Nice article though to be honest, I don't think you really broke any new ground.
One thing I did find amusing was the following quote:
"Never the less the media jumped right on it and Apple sold a lot of G4s just because people thought they bought 'Supercomputer' performance at a bargain price."
Funny, I never thought Apples were a bargain. I always considered them to be rather overpriced considering initial cost and lack of upgrade options.
Personally, I never really thought you could adequately compare the performance of an Apple vs. the performance of a PC (whatever processor flavor you choose). When you get right down to it, unless you're using the same operating system for both, the results just aren't comparable. At what point does the test stop reflecting hardware superiority and start reflecting OS superiority?
Want to enjoy fewer advertisements and more features? Click here to become a Hardware Analysis registered user.
I also found this to be a good read, tho as you said, most pc enthusiasts are aware of the situation, while your average user is pretty clueless, and unfortunately will most likely remain that way.
and that sorta brings me to a point on which i disagree. you seem to emphasize that it is almost amd's responsibility to educate the market. while this would be ideal. theyre trying to stay in business and make a profit. as consumers we have them to thank for at least offering a competition part to intel cpu's. not to mention that many feel they make faster cpu's and at a lower price. taking on a campaign that in essense would say "or product is better, but if you look at the commonly accepted #1 indicator of cpu performance are product is inferior, but oh no its really better, believe us..." would be a hefty undertaking in all regards, not to mention the success rate is iffy at best.
i believe amd in fact made the most logical move as a company in their position. they knew they had a quality product, but they took the easiest route in making sure the public saw that as well. so some uneducated retailers are selling an 1800 system as a 1.8 ghz. more power to amd, right? is that not what they were after? a way to make ppl realize amd cpu's were on par if not above par in performance, thus they simply used the comman measuring stick (mhz or ghz now) to make this point to the end user.
if anyone should be help responsible, it is intel, for creating and perpetuating the megahertz myth. i believe the p4 northwood is in fact a quality cpu. because of pricing it would be a rather easy decision to go with an amd platform. however, even if price were the same, i would choose an amd cpu because of their comprable performance, and underdog position, yet still trying to deliver the best product to the consumer.
sorry if this post got a little long. and one last thing...
Apples rule (even tho i havent used one since the 8th grade). just as any computer, an apple is a tool, and it serves a specific use. ppl need to stop the hate, and learn to appreciate
I think part of the problem I have with Apple is this idea on the part of their fanbase that everything that they do is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Of course, anyone who thinks otherwise is painted as being tragically un-hip. Puh-leeze.......I don't think I could take anyone seriously who has a laptop that's bathed in fruity colors at a meeting. It looks like a child's toy.
Give me a computer with raw power, plentiful applications, and the ability to upgrade at a reasonable price and I'm a happy man. Don't try to tell me what I need and then sell it to me at a rediculous price. You're not going to get very far with me that way.
I can see what you mean, but I don't think you got what I meant. (is this making any sense?) It was more of a slap at the people who bought the G4's and thought the price was a bargain. I do not think they're a bargain at the price at which they're being sold (supposed supercomputer or not), thus it stands to reason I find it amusing that anyone else would think they're a bargain either.