Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 16th Dec 2005 14:26 UTC, submitted by Robert Gelb
Features, Office "I am not a cynic by nature, but years of experience in the IT world have compelled me to make sure that everything passes the smell test. As a result, I can often tell beforehand whether I am hearing marketspeak or the real deal. For instance, 5 minutes after I figured out what Larry Ellison's network computer was, I knew it would never be successful. And so did Larry Ellison, given that Oracle never actually built any of them. So with that in mind, let's revisit the top 10 overhyped, overmarketed, overbsed (if there is such a word) computer industry events of 2005."
Thread beginning with comment 74227
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: no patience
by doug on Fri 16th Dec 2005 17:09 UTC in reply to "no patience"
doug
Member since:
2005-07-07

"The Mac stuff is even more absurd. Mac-fan referred to the megahertz myth when people would keep quoting that to compare different architecture, and it is and will always be true."

Uh, no. The megahertz myth is pure marketing bulls**t, always has been.
Macs have long been twice as slow and twice as expensive as pcs. And I'm saying that as a former mac user.
$600 for a little mac box, or $600 for a pc that's twice as fast, twice as much drive space, and comes with lcd monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc.

Reply Parent Score: -4

RE[2]: no patience
by on Fri 16th Dec 2005 17:21 in reply to "RE: no patience"
Member since:

Sure Macs have been slowers but that has nothing to do with the megahertz. Megahertz is just one element that will give you the final speed of a computer or even of the CPU. There's just so much more in there and it's simply wrong to be so superficials. THAT is the megahertz myth.

That is not to say that Macs are nowadays slower than Wintel computers. Simply that their difference in megahertz is not the whole story.

Diego

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[3]: no patience
by Celerate on Fri 16th Dec 2005 22:56 in reply to "RE[2]: no patience"
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

Megahertz really isn't a good way to compare speed, I believe flops (Floating Point Operations Per Second) would be more reliable although maybe still not perfect.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: no patience
by on Sun 18th Dec 2005 19:22 in reply to "RE[2]: no patience"
Member since:

I guess it is just a coincidence that every single power mac I have ever owned over the years (six of them) have all been slower than a PC. In the end you get sick of being a mug on the hardware side.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: no patience
by on Fri 16th Dec 2005 17:25 in reply to "RE: no patience"
Member since:

"The Mac stuff is even more absurd. Mac-fan referred to the megahertz myth when people would keep quoting that to compare different architecture, and it is and will always be true."

Uh, no. The megahertz myth is pure marketing bulls**t, always has been.
Macs have long been twice as slow and twice as expensive as pcs. And I'm saying that as a former mac user.
$600 for a little mac box, or $600 for a pc that's twice as fast, twice as much drive space, and comes with lcd monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc.


Regardless of whether you think that Macs are overpriced, it doesn't mean that the "megahertz myth" idea was wrong. Intel has proven with their castrated celerons, efficient centrinos, and power-hungry prescotts that megahertz can mean as much or little as a manufacturer wants it to mean. And, if you want to talk about overpriced, look no further than the Intel EE CPUs.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: no patience
by Anonymous Penguin on Fri 16th Dec 2005 17:50 in reply to "RE[2]: no patience"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

"And, if you want to talk about overpriced, look no further than the Intel EE CPUs."

Except that nobody needs to buy them.
But one needs to buy Macs in order to run OS X.

Reply Parent Score: 1