining reading.

    At any rate, Apple is the first company to cheat at SPEC **AND** brag about it in an international ad campagin. Why someone else hasn't made a fuss yet is beyond me.


    How exactly do you claim Apple cheated? All they did was eliminate all the SPEC-specific compiler optimizations you talked about in your first paragraph, by using an open source compiler on every machine tested.

    If you want to claim they cheated, I want to see the code. Go download the gcc source code and show me where in in gcc apple put those SPEC specific optimizations for PPC.

    Or just admit that apple's "cheating" was just a matter of not letting the other companies cheat by using their SPEC-optimised compilers.

  85. Most people are right! by El · · Score: 1

    PC == Microsoft, where PC is defined as "Piece of Crap."

    --

    "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

  86. Anti-UK? by EdMack · · Score: 1

    Reality: Apple was airing an add that did not conform to our rules, therfore it was axed.

    Some people rightly pointed out that the ad was iffy, and action was taken.. go home US fanboy! ;)

    --
    puts ("Python r0cks\n");
    1. Re:Anti-UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Reality: Apple was airing an add

      In reality, they were airing a vectorised floating-point multiply+add

    2. Re:Anti-UK? by Simple-Simmian · · Score: 1
      Any adult who believes anything they see on TV advertisement is to lame to be allowed out on there own without adult supervision.

      This is blant anti-americanism which is popular right now. I mean the National Enquirer and Star are considered newspapers in the UK. They are considered trash here.

      A whole 8 people "objected" to the advertisement. You go home flamebait this sever is likely located in north America LOL. ( this last sentence is a joke for the humor impared.)

      --
      If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
      Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
    3. Re:Anti-UK? by mr_sas · · Score: 1

      the National Enquirer isn't considered a newspaper in any news agents i've ever used. It's usually in with the magazines.

      The Daily/Sunday Star is considered as a tabloid (ie low class drivel, second rate newspaper)

    4. Re:Anti-UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just don't get it do you?

      In the UK, the ASA upholds the standard that adults should be able to believe what an advert tells them with relative confidence. It is largely taken for granted that adverts tell the truth, because the law says that they must do so. The US standard is far less stringent, and as a result you take it for granted that adverts should not be believed.

      Your post contains the very ingredients that are the root cause of the anti-americanism that exists.

    5. Re:Anti-UK? by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      And we all remember when Intel was erring an add. Or was it some other floating point operation?

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    6. Re:Anti-UK? by Simple-Simmian · · Score: 1

      They fixed that error with a patch didin't they? :-) God to think I still have family relations in England is most fightfull . Apperenty they really do expect the goverment to care for them from cradle to grave. It won't matter once the adopt the Euro. After a short wilst they be gobbled up and Germany and France will have there way with them stealing away all the last few remaining jobs their culutre and women.

      --
      If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
      Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
    7. Re:Anti-UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you a native English speaker? Cos your spelling and grammar is offending me. Maybe you can ask some of your family in England to teach you how to write.

    8. Re:Anti-UK? by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      I'll bet that your relatives in England can fucking spell though.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    9. Re:Anti-UK? by Simple-Simmian · · Score: 1

      How much do you want to bet? I have to assume you agree with what I said sind all you can do is attack spelling.

      --
      If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
      Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
  87. is it any more misleading than the centrino ads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Currently, the UK centrino ads show someone setting up and 'connecting' in a field. As a recent copy of Which? (the uk consumer magazine) pointed out, this is somewhat unlikely given the current lack of wi-fi coverage in the UK. Is this ambiguous ad any better than Apples?

    http://theregister.com/content/51/33753.html

    It seems to me that nearly ALL ads for technology seem to over-hype their claims to the point of disbelief.

  88. Cray Fishing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How often have you seen a Cray for sale at CompUSA or Time?

    Just the once.

    http://news.com.com/2100-1017_3-245425.html

  89. Re:One word: Protectionism by dipipanone · · Score: 1

    The reasoning behind this ban is extremely simple and not atypical in EU regulation: companies who have a strong market position (e.g. the producer of the world's fastest desktop PC) and are based overseas are subject to more stringent regulation in the EU so that the home grown products do not have to compete on a level playing field.

    Uh-huh.

    And the fact that European Macs are all manufactured in Ireland impacts on all this how, exactly?

  90. Re:Superfalous? - I agree for the most part but... by Gorphrim · · Score: 1

    One little point though: Apple vs. AMD is IMHO off-target as an analogy. AMD and Intel sell computer parts (or license manufacturing rights, etc.). Apple and Dell and their ilk sell computers. Of course, AMD and Intel engage in shady speed-sells marketing as well...

    Point is, I do agree cuz I'm sure Micron, AlienWare (?), and others make PCs that would crush a G5 in most relevent benchmarks (which is a whole different can of worms, or viruses...).

    --

    Queens of the Stone Age - they rule
  91. Difference in Claim & Assessment by salt-master · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apples claim:
    "the world's fastest, most powerful personal computer"

    Assessment:
    "the G5 was generally as fast as the best Intel-based workstations currently available"

    Apple never claimed to have the fastest workstations instead the fastest personal computer. The only way they were able to demonstrate that Apple was misleading was by using a different class of computer (which cost much more).

    --
    Microsoft: reinventing the square wheel
    1. Re:Difference in Claim & Assessment by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      Not just any workstation, but the top of the line Intel workstation.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    2. Re:Difference in Claim & Assessment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your assessment ignores AMD. An AMD Athlon64 pc is cheaper and outperforms a G5 system.

    3. Re:Difference in Claim & Assessment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Negative. They were comparing against a similarly profiled Intel work station. You can get Intel based workstations that have component systems far out of reach of anything Apple has to offer. We are talking built in hardware RAIDS, quad chip motherboards, and so on, and that isn't even getting in to SGI's Intel workstations. You seriously do not want to compare Apple's half desktop half workstation with a real workstation. Granted these monsters costs are up in the tens of thousands of dollars, but you did say top of the line.

  92. Mars bars by CrypticSparrow · · Score: 1

    I wish to lodge a complaint against Mars Bars. This clearly missleading advertising. I only just found out that they don't really come from Mars!!!
    They should change their name.

    --
    "It is difficult to catch a black cat in a dark room. Especially if there is no cat there." - Confucius
  93. Public safety comes first by wilko11 · · Score: 5, Funny
    Surely the G5 itself should be banned for public safety. Any computer that can blow you through the walls of your house and into a tree should not be allowed!

    Oh wait. You mean I am supposed to use my judgement and work out what bits are the truth and what bits are advertsing hyperbole.

    Silly me! I though every part of every ad on TV was literal truth.

  94. what's the deal UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have to say that this sort of thing is hard to believe. We are talking about the same country that calls tabloids "NEWS PAPERS", right? Every body knows that tabloids are full of lies mixed in with some true celebrity dirt. Why can you print crap in a paper but you cant claim that you have the fastest personal?

  95. Most Powerful Computer? No... by oberondarksoul · · Score: 1

    IIRC, the adverts claimed the G5 was the most powerful _personal_ computer. I'm not entirely sure how many people's desktops carry Xeons, but I'm willing to bet it's not enough to consider them PCs.

    --
    And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
    1. Re:Most Powerful Computer? No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said anything about Xeons? You are making the same mistake Apple made. Taking one example and blanketing the entire market with it. I think what most people bring up as counter-evidence to Apple's claims are Opteron chips, which you will find in desktops. The fact of the matter is, the line between a low-end workstation and a high-end desktop is very blurry. The G5s straddle that line, so do the Opterons. The main difference is that Apple's best straddle, and Opteron's lowest straddle. Opteron computers can be extremely powerful machines. Apple could make a workstation of that class too, but they have chosen not to. Apple calling a $3,500 computer with high performance components a desktop is a little misleading in itself. Opteron based computers never really billed themselves as "desktops" and were marketed to the professionals. Marketing aside, both of these computers are very high performance, and out of the financial reach/need for most desktop consumers, but cheap enough that one with enough money to throw around can get one.

  96. Link? by CaptainSuperBoy · · Score: 1

    I've never seen these ads.. do you have a link? I'd be interested in seeing how they claim ht will make your computer more secure.

    1. Re:Link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be interested in seeing how they claim ht will make your computer more secure.

      The same way SSE2 made the internet faster, presumably...

    2. Re:Link? by Llywelyn · · Score: 1

      Check the most recent Newsweek, it isn't online that I've seen. Page... 29 or 39?

      --
      Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
  97. Truth? by ObiWonKanblomi · · Score: 0

    This good use of censorship is being practiced in the same country whose government banned the papers from outright saying the price raped a man!

  98. Parsing words does not make a falsehood by LenE · · Score: 4, Insightful
    We have a fairly high standard of 'truth' in advertising here.
    ...
    Plenty of big iron boxes like Crays and IBM are obviously more powerful machines. The ad contains a blatently FALSE sataement.

    Apparently extreme truth in advertising is necessary to not confuse the English mind. The ad clearly states "The worlds fastest, most powerful, personal computer."

    Where the hell did you get the idea that "big iron boxes like Crays and IBM" are personal computers?

    In the US, superlatives are OK, as by some measure something can be the most, best, or greatest. The problem is when some product is advertised with comparatives. A product can be the best, but just better requires irrefutable proof.

    They said fastest and most powerful, and by the SPEC benches they submitted, it is. They didn't say the G5 is faster than a Dell dual Xeon 3.0 running XP or a HP Pavilario running Red Hat because this type of apples to oranges comparison would require specific results and would throw off the simplicity of the advertisement.

    Anyone who takes the claims of a twelve word advertisement as gospel is a retarded idiot who shouldn't be allowed to buy anything more expensive than a pack of bubble gum. If this is the situation in England, then I truly feel sorry for the few intelligent people who are trapped there and have to be protected by this type of "truth in advertising" laws.

    -- Len

    1. Re:Parsing words does not make a falsehood by Doc+Squidly · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think the problem comes from the fact that the numbers Apple submitted don't match the numbers on the SPEC website. Add to that concerns about VeriTest's methods and you could see how one might consider Apple's claims misleading. Of course Apple could have called it "One of the world's fastest personal computers" and been ok. Conspiracy against Apple? No, their ads are still on in the U.S. Had this been done by AMD or Intel people would realy be out for blood. But, claims like this are nothing new from Apple.

      --
      I think I think, therefore I think I am.
    2. Re:Parsing words does not make a falsehood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      [...]this type of apples to oranges comparison would require specific results and would throw off the simplicity of the advertisement.
      Not to mention the simplicity of the actual claims being made...
    3. Re:Parsing words does not make a falsehood by Mr_Silver · · Score: 1
      Anyone who takes the claims of a twelve word advertisement as gospel is a retarded idiot who shouldn't be allowed to buy anything more expensive than a pack of bubble gum. If this is the situation in England, then I truly feel sorry for the few intelligent people who are trapped there and have to be protected by this type of "truth in advertising" laws.

      By your reasoning therefore, every single company could claim what they want and then, when queried about it, go "hey, we didn't think people would take this as the gospel".

      The advertising rules in England are simple. Don't lie. Apple lied. Therefore they were told not to show the advert.

      If you really think that our advertising is worse than the US, then you really haven't watched UK television. Less intruisive, less obnoxious, less in-your-face, more trueful and less of it.

      --
      Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
    4. Re:Parsing words does not make a falsehood by balloonhead · · Score: 1
      They said fastest and most powerful, and by the SPEC benches they submitted, it is. They didn't say the G5 is faster than a Dell dual Xeon 3.0 running XP or a HP Pavilario running Red Hat because this type of apples to oranges comparison would require specific results and would throw off the simplicity of the advertisement.

      No, you're missing the point. They're comparing apples to other personal computers. Why would they compare them to fruit? Of course they have more cycles than a mandarin.

      PS I know I'm not funny. I just finished night shift.

      --
      This idea was invented by Shampoo.
    5. Re:Parsing words does not make a falsehood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who takes the claims of a twelve word advertisement as gospel is a retarded idiot who shouldn't be allowed to buy anything more expensive than a pack of bubble gum. If this is the situation in England, then I truly feel sorry for the few intelligent people who are trapped there and have to be protected by this type of "truth in advertising" laws.


      Actually, it's more that as a country we have a rather higher standard of behaviour and ethics than the USA. It's quite simple, really. If you're trying to sell me something, you're not allowed to lie about it.

      Funnily enough, most British people are aware that adverts are not trying to be scrupulously fair to the competing products, and are going to paint the advertised product in the most favourable light possible. We just don't allow you to actually lie about stuff you're selling.

    6. Re:Parsing words does not make a falsehood by kevmit · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      "The advertising rules in England are simple. Don't lie. Apple lied."
      It's funny how this sparkling code of ethics does not appear to have been adopted by your press or Royal Fucking Family, huh?
      "Less intrusive, less obnoxious, less in-your-face."
      Yeah, I'll bet Prince "Bendover and take it for the Crown" Charles (who BTW, is so fucking butt-ugly, he makes Keith Richards look human) has PLENTY of aides who wish they could have taken "less-in-their-face".
      Shut your gob, get off the dole, and get to work, fuckin' Brit!
  99. I would prefer a more Europen system for this by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    And I'm not often one to say that. I think the US is too lax in what advertisers get away with. Like take pro audio. So frequently you'll see equipment advertised with SNR and synamic range specs that, if you measure it, aren't even close. False advertising? No, it is that an accepted practise is to print the spec of the D/A or A/D CONVERTER itself. Great, except that is only half the equation. After the signal goes out it needs to be amplified to line level, and also the power supply affects the whole thing. So with poor supporting electronics, you can have much less than what the converter is capable of.

    This I first found out about when M-Audio released their Delta 1010 and I wanted to get one. It's specs were rather worse than much of the competition, yet reviews were glowing and testing showed it to have an superbly low noise floor. So what gives? Well the numbers they reported were teh real, no BS, properly measured, off a production unit numbers. It WAS what you got. The others were reporting the converter numbers. When you actually tested them, they performed worse.

    Things like this I'd like to see go away. I'd like it to be required that any spec you choose to report for your production model must be one that it will actually meet or exceed. No one-off demo units, no theoritical specs of components. Real specs from real units.

    Along those lines would go no making "fastest" claims unless you can back it up, and not with just a single test.

  100. Nope. by RandyOo · · Score: 1

    At this location, you're given a choice (on the Windows side) to download Quicktime seperately, or bundled together with iTunes. So, no.

  101. OT: your sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    cult: a small, unpopular religion.
    religion: a large, popular cult.

    Your sig does not make sense. religion: a large, popular (small, unpopular) religion. A recursive, contradictory definition is nothing more than a waste of words. A similar play on words would be:

    car: a large, fast bike
    bike: a slow, small car

    The sentences are completely vacuous! I'm sure if you put some thought into it you could come up with a witty insult of religion/cults but this doesn't really cut it.

    1. Re:OT: your sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooh ooh - for some reason, my "lack of personality" detector has just gone haywire.

    2. Re:OT: your sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shit, no kidding? After I read your comment, so did mine.

  102. doofus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you said you could get an athlon or P4 based computer that would stomp a G5 in certain tasks, then assert that this proves that G5 isn't the fastest IN GENERAL.

    WRong.

    specific instances don't prove or disprove a general rule.

    1. Re:doofus by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 1

      Actually, they do. All it takes to disprove a general rule is one counter-example.

    2. Re:doofus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The exception only proves the rule.

  103. Silver lining... by psyconaut · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Apple may have had their ads pulled...but look at all the free media advertizing the story generated ;-)

    -psy

    1. Re:Silver lining... by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 2, Interesting
      ' Apple may have had their ads pulled...but look at all the free media advertizing the story generated ;-)"

      I was waiting for someone to pull the PR aspect of this out of the mix!

      Welcome to the age where PR is becoming more credible/cost effective than advertising. It hasn't happened yet, but it will.

      I work in the advertising/marketing/PR industry, and I can tell you something that I'm sure many have realized already. Advertising is losing effectiveness (thanks to spam/bannerads/popups) and is losing credibility (that's mostly the work of spam, although Leptoprin ads probably assists it). Trust me, we in the industry know that the more we throw at you, the more you ignore it. We may not ALL be geeks who know whats going on, but quite a few of us are, and we know the solution is to put out BETTER ads, and less of them.

      However, there are the dumbasses, such as spammers, who are ruining it for the rest of us by saturating everybody with ads. And for now, its still profitable for them, so they keep doing it.

      However, PR is evening the playingfield. PR often goes undetected, whereas advertising has laws making them state it is advertising. Also, PR tends to be a lot cheaper than buying media, and designing/producing the content for it.

      Now, obviously there is bad PR, and by bad I don't mean bad publicity (like how almost all publicity is good publicity), but I mean poorly done PR. Like for example, often times I see stories posted on Slashdot that are COMPLETELY obvious PR plants. Take the recent Games section article Prince of Persia was a blatant example of a poorly done press release. You should realize Gamespot is really nothing more than a PR firm with a different company description right? Any way, you could SMELL press release on this article, and THAT is an example of when people notice a press release. Often times, with PR, if its good PR, you don't notice it.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    2. Re:Silver lining... by nyseal · · Score: 1

      Yes, but spammers and people of their ilk would not have generally realized how powerful advertising could become without you and marketing personnel. They did not just wake up one morning and say 'Hey, it hasn't worked on TV, magazines or billboards so I think I'll try it here.' In the end, people will sniff out PR as well; good or bad.

      --
      [SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
  104. The Onion by HoldmyCauls · · Score: 1

    http://www.theonion.com/3943/news2.html

    --
    Emacs: for people who just never know when to :q!
    1. Re:The Onion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use an anchor tag!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  105. Re:Yeah, but Apple blows by Mr.+Darl+McBride · · Score: 1
    I'm no Apple fan either, but it's worth noting that:

    1. The endianness is the same as all of your TCP/IP packets.

    3. Keyboard shortcut support is more universal than in Windows apps.

    5. It comes with developer tools.

    The rest of the points are subjective and good fodder for all kinds of creative arguments on either side.

  106. Well, it is quite clearly outperformed by ikekrull · · Score: 1


    by high-spec x86 machines, across the board.

    As such, claiming that it is the worlds fastest personal computer is a complete lie.

    It would be like honda claiming their new civic is 'The worlds fastest car' because in their tests against other slower cars, it beat them.

    --
    I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
  107. Sweet Zombie Jesus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Between banning the G5 ad and the news blackout on Price "I like to watch'em get raped" Charles' bisexual antics what's left? Some documentary 'bout how cheese is made?

  108. Will Slashdot be banned in the UK by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Slashdot might be banned, afer all it claims to contain "Stuff that matters" I await my -5 Mod punishment.

  109. Dear Apple: Submit your results to www.spec.org! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Conspiracy theorists take note, Apple's sales in the UK are up 36%

    This happened without Apple ever submitting results to www.spec.org. It happened because previous PowerMac models to the G5 sucked, people knew it, and they were holding out for the G5s. It happened because some customers believed the veracity of the SPEC benchmarks provided by Apple's PR department for both Apple and Intel products, the latter of which were performed under highly specious conditions - ie. HyperThreads were disabled for benchmarks that would have benefited from their use and HyperThreads were enabled for benchmarks that would be hurt by their activation. In response to the furor surrounding those Intel benchmarks, Apple representatives said the benchmarks would be redone with HyperThreads activated in the normal manner if people wanted it done. Well, WE WANT IT DONE. Most of all, WE WANT YOUR G5 RESULTS SUBMITTED TO www.spec.org!

  110. Apple's advertising is false and misleading by penguin7of9 · · Score: 1

    If you compare Apple's own SPEC marks against those on spec.org for other systems, you'll see that the G5 is slower than the Opteron, Athlon 64, or recent P4's. It's also neither the only nor the first 64bit personal computer.

    The G5 based Macs are nice machine that has helped Apple catch up with the performance of PCs, but that's all.

    1. Re:Apple's advertising is false and misleading by tomem · · Score: 1

      I think it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is: Is a server machine a personal computer? If not, then the dual G5 2GHz is the first 64 bit personal computer and the fastest personal computer (or at least was for a while). You appear to be comparing it with server hardware not available in a form suitable as a personal computer.

      It is also one of the cheapest top of the line personal computers at 3k$ versus about 4k$ for a comparably equipped dual Xeon.

      --
      ThosEM
    2. Re:Apple's advertising is false and misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A dual Opteron system is cheaper, faster, 64bit, and out before the G5 system. Apple did not have the first 64-bit pc, AMD systems were first, even though they marketed them as workstations. a personal computer that costs more than a workstation is either not a personal computer, or the worstation is really a personal computer. Either way, Apple is wrong.

    3. Re:Apple's advertising is false and misleading by Hoser+McMoose · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Single processor Opteron systems with AGP graphics, plain old PCI slots and ATA hard drives were out months before Apple even announced they had "the world's first 64-bit personal computer".

      Calling a dual-processor computer with a PCI-X bus a "personal computer" and a single-processor system with a PCI bus a "workstation"?

      The original poster is right, Apple's ads are incorrect and misleading. That being said, so are the ads of just about every other company out there.

    4. Re:Apple's advertising is false and misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So is P4 not a personal computer?
      Because if you look at spec site you will see tat even a P4 is way faster then G5. The thing is they reported correct scores for G5 but reported 20 to 80% of P4 scores.

      They tested dual-cpu while compiling the P4 code with single-threaded library - so no more then 1 cpu works. What dual-cpu bench is that?! That's why their scores for P4 are so low.

      They didn't even dare to show Opteron scores which is way cheaper then apple. So is Opteron server or desktop? It is cheaper then apple so it is definetly more desktop then apple...

  111. G5 could be better... by redgopher · · Score: 1

    ...if it had a "laser" mounted on top.

    Meh. I try.

    --
    Insert clever one liner here.
  112. Changes by CrypticSpawn · · Score: 1

    They should cut all that bragging and just say something like this. You want power? Here it is, Apple PowerPC G5. Short and simple...

  113. Conspiracy? Hardly by SofaMan · · Score: 1

    Plenty of big iron boxes like Crays and IBM are obviously more powerful machines. The ad contains a blatently FALSE sataement.


    Apple never claimed the G5 to be the most powerful computer, they claimed it to be the most powerful personal computer, which is a big difference.

    It also seem that the only way they managed to squash the "Fastest PC" claim was by comparing it to workstations, not equivalent out-of-the-box PCs. Just like you did.

    --

    SofaMan -- Occasionally Battling Evil With His Mighty Powers Of Indolence.

  114. No, I'm New Here by New+Here · · Score: 1, Funny

    No, I'm New Here

  115. Japan, not UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Japan is still Apple's second most lucrative market, and it grew 30% year-over-year which is only slightly slower than the UK.

  116. That is a very bad comparison.. by ErnstKompressor · · Score: 1

    Claims of product's performance are always subject to verification by consumers...As I said above, BMW claims to offer the "Ultimate Driving Machine"...now I can attest that is not true. Now this might be subjective, but it is still my claim. I can show 0-60 specs to support my claim, however, should I be able to bar them from advertising in this manner? Obviously not.

    This is hardly snake oil Apple is selling...I have no interest in debating the specific merit of Apple's claims other than to say that if you cannot see this as absurd(and not in a conspiratorial way mind you), then you are fooling yourself. Apple supplied independant performance data that supports their claim. The blustery sales pitch is just that, a sales pitch. If every product was held to such standards as is this case, nothing would be advertised...not that I mind that option necessarily.

    --
    We apologise for the fault in this post. Those responsible have been sacked. -- Signed RICHARD M. NIXON
    1. Re:That is a very bad comparison.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple's problem was that their supporting evidence was demonstrably false. The SPEC results Apple gave were not the same as the SPEC results available from SPEC (www.spec.org). They were misleading at best, since a reasonable person would assume the SPEC figures were real SPEC results.

      Furthermore, on balance benchmarks show G5s being fast but not faster than, say, a top of the range Dell, let alone a custom-built Opteron or P4EE box.

    2. Re:That is a very bad comparison.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WELL WELL WELL. What have you now. First, "bullshit" is called with regards to the G5 being fast. Then, Apple's bullshit ads are pulled. And yet you fucking fanboys will continue paying for over-priced hardware from a proprietary vendor.

      You fucking Apple fanboys are just as bad as fucking MS apologists. Keep letting yourselves getting fucked up the ass while offering your proprietary vendor a reach around.

      Fucking fanboy. I told you before, and I'll tell you again: I don't want to hear one more god damned word come out of the fucking hole in your face. Shut it! Shhht! Shhht! Shhh!

  117. Re:hello, ITC? craig barrett and hector ruiz here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod parent up!

  118. Well, you know what to do by pelorus · · Score: 1

    Complain.

    Anyone think this one is misleading?

    Intel Centrino Advert

    1. Re:Well, you know what to do by kosmonaut+pirx · · Score: 1

      Sure it is. Or did they install a high bandwith wlan or umts cells in the himalaya? Maybe there are dsl jacks hidden under the snow, installed by the people of Shangri La? Or how does the guy get a high quality video stream on the roof of the world? If Reinhold Messner (famous germon climber and adventure, lost many toes) gets the next time onto the Everest, maybe he'll find the new satellite dish on the top.
      I read in the heise-forum, that somebody was asked by a friend, how much the access to the intel-satellite would cost. This person has already been misled by this adverts.

      Kosmo

  119. Good move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given you can get an an AMD Athlon64 system, which outperforms an Apple G5, at a lower price, the Apple claim is dubios at best.

  120. SGI and SUN etc. also make personal computers by tychoS · · Score: 1
    I find the Apple advertisements that claimed the G5 is the "first personal computer with a 64 bit address bus" quite funny, especially when I view them in Netscape on my 1997 SGI Indigo2 with a 64 bit MIPS R10000 CPU ;-)

    So are a "personal computer" by definition a peice of hardware that can run either MacOS or Windozz on one of their incarnations?

    If the criteria is that the machine can be the sole computer vehicle for the bulk of your paid work, as well as for casual webbrowsing, editing of snapshots of your cat, children etc. then a lot of UNIX workstations especially from SUN and SGI are in use as "personal computers" at home and in the office by a lot of people around the world. Themajority of these has been 64 bit since the start of the 90-ties, or the middle of the 90-ties if you postponed buying one until they got cheap ;-)

  121. Mod Parent Up (NT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    filler text

  122. Re:Dear Apple: Submit your results to www.spec.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was Greg Joswiak, vice president of hardware marketing at Apple, who said they [Apple] would be happy to do the [spec] tests on Windows and with hyperthreading enabled... See this

  123. we can only hope... by lucas+teh+geek · · Score: 1

    expecting the goverment to protect them from their own stupidity

    we, the rest of the world, can only hope that one day the USA will implement a similar policy, protecting us from their stupidity

    --
    TIAEAE!
  124. Don't take metaphors literally! by Frogknoll · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This was first posted elsewhere. My apologies if the ideas have already been expressed here:

    What seems to be missing from this discussion is a single word at the heart of the issue: metaphor.

    The expression "the world's fastest, most powerful personal computer" contains two living, breathing metaphors:fastest and powerful. It is the nature and charm and power of metaphors that they are deceptive, and that no enumeration of facts (time to complete certain tasks, or whatever) can prove them. (There is, after all, the fact/metaphor gap to consider.)

    No, "fastest" is not a quantitative claim when applied to stationary objects. Neither is "powerful", "higher", or "stronger" when applied to computers. No, Apple did not present their metaphors as fact; no, such obvious evaluative metaphors are never "objective statements".

    Not since a jury ruled against Papa John's for its slogan "better ingredients, better pizza", have so many people been duped by metaphor in advertising. Please, people, get over it! If you think that the G5 really is the fastest personal computer, you are deceived by language. If you think that it really isn't the fastest, you, too, are deceived by language. Use metaphors, by all means, but don't believe them!

    And please: if you live in the U.K., call off the metaphor police!

  125. Truth in Advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speaking of which, this is prolly a good spot to add the obligatory link to the ultimate in truth in advertising.

  126. What is a zealot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like our Premier?

  127. "Whee" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ""more" "quotes" "than" "words""

  128. No, but by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    There needs to be limits. Ads should not be allowed to make false claims. Something like a computer blowing someone through a wall is fine, that's hyperbole, even comedy. However claiming that something is the fastest when it isn't (or if it cannot be proven to be) is false and ought not be allowed. You, after all, don't want people claiming a product can do something which it cannot.

    There needs to be a line in what is allowed, otherwise advertisers will make totally false and misleading statements just to sell snake oil. The line is a little different in the UK and in much of Europe than it is in the US.

  129. Re:Let's start the list. II by kurt555gs · · Score: 1

    All i need now is a faster spelling checker

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
  130. Hey! Mod the parent up!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > If you think that the G5 really is the fastest
    > personal computer, you are deceived by
    > language. If you think that it really isn't the
    > fastest, you, too, are deceived by language.

    Excellent point! Deserve much more than 1.

    1. Re:Hey! Mod the parent up!! by Frogknoll · · Score: 1

      Actually, I meant to be more critical of the ITC and their fascist supporters than of Slashdot readers. Look at what the ITC did:

      After Apple made the statement "introducing the world's fastest, most powerful personal computer", and eight viewer complaints were lodged, the ITC referred the complaints to the BCC's IT expert. An IT expert! Did they even think of contacting a language expert? If they had, they might have gotten a response like,

      "In its advertisement, Apple Computer used the metaphor 'fastest' to analogically compare its computer to objects traveling through space at a higher velocity than other objects. And they used the metaphor 'powerful' to analogically compare their computer to forces able to accelerate massive objects. The metaphors are living, the compact structure of the statement is itself a metaphorical feature, and so the statement is judged to be 100% devoid of any factual content or claim. Because it is metaphorical (obviously to some, not obviously to others), it is misleading, deceptive, and false (in its original sense - deceptive), as all metaphors are."

      After receiving the (language!) expert's evaluation of Apple's claim, the ITC, if it had any sense at all, would issue a terse statement:

      "We regulate statements of fact. We don't regulate metaphors."

      Just imagine (if you can!) a world where metaphors are outlawed. Tony Blair could not claim that the war in Iraq was 'justified'. His critics could not claim it was 'wrong'. Shakespeare would be edited to have Romeo claiming that "Juliet is kinda like the sun!" And above all, we critics of metaphor-blindness could not have fun ridiculing people who are taken in by them.

      It seems ever so possible to me now that computer experts, IT people, and Slashdot readers are the most easily duped people on the planet. Read these posts. You have people who actually believe that one computer can be "faster" than another. Others who believe that a given computer "is" or "isn't" a workstation or PC. Others who think Apple's claim is or isn't "true"!

      Metaphors, all.

      Fools, all.

  131. No A64 or Opteron benchmarks? by truesaer · · Score: 1
    I question the choice of benchmarks on Apple's performance page. They have completely missed any processor based on AMD64 architecture, which is currently beating Pentium 4s. It is about even with Intel's EE part, but that part is vaporware so it hardly matters. Apple has also chosen to highlight benchmarks involving multimedia applications, which are the kind of apps that benefit the most from the extra GPR's in AMD64. One could argue that an Opteron is not meant to be in a personal computer, but if you had an Apple priced PC it certainely could be. At the very least they need to be benchmarking against Athlon 64 FX-51 based systems.


    Apple has already been claiming that the G5 was the first 64 bit processor, forgetting about the Opteron, Alpha, etc. Now they're claiming it is the fastest processor. Apple has a great product in the G5, why do they need to lie about its capabilities when there are so many truthful claims they could make?

    1. Re:No A64 or Opteron benchmarks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Apple has already been claiming that the G5 was the first 64 bit processor, forgetting about the Opteron, Alpha, etc. Now they're claiming it is the fastest processor. Apple has a great product in the G5, why do they need to lie about its capabilities when there are so many truthful claims they could make?

      They're claiming it was the first 64-bit desktop, which is technically correct. The Alphas were marketed as servers and even if some were used as desktops, it was never intended for that market. As for fastest processor -- well, it's all relative. Sort of like car manufacturers claiming, "It has the most powerful engine in its class." They don't say that the "class" is something like, "Compact sized sports utility vehicle with 4 cylinder engine, no 4wd, under $15,000, non-commercial."

    2. Re:No A64 or Opteron benchmarks? by truesaer · · Score: 1

      Ok, the first desktop. Except for any desktops which used Opteron! Yes, there were places that made desktops with Opterons. As for the fastest processor, I doubt there is any class where it is the fastest except for PowerPC architecture which is meaningless.

  132. workstations by Craig+Ringer · · Score: 1

    By price, I would call the current macs "workstations" rather more than desktop PCs. I'm sitting at a dual Xeon box that cost less than a mid-range G5, and I wouldn't call that a "PC" any more than I would a G5.

    I tend to agree with the reviewers.

    Craig Ringer

  133. Re:SPEC has been BS and numbers since day one, but by ducomputergeek · · Score: 1

    Could this be the reason why two of my client's have ditched their $20k Sun workstations for Macs?

    --
    "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
  134. Department of Truth by General_Tso · · Score: 2, Funny

    The committee also noted that the Apple advertisement is double plus ungood. In an unrelated note, UK Mac User smashed the committee's chanting jumbotron in an act of hammer tossing vandalism.

  135. Anti-Mac Zealot Translator-o-matic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mac Zealot Translator-o-matic

    Apple have come up with some innovative products, but their market share remains tiny. Sadly, though, many buyers have been mislead by the marketing and eye-candy, and desperately try to justify their overpriced purchases to themselves on forums around the Net. Let's see what they really mean...


    translates to:

    "I AM A CTRL-V WANKER"

  136. You can't say this by JCMoney · · Score: 1

    but, in America atleast, you are aloud to fund commercials: 1.) Saying the purchase of an SUV supports terrorism and 2.) Blatantly lying about apposing politicians before elections. Crazy.

  137. that glowing, happy place... by vena · · Score: 1

    wouldn't happen to glow blue, would it?

  138. US citizens are more used to lies by Cpt_Corelli · · Score: 1
    Anyone who takes the claims of a twelve word advertisement as gospel is a retarded idiot who shouldn't be allowed to buy anything more expensive than a pack of bubble gum. If this is the situation in England, then I truly feel sorry for the few intelligent people who are trapped there and have to be protected by this type of "truth in advertising" laws.

    The problem is that in most countries outside the US, governmens make sure that citizens are protected from lies as much as possible. This is to keep some order in the area of marketing where claims tend to deteriorate into lies very quickly. Most of us are bombarded with ads every day and I, for one, would welcome governmental restrictions on what the marketing droids try to shove down my trhoat.

    1. Re:US citizens are more used to lies by Skraggy · · Score: 1

      "The problem is that in most countries outside the US, governmens make sure that citizens are protected from lies as much as possible" Except those perpetrated by the the government themselves, and and complaints about it rejected by the same advertising standards organisation, because it was to get a government message accross.

      --
      A Skoda is for life, not for casual humour.
  139. Man by Simple-Simmian · · Score: 1

    You mean I don't need Leptoprin? Such an nice looking and emphatic girl too
    She had me convinced.
    I am disilusioned.
    Now you are going to tell me the Video Professors CD offer is not free either and than nice looking lady is lieing to.
    What is the world comming to when you can't believe lies^h^h^h^h advertising.

    --
    If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
    Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
  140. Not to troll by Tokerat · · Score: 1


    ...but it's part of the fact we prefer to think that we "think for ourtselves". This is obviously becomming less and less apparent as more people in the US allow themselves to be puppets.

    Honestly, not to troll, but I see so much blind Americanism it's almost digusting. Perhaps if you looked and agreed with the current issues and official positions, sure. I can live with people having actual opinions, and those that do, even whom disagree with my wholeheartedly, are entitled. That's suposed to be one of America's base pirnciples: You can think what you want, and you're allowed to expose others to such opinions. What I have a problem with is those who regurgitate the evening news, as if what you saw was always 100% correct and unbiased.

    America's problem is that we're being fed. Ads started the trend and now factual information is slowly but surely metamorphisising into that wich is more convincing than informng, between the opportunity for ratings (more ads sold for more $$$) and for control (same reasons). I, for one, do not welcome our new former Soviet overlords, this is not a troll.

    Love or hate the current America, you can't disagree this hapens to some extent.

    --
    CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
  141. Interesting by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    "viewers complained that the advertising was misleading,"

    I'm sure all of these customers who felt "misled" bought competitive hardware and performed their very own well thought-out, scientific experiments to determine that the ads were indeed misleading.

  142. maybe they could have said it to be by john_uy · · Score: 1

    the personal computer with the most powerful processor.

    maybe the vagueness of powerful (in terms of what?) seems to concern. another personal computer can have a better video card and they can say that it is no longer the most powerful.

    though i dont live in uk, i may agree of the banning because the commercial may not have enough disclaimer like an * with a footnote saying based on the spec benchmark dated mm/dd/yyyy. this will remove their liability in the commercial i guess.

    --
    Live your life each day as if it was your last.
  143. Agreed - but that kinda makes it ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Well sure it should always be taken from whence it comes, but as far as marketing goes I believe history has shown that if you claim something way out impossible, like for example, a fruit juice company saying "Our tropical forests produce the sweetest oranges on earth, where they are hand picked for the best tasting juice around" is generally regarded ok. Now if they were to say something like "Our juice has the most vitamins [when compared to our competitors] ...." they will get crucified.

    So at first glance Apple should be in the hotseat for making SERIOUS claims that just arent true, but, as you say - it's based on a benchmark, that can be tweaked to favor the benchmarkee (is that a word?) Which in my mind puts it in the "Our tropical forests..." category.

  144. imagine a beowulf of those by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "the world's fastest, most powerful personal computer."

    imagine a beowulf of those

  145. What was that #1 movie in America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What was that #1 movie in America?

  146. Are they 36% more expensive by dalleboy · · Score: 0, Troll

    ... this year compared to last year?

    or have they sold 15 computers instead of 11?

    Born to troll

  147. Mountain out of a molehill. by shippo · · Score: 1

    I can't believe all the fuss that this has created.

    The ITC, the body that oversees all commercial UK television output, has strict rules enforcing what can be said in a commercial. Apple's one, made in the US under where regulations are not as strict, simply transgressed these rules and got banned. In fact I was suprised to see it air in the UK last week making those claims. It will probably appear later with some modifications. Advertisments get amended all the time for such transgressions.

    The ITC regualations (and those of the preceeding bodies the IBA and ITA) are fairly complicated, with some products and services banned outright and others strictly regulated. These rules keep changing with the times - for example it was only in the last few years that comparisions with specific competitor's products were allowed. The complaints were probably put in by others working within the advertising industry.

    There are other UK bodies controlling other forms of advertising - press, cinema, radio, billboards etc, also with their own individual rules and regulations.

  148. Nothing is forever: continuing competition by tomem · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Last year the fastest cheapest processor we could find for our numerical simulation work was an Intel Gateway 3GHz, which cost about $2500, and has been wildly successful in attracting users away from older Sun workstations, around which it runs rings and Linux.

    This year, we will upgrade to a dual processor system, with an eye toward eventual clustering of larger numbers of them. In comparing dual Xeons with dual G5s, we find that the test numbers are a tossup (Macworld reports PCs are faster; while PCmag resports Macs are a bit faster, which they call "about even"). One thing that isn't much discussed is the big jump in bus speed for the G5, which approaches 1GHz, compared with a typical 400MHz for Intel systems. This should be a boon to I/O intensive jobs.

    Surprisingly, the deciding factor may be price: we get bids of about $4k for a dual Xeon system that is equipped comparably with a dual G5 that bids at $3k. So if the top Macs aren't definitively faster, they are at least certifiably cheaper! Who knew?

    But Apple would clearly prefer to be fastest rather than cheapest, and hence their advertising approach stresses speed for the money rather than money for the speed. One person's miles per gallon is another's liters per 100km...

    This continuing competition is clearly a win-win situation for consumers. May it continue...

    --
    ThosEM
  149. Re:SPEC has been BS and numbers since day one, but by spec_guy · · Score: 1
    Well, thanks for the opinion. But FWIW most of the SPEC people I actually work with every day believe that SPEC really does add "an ounce of honest data" (which is worth more than a pound of marketing hype). See SPEC's background/philosophy statement.

    Yes, even honest data can be misunderstood, taken out of context, or abused.

    Example misunderstanding: the comment that said that compiler optimizations are "cheating". Nope, compiler optimizations are allowed by design. The SPEC CPU benchmarks are specifically intended to test CPU, memory hierarchy (caches & main memory), and compilers. (Of course, compiler optimizations are expected to be generally useful, and not unfairly "target" a specific benchmark. That's a judgment call which SPEC has sometimes had to work hard to make.)

    Now, one can argue about whether Apple's attempt to hold the compiler constant was a reasonable thing to do, given that the CPU2000 benchmarks are intended to test all three of cpu/memory/compiler. But they at least have told us what they did, and how they did it, and in my book that goes a long way toward supplying the ounce of honest data.

    For those who suggest that improvements should be made to the SPEC benchmarks in one way or another, please be reminded that you can join SPEC (discounts for academic/non-profit memberships) and you can contribute to new benchmarks (and earn modest financial compensation if your benchmark is accepted.)

    SPEC has a long history of welcoming technical contributions by technical people (but is less responsive to complaints - we know it's impossible to please everyone).

    Disclaimers: I am not employed by Apple, nor do I own an Apple computer. I am employed by another company that is a member of SPEC. My opinions are my own and have not been approved or disapproved by my employer, by SPEC, or by Apple.
    -john henning

  150. Not the first time Apple has to pull an advert by Dougal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This isn't a first for Apple in the UK. When they first used the PowerPC they advertised it as the first RISC based home computer. That might have been true in the US, but in the UK the ARM based Acorn Archimedes had already been out for a while, so they were forced to pull that ad.

  151. The ITC are always doing this in the UK... by AIM31 · · Score: 1

    And at least this one is probably justified, the advert is a bit misleading to new computer users (the "most powerful" machine). Its at least better than the ads that were banned after about 3 people complaining (In the UK the record for the most people complaining about an ad is under 800 I think).

  152. GASP!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple guilty of a false advertiesment ?!?!

    You'd never see that sort of depraved, irresponsible, and ingenuine advertiesment from a respectable company like Microsoft.

    Apple should follow Microsoft's example of producing honest ads, for example, Microsoft's "Freedom To Innovate" ad campaign.

  153. Seems like censorship but we like it by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    There was a program about banned adverts on the other week (no G5 wasnt on it). They showed how the tabaco industry went from do-what-ever-you-want to pretty much having to say "dont smoke, but if you do you might try these cigarettes but remember dont smoke" to eventually being banned from advertising altogether. At the moment all cigarette packets have massive "SMOKING DAMAGES HEALTH" warnings in about 18pt bold. Personally i have no problem with this i dont see it as censorship i see it as saying fuck you to the big bad drug dealing companies which atleast makes me feel safe knowing that the tabaco companies dont ow3n the government unlike some *cough* not putting matches and lighters on banned items on planes list *cough*

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    1. Re:Seems like censorship but we like it by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's a civilized response from a society that still believes there are other centers of authority than merely business.

      Changes of that happening here in the US are next to nil, as we cling to the shibboleth of deregulation even when it brings us crisis after crisis in energy, health, stocks, banking, industry, etc. If your Blair keeps studying his lessons well, you can have our troubles, too.

    2. Re:Seems like censorship but we like it by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Oh we have privatisation thats supposed to be the next best thing to jesus coming down and giving us 2000 years worth of un-paid taxes. Terrorists dont need to bring London to a stand-still, cost cutting maintenance contractors do it already ;)

      Hey we'll send a team in and take down your bush and big business bosses if you will send a team to take out blair and fix the trains? :)

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  154. Drawing Lines in the USA and UK by Frogknoll · · Score: 1

    Here's my take on where the lines are drawn. Consider 4 kinds of statements:

    1. Verifiably true factual statements. (The G5 is 64 bit)

    2. False or unverified factual statements. (The G5 outperforms its competition on all tasks.)

    3. Noncomparative metaphors. (The G5 is a sweet and wonderful computer.)

    4. Comparative metaphors. (The G5 is faster, more powerful, sexier, better, and superior to Windows PCs.)

    The USA generally disallows only statements of kind 2 (factual falsehoods), whereas the UK also prohibits statements of kind 4 (comparative metaphors.) Notice that both the USA and the UK allow false and deceptive statements in advertising -- they are those cute, harmless, noninsulting metaphors (3).

    I'm afraid I'm completely with the USA on this issue, though. It seems the UK is trading openness and educational opportunities for politeness and decorum.

    It is interesting that the regime that outlawed Apple's comparative metaphor had no apparent awareness of its metaphorical nature. I assume that's because they grew up in a society that didn't allow comparative metaphors in advertising, and so deprived the language teachers an opportunity to discuss them in the schools.

    For more on Apples' metaphors, do check out the thread "Don't literalize Metaphors!" It's easily the most informative and underated thread in SlashDot history. :)

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=85357&cid=74 40 222

    1. Re:Drawing Lines in the USA and UK by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      Well, while my memory is not perfect I seem to recall the literal statement of the ad being that the G5 is the "fastest, most powerful personal computer". That is a false statement, or at least one not provably true. If you claim that is a metaphor, well then it's a pretty bad one since I fail to see any metaphorical meaning in that statement, and I'm a linguist (and more specifically a philsophical pragmatist studying levels of meaning).

      Now you can tell a story for the statement, how the rest of the commercial justifies it, etc, however it stands that it makes a statmenent, unqualified and on its own, that appears to be false.

    2. Re:Drawing Lines in the USA and UK by Frogknoll · · Score: 1

      You make several excellent points, and I find myself mostly in agreement. You say that Apple's statement is false, not provably true, and that it makes a statement unqualified on its own. I agree. I'm a little distressed, however, to hear a fellow linguist say "I fail to see any metaphorical meaning". Metaphor blindness is a serious condition. I think you need to have it checked out at once!

      Seriously, though, I think you probably do "see the metaphor", in the sense that I would mean it, but you don't acknowledge that awareness with the same language I use. No big quarrel here, I hope, but let me explain.

      Suppose a school principal were to ask a teacher, "Who's the fastest student in your class?" The teacher might respond, "That would be Alicia. You should see her on the playground. I think that girl has wings on her feet!" When we don't "see the metaphor" (as, for instance, when there is none), our responses tend to be immediate, absolute, and certain: It's Alicia.

      Suppose the principal meant the word "fastest" in its extended, drifted, (and I would say) metaphorical sense (which is to say, NOT meaning physical velocity)? He might say, "No, you misunderstood me. I mean, who's the fastest student in the classroom?" The teacher might pause a bit, being tugged in her mind by various interpretations of "fastest". Well, John is the fastest reader . . . Amy is the fastest writer . . . Erica is the fastest talker . . .Anika is the fastest story-problem-solver . . . Come to think of it, every student in my class is the fastest in my class!"

      When we are blessed with the gift of metaphor-sightedness, we feel a polysemantic tug in their presence. I think you felt it, too, when you heard the line "fastest, most powerful computer." This Slashdot board is filled to the brim with posters both blind and sighted. They are easy to tell apart. The (metaphor-) sighted posters are easy-going about the claim. They pepper their language with phrases like "depends on what you mean", "ambiguous", "faster at this, not faster at that", and "What's all the fuss about?" The blind posters, poor things, are all in a huff about the literal (!) truthfulness or untruthfulness of Apple's claims. Blind people assume from the outset that one computer is simply faster or not faster than another (literally!) and so Apple is either lying or truth-telling. "What a bald-faced lie", they might exclaim, with great indignation. A blind person might become so enraged by his blindness that he'll complain to the ITC to have the commercial BANNED! (Yes, now I'm outraged.)

      Another wonderful point you made, prescient, even, is that I could tell a story about how the rest of the commercial justifies the telling of the metaphor. HOW DID YOU KNOW?

      Consider the most famous metaphor in the English language, "Juliet is the sun." Taken out of context, this is one crummy metaphor, aesthetically speaking, and it is also, in any context, as you say, false, unqualified, and not provably true. But look at Shakespeare's glorious build-up before the metaphor: "But soft! What light through yonder window breaks? It is the east, and Juliet is the sun!" Words can not express the beauty and eloquence of this metaphor in its context. The interrogative mention of the light breaking through a window, in particular, serves as a dagger into the reader's mind: Look out! Here comes a metaphor! Get ready! Juliet is the sun!

      When I first saw Apples BANNED commercial, I felt a similar dagger thrust into my mind. The sight of a grown man being blasted through the walls of his house at tremendous speed (literally) by some powerful (literally) force shouted: Look out! Get ready! Here comes a metaphor! Introducing the world's fastest and (slight pause) most powerful personal computer (if memory serves). I LOVE THIS COMMERCIAL! It is a work of art of Shakespearean proportions! Even better, it is -- as far as I know -- the first computer advertisement ever to address the speed issue honestly and openly; that is, it is the first to

    3. Re:Drawing Lines in the USA and UK by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      Look, I'm not arguing with the visuals of the ad, those are clearly not literal (I'd call them hyperbole, not metaphor) but the "fastest, most powerful" thing really strikes me as something meant to be taken literally, espically given the larger context of what Apple likes to say about them on their website. They do not seem to be making a joke, a metaphor or anything else, they seem to be claiming that it is a literal truth that the G5 is the fastest PC in the world.

      to compare to your Shakesphere analogy, just because Romeo uses a metaphor at one time (or many times actually) doens't mean that he also doesn't speak literally at times. When he speaks literally, that's how it's meant to be taken, not with some invented or extended metaphor simply because he used one before.

      The visuals in the ad are used as a hyperbole to draw attention to the point, the point being that the G5 is the fastest computer in the world. Ok, so, if they left it with the visuals, or had some other kind of indirect speech, it would be fine. But after this hyperbole, they come out and state, in unambigous, direct, literal terms, that the G5 is the fastest PC.

    4. Re:Drawing Lines in the USA and UK by Frogknoll · · Score: 1

      I think you're right about everything here. I think Steve Jobs and Apple Computer DID mean it literally, that they WERE claiming that it is a literal truth, and that they are utterly mistaken about it. I hold no love at all for idiots (Steve Jobs or anyone else) who come out and state, in unambiguous, direct, literal terms, a completely fact-free metaphor on the pretense that they are making a factual claim.

      My love is for the TV commercial and the advertising firm that made it. With their visuals, they effectively reminded their viewers (subconsciously if not consciously) that anytime you use the words fast and powerful and are NOT talking about velocity and ability to accellerate objects of mass, you are speaking metaphorically. That by itself is a beautiful achievement!

      I hereby award that agency with The Frogknoll Honesty In Advertising Award. Congrats, Fellas. You deserve it!

    5. Re:Drawing Lines in the USA and UK by Frogknoll · · Score: 1

      Wait, just one more thing . . .

      Here's another thing I LOVE about the Ad and HATE about Apple's website:

      Apple actually posts benchmarks to supposedly support their claim that the G5 is the fastest computer in the world. What a crock! All benchmarks produce are collections of FACTS. They don't produce metaphors. You can multiply that collection a billion fold, showing the G5 is in fact faster here and there at this or that or every task, but add all those facts together and you could never derive the claim "The G5 is the fastest PC." That would be an impossible leap across the fact/metaphor gap, a violation of the naturalistic fallacy.

      The Ad, to its credit, makes no mention of benchmarking in support of the claim (if I remember correctly). Just as Shakespeare, to his credit, doesn't have Romeo listing numerous attributes of Juliet to support the claim that she is the sun. Arg! Makes me gag to even think about it!

      Also, not being critical here at all, but you and I, Sycraft-fu, do speak slightly different languages. My principle linguistic interest for over twenty years now has been semantic drift, and I use the word metaphor for various and sundry words that have gone though periods of semantic change created through the unintentional misinterpretion of speech. I don't have any good reason for using the word the way I do; it's a habit I fell into years ago when I got tired of typing "metaphors and ellipses and the like" and just settled on the world "metaphor." Since many of these metaphors and ellipses and the like DO, in fact, become fully literalized over time, (we usually call them abstractions at their end stage), I frequently talk and write about such beasts as "literal metaphors".

      In your language, which I think is more conventional, the phrase "literal metaphors" is a contradiction in terms. Sorry if I misled you on that one.

      Also, and this may or may not be important, I do NOT think any words "are" metaphors. I have no qualms about saying that they are, but that pesky linking verb "is", when placed between two noun phrases, is itself one of those metaphors, ellipses, and the like that have undergone a complete semantic transformation due to unintentional literalization. In fact, I think all statements of the form Noun Phrase - Linking Verb - Noun Phrase are false (literally products of an historical semantic deception), and I would like some publisher to give me a big contract to prove it! Ha Ha. (Not my discovery, of course. I think I got from General Semantics.)

      I've had a lot of fun talking with you.

    6. Re:Drawing Lines in the USA and UK by Frogknoll · · Score: 1

      I am such an idiot sometimes. I must have read your middle paragraph 10 times trying to understand your point, but only now did it click.

      I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply at all that the visualizations of the ad were metaphors. Like you, I would call it hyperbole. I meant only that the visual hyperbole was revealing of the literal metaphor that followed it.

      I hope this clears up our misunderstanding.

    7. Re:Drawing Lines in the USA and UK by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      I think you're kind of over analyizing one ad, but hey, what else is philsophy for? IF you like you can always e-mail me at slashdot@sycraft.org.

  155. Taking credit for the increase in sales by ChaoticLimbs · · Score: 1

    Okay, one of you Brits bought a new mac. The other 3 mac users would like to form a MUG.

  156. It's a computer... by gordonj42 · · Score: 1
    Not a religion!

    Please, no burning G3s on my lawn.

  157. Thank you... by ErnstKompressor · · Score: 1

    Dear Anonymous Coward,

    Thank you for your kind response regarding my post. As you can imagine, I receive so many positive responses regarding my posts, that I cannot possibly reply to them all. But once again, thank you for your kind remarks regarding my post.

    Sincerely,

    ErnstKompressor

    --
    We apologise for the fault in this post. Those responsible have been sacked. -- Signed RICHARD M. NIXON
  158. Actually, no thank you... by ErnstKompressor · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I now realize you are a total wanker...do you even comprehend the nature of my post?

    I am not debating the claims of performance, I am commenting on the ridiculous nature of British advertising oversight. If you could get that horse dick you call open/free whatever-it-is-you-champion, out of your ass you fucking worthless twat, maybe you could think straight instead of endlessly spouting off your fucking dribble.

    Your ideas regarding 'propreietary vs. open' anything are meaningless in the face of your attempts to defend them. You have never once supported your choices with anything other than reactionary, "at least it's not expensive MS/Apple propreitary crap"...I think you are a total poseur...you don't know *nix from your dick, you jerk-off.

    I am a big fan of open-source OS and software. I often set up Linux solutions for friends and associates with old PCs and limited funds. I also have enough money to treat myself, so I know when to use closed-source solutions. If you are so incapable of rationally seeing the merits of both, and of seeing the differences between MS and Apple, then you are simply thick and blindly dogmatic. I never have to defend my purchases except on /. -- why do you care what I spend on myself? What part of that threatens you? Do I hold it over your head? I didn't think so.

    And regarding performance, I am not sequencing the genome or running BLAST , but those sure seem like impressive real-world performance figures. But of course, you'll just assume they faked the whole genome sequencing thing -- you probably don't believe in evolution as well.

    --
    We apologise for the fault in this post. Those responsible have been sacked. -- Signed RICHARD M. NIXON
  159. tsarkon replies on apple's lies and zealotry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well you got it. the g5 specmarks were a cheat, they used a library for various tests that cant be used in real life by real users. they also did everything to sabotage other chips. they never compared to the superior Opteron. the joke is, at the price you fucking pay for a G5, you should get a power4+ - a real power PC. you fucking apple morons were ripped off again. I've used a g5. it sucks shit. its also an IDE/SATA piece of shit. IDE/SATA on a "workstation" cute. and the OS sucks. its impossible to replace UNIX with that shit. that fucking shit. and the software is overpriced for consumer grade crap. you fucking morons do nothing but make flash and crappy videos think you are so fucking pro, you aren't.

    your shit lies have been exposed, fuckers. you lost credence. the fucking X server has no ECC, no SCSI, its sucks. G5 sucks. Where the g5 could be great, in a laptop, isnt anywhere in sight. you faggot shitheads suck as usual. so fuck off, die and suck dick.

    losers.

    you know you are a fucking pathetic liar. and thats what great, you cant sleep at night, and i know it.

  160. Apples next computer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Ok, so it takes 8 AMD folks to take down an ad of Apples. They have 8 folks complain and they ask one tech what he thinks?? Comeon..they could've atleast got 5 folks together and to get the numbers and see if Apple had a case or not.
    Hell why didn't they even test the machine?

    But it won't matter because Apple will just put up the same add in 2 months in the UK. Because Apple is slated to release the dual 2.5GHz at the end of Jan and the dual 3GHz by the end of Jun. Apple has 6 month cycle plan now in effect that means about every 6 months the processor goes up 500MHz.

    Also there is now talks that IBM's new PPC 970's will run Linux and OSX.

  161. Or jealousy? South Africa pulled MS 'security' ad by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1

    Or it could just be jealousy. Microsoft's claim of increased security were unfounded in south africa. This is not the first time it has been busted for false advertising, it seems to be a habit.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.