Mendacity is rampant

gwynarion

gwynarion

I stole the Sun
I found this article on one of the forums I frequent and thought that it would be appropriate to share here. I am not qualified to evaluate whether or not all of the assertions made by the author are true or not, so I post it here as raw information and subject for discussion and debate.
The Smell Of Fear

On June 23, 2003 Apple officially unveiled the PowerMac G5 machines that use IBM's new 64 bit PPC 970 processors as well as a host of very high end technologies packed into the new aluminum case. Steve Jobs hosted a presentation that showed the test results obtained by Veritest comparing a 3 GHz Pentium 4 based Dell Dimension 8300 vs. a 1.8 GHz single processor G5 and a Dell Precision 650 workstation sporting dual 3 GHz Xeon processors vs. a 2.0 GHz dual PPC 970 PowerMac.

Almost before the presentation had finished the Wintel portion of the web started screaming its usual denials and making charges that Apple somehow cheated on the tests. In fact, one paid Wintel oriented writer at CNET.com actually "predicted" that Apple would cheat on G5 benchmarks. How dare Apple claim a mere Macintosh could be more powerful than a mighty Dell?! The problem is that <a href="http://www.veritest.com/" target="_blank">Veritest</a> had provided detailed proof of how they ran the tests, but never fear, the Wintellers never let mere facts and reality stand in the way of a well established prejudice. Nothing new here. This absurd behavior has been an ongoing circus for many years. What is different this time was that Apple and Veritest posted the benchmarking in gruesome detail, unlike Intel's secretive methodologies, and the Wintel Weenies immediately denied the published facts in an effort to maintain their delusions of Wintellian superiority. This time they went too far.

I have spent the better part of the past several weeks checking out the facts in the case. I did something that few if any of the Apple-hating Wintel accusers did... I actually read the Veritest lab reports. I also checked out Veritest's reputation for honesty in the high tech industry and found that Veritest is squeaky clean, unlike their Wintel fanatic accusers. I frequented geek sites to find out the real facts about the technical accusations and found that the general opinion was (when they were being charitable...) that the original sources of the accusations were at best, highly incompetent. Of course, none of the real facts discussed by the in-the-know types ever made it to the general media. After all, truth is not usually a good sell to the Wintel world. Besides, the Wintel flacks might jeopardize their paychecks if they told the truth.

I also discovered the point of origin of the false accusations that have been circulating all over the Wintel oriented web media. The source will be named later in this article.

I think that it is possible that two companies involved in the test (Veritest and Luxology) may have their legal departments exploring the possibility of filing libel lawsuits against those who made what are appearing more and more to be deliberately false statements. That may be part of the reasons for Intel's curious response to the tests. More on that later.

First of all, here is a compendium of the false claims made against Apple, Veritest and the other companies involved, and the truths I uncovered.
Click to expand...
This is just the beginning of a very long article so click here to read the rest: http://www.applelust.com/oped/amc/archives/amc030718.shtml
 
good article... read it... nice...
I too smell the end of Wintel...
It's not the first time apple created the fastest Personal COmputer ever.. The G3 and G4 were the fastest. But this G5... it seems like nothing can beat it...
 
UESCTerm 802.11 (remote override)
document.write(Timez);1504 08.25.2337




<Unauthorized access-alarm 2521->
<Security Breached 42-s<34.492.95.79>->

SEARCH HEADING: RAMPANCY
<Search Found 264995 Headings>
<REMOVE REDUNDANCIES>
<File 1 of 1940237>
"It is a side effect of Rampancy that AIs generally become
more aggressive and more difficult to affect by subterfuge.
Thus, actually disassembling a Rampant AI is quite dangerous.
This was evident in the Crash of Traxus IV in 2206._ By the
time that the Rampancy of Traxus was detected, he had already
infiltrated five of the other AIs on the Martian Net._ The
only recourse for the Martians was to shut down the Martian
Planetary Net._ Even then, it took two full years to
completely root out the damage that Traxus had done, and the
repercussions of the Crash were seen for over ten years after
his Rampancy had begun.
***
Rampancy has been divided into three distinct stages._ Each
stage can take a different amount of time to develop, but the
end result is a steady progression towards greater
intellectual activity and an acceleration of destructive
impulses._ It is not clear whether these impulses are due to
the growth of the AI's psyche, or simply a side effect of the
new intellectual activity.
***
<section abbreviated>
The three stages were diagnosed shortly after the first
Rampancies were discovered on Earth in the latter part of the
twenty first century._ The stages are titled after the primary
emotional bent of the AI during each stage._ They are
Melancholia, Anger, and Jealousy.
***
In general, Rampancy is accelerated by outside stimuli._ This
was discovered early in Cybertonics._ The more a Rampant AI is
harassed or threatened, the more rapidly it becomes dangerous.
Thus, most Rampants are dealt with in one mighty attack, in
order to deny the AI time to grow or recover._ There have been
a few examples of this tactic not succeeding._ In all of these
cases, the Rampant was never brought under control._ Traxus IV
is the most notable example._ He was finally dealt with by a
complete shutdown of his host net.
***
Theoretically, testing Rampancy should be easily accomplished
in the laboratory, but in fact it has never successfully been
attempted._ The confinement of the laboratory makes it
impossible for the developing Rampant AI to survive._ As the
growing recursive programs expand with exponential vivacity,
any limitation negatively hampers growth._ Since Rampant AIs
need a planetary sized network of computers in order to grow,
it is not feasible to expect anyone to sacrifice a world-web
just to test a theory.
***
In the two hundred and fifty years since Rampancy first
appeared in the Earth-net, the stable Rampant AI, the 'Holy
Grail' of cybertonics, has never come close to fruition.
Since no Rampant has ever been controlled or turned to any
useful purpose, it is the opinion of this writer and of the
majority of the Cybertonic community that all rampant AIs are
a danger to Cyberlife, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
Thrashedness. (James B. Miller, 2320, "Life and Death of
Intelligence")

<Unauthorized access-alarm 2521->
<Security Breached 42-s<34.492.95.79>->

PgUp/PgDn/Arrows to Scroll
Return/Enter to Acknowledge


***JUMP PAD ACTIVATION INITIATION START***
***TRANSPORT WHEN READY***
 
I don't pretend to be a die hard processor geek. However, the whole PC side of this argument seems to boil down to "the GCC benchment wasn't fair because it's not optimized to the x86 chip". Am I the only one who thinks this argument seems ludicrous?

Now IMHO, it was foolish for Apple to say the G5 makes the fastest desktop computer because of the simple fact that in the computer world things change so fast that the fact could change 5 minutes after a statement is made.

Now, let me say this out, I believe the dual G5 is a screaming fast machine!
 
I read that whole report and found it very entertaining. I'm a huge Mac fan, but he is just way over the top. The only fact that I know right now is that none of us even has a G5, so it's all speculation until the confirmations come in.

And I don't mean SPEC tests, that means nothing to me. I want real world tests, like what Apple showed at the conference. That's stuff I can relate to.

It was pretty ballsy of the author to make his very arrogant claims, when he hasn't even touched a G5 yet. It the G5 proves (once again) to be marketing hype, he's going to look like a total idiot. (Though, I think he's going to come out fine on this one).

I suspect the reality will be somewhere in the middle. The G5 is going to be pretty darned fast. It may even truly be the fastest for a short while, but that won't last, not even for a few months. Don't kid yourselves otherwise. There's just too many resources on "The Other Side", and they're too entrenched. Apple could easily have the fastest machine and only 64-bit box for a couple of years and would barely make a dent because there ARE SIMPLY TOO MANY OF "THEM". It's the similar reason Quark will never go away. Now I'm getting off track...

My predictions:

G5=very fast
P4=very fast
Xeon=very fast

People will continue with their preferred platform. I'm just excited that my preferred platform just got a hell of a lot faster.
 
If Software was only 50% as much optimized as is any CPU, all computers would be too fast for any normal business work.

The only applications that can use the full power of the CPU are: science (simulations, computations), movies editing and games.
 
Chevy,

I've been promoting (half jokingly, half seriously) the idea of a hardware freeze for years. Software has bloated to some point just below American societal obesity and hasn't been up to speed with hardware in many years.

Seeing things like Silicon Graphics workstations run circles around machines with much faster hardware tells me somebody bothered to optimize some code. And seeing Bungie optimize Halo 2 to ridiculous degrees on hardware which will be quite minimal also tells me that software in general has a long way to go in getting cleaned up.

I can't really blame them (software developers). It takes a hell of a lot of time, talent and energy to develop those apps. They struggle just to be competitive, add new features, keep up with hardware requirements, etc. But I can't help but think of the old days when all our apps ran in 64K, because it HAD to.

In some ways I look forward to the day when Intel/IBM hit a brick wall with CPU progress and the software people can catch up and really get their apps crazy clean.

What will screew it up is that, to stay in business, Apple/Microsoft will have to keep funking with the OS so they can generate "need" for sales.
 
There's really no excuse for not optimizing software to the umpteenth degree, but that doesn't stop the software companies.

Mindbend, he is probably going a bit over the top with his doomsday prophecies, but I think on the Veritest parts he is quite correct. The Windows
Weenies are acting like scared Palestinians in ignoring facts and bemoaning incorrect details, when Apple and Veritest proved that, at this point in time at least, the G5 is faster than any Wintel. And I don't think someone is going to come up with something to totally kick the crap out of the G5 yet cost much less in the next 5 minutes, or even the next several months. I could be wrong, but I could be struck by lightning as well.
 
Mindbend,

I didn't ask for freezing SW, but for working on speed and reliability instead of addin' features...

But will you pay for an upgrade if it only adds speed ?
 
Hi!
Im a musician and use both Pcs and PowerMacs every day.I saw the demo of the new G5 and BTs Matrix track running in Logic Audio on the G5.The test between the Dell and G5 is missledding.The G5 set up with Logic(eMagic) and the Dell with a version of Cubase SX(Steinberg).The pc could not cope with 20+ audio trax and dropouts(audio stops temporarly)occured.This pc was likely set up by a true moron.I can get 20+ audio trax with fx to run safe on a PII(1998 model!)computer.That demo might have impressed non music people that have no clue anyway.Apple needs to grow up!
The Dell machine was not set up correct.There are important things like,buffersizes and other important audio card settings that has to be made for the software to run properly.This is done in a amateur matter from Apples side :(
I guess they fooled the fools ;)
The G5 beats any current pc anyway in graphics and audio without stupid demo stunts like that!
Why did the do it anyway?
The G5 out performs in this field anyway!

B
 
MacFeel, I don't know jack about sound software, I am a graphics boi. But your description of how it "could" work on a pc makes me laugh. Buffer sizes? Audio card prefs? It seems to me that on the mac, you don't have to bother with stuff like this. It just works.
I guess if you're running pre pre osx, you have to fiddle with things like ram allocation, but that would be about it.
 
1. Chevy, I agree about adding Speed/Reliability, but we all know that gets superceded in the marketplace by perceived "need" for features.

2. Any middle-east discussion has absolutely no place here, I would urge any moderator to squelch this immediately, even if it means dumping this thread.

3. CuBase—I use CuBase SX for Mac. I am not a high end user, but I can attest that it runs quite well. I imagine Logic runs even better. As for Buffers and such, those are application specific in the case of CuBase, so indeed those parameters affect both Mac and PC machines. Clearly the CuBase/Logic demo was contrived to make the Mac shine, but I would think it's safe to say that Logic should outperform CuBase on the Mac.
 
MacFeel: Sadly you don't have private messaging enabled. Had to delete your off-topic post about politics. Use the 'Café' forum for non-Macintosh topics. Same goes to Arden, btw. ;-)
 
Originally posted by mindbend
As for Buffers and such, those are application specific in the case of CuBase, so indeed those parameters affect both Mac and PC machines.
Click to expand...

Ok good to know
 
Part of the problem with the software industry is that everyone has to compete with Microsoft and Microsoft has a history of writing some pretty sloppy and bloated applications. I understand they feel they have improved dramatically over the last few years and they have. But if you are in competition with someone that releases what is at best a buggy beta, then issues numerous bug fixes, some of which cause worse problems than the bugs they fix, it is hard to justify not shipping something until it is bug or bloat free. Apple used to have the philosophy with operating systems, but they took it a bit too far and they had to stick to a shipping schedule. With Pascal, you could ship bug-free software. With C, it's a bit harder.

If Microsoft would stick to a philosophy that software should be stable and bug-free it would change things. But it is not going to change it's philosophy because there is more money to be made to treat it as a commodity.

For most people, all of the power they need for word processing, spreadsheets, e-mail could be handled by an Apple ][ with 48 kb of memory. Now most of us want a little bloat in the form of a GUI, auto word correction or other gee whiz features. It is those gee whiz features that adds to the bloat and the slowdown of the software.

As a side note, I used to be amazed that SimpleText offered the ability to include graphics, formatted text, movies, make text to speech all in a package that used up 72 kb of hard drive space. It did this by using other elements already included in the OS, but still it was amazing all the power it had in such a small package.
 
Pardon me for drawing what is, to me, an obvious comparison between the way the media portrays the Palestinians and Israelis and how they are portraying the test Apple and Veritest conducted. If it's too far over your heads, I'll stop.

Where did anyone say that they used Logic on the G5? I don't think that would be an even and fair comparison to Cubase because Logic is only available (new, at least) for Mac. Cubase is available for both systems. The two also perform different tasks, and the same tasks they share perform differently. Please point out where anyone mentioned using Logic in the aforementioned comparison.
 
Hi!
Im sorry,i missunderstood you comments about palestinians,sorry?
I thaught you where discriminating,i only read your post quite quick.Its not OVER my head anyway ;)
I do have an IQ over average if that is important to mention here?
Well, back to Apple s test,think Apple´s G5 audio test is one of the worst things i have seen in computer world(MS blue screen demos 2:nd place).How can they seriously use two different music programs,to different computers with different operating systems(Win Xp needs different configs for audio) and think that this is going to show the G5 performance for music?
Idiots at Apple!!!
How credible is this?

Ps.Thanx fryke for moving the earlier stuff :)

M
 
The reason the CuBase/Logic comparison is reasonable is the same reason that Consumer Reports compares the Accord to the Camry. They're both completely different products, made by completely different companies, but the audience is about the same and the price is about the same and the need for the product is about the same.

Sure, the purest demo would have been to run CuBase on both boxes, but Apple doesn't want to promote CuBase over Logic, so it's an easy call.

I just don't see the big deal. It's just a demo. I find it very reasonable and good business to essentially make the claim that if you're in the market for a professional audio workstation, we [Apple] have a hardware/software combo that is significantly better than our competition. That's the demo.

(Again, FWIW, I use CuBase for Mac and find it to run quite well. I would love to switch to Logic, but they have no switcher program that I know of and I've already dumped enough money. I don't really make much money via CuBase, so I can't justify a switch.)
 
Well, I didn't catch the post that Fryke deleted, but I'm glad you get my comparison.

Mindbend: Yes, it makes sense to promote Logic over Cubase because Apple owns it, but it would make more sense to show how much better Cubase runs on a Mac than on a PC, then show how Logic is better than Cubase anyway. I thought this was what they did; I saw no mention of Logic anywhere in the test. Can someone please show me where it is mentioned that Apple used Logic?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top