More education for Cecil and LH

[SquireSCA]

Cecil, you need to go post that PM screen cap, or admit that you lied about it. Until you can be an adult and step up to the plate on that issue, STFU.

As for the rest, I have backed up ALL of my arguements with clear explanations, and links and reviews to various sites, in addition to the information brought in by other people, who agree with me.

What Cecil and Mike brought to the table were personal insults(lamely executed I might add), and nothing of substance, and after many rounds, when their blind brand loyalty and ignorance on the topic demands that I call them an idiot or moron, they then try to use that against me to help their dead-in-the-water argument.

It's pathetic.

You can call me a "kid working at Taco-Bell living in my parent's basement playing Everquest" all you want, but the fact is that I am 31, divorced and with a great girl now, buying a house, getting a new 2004 Impala LS this week, and get a nice weekly paycheck plus commissions. In fact, today's paycheck/commissions was just over $6,400 before Uncle Sam got ahold of me, so if I really wanted a G5, I could go walk out and pay cash for their top of the line model with ease right this minute, have plenty of money left over and I still have two more paychecks coming this month.

I can buy whatever kind of PC I want, whenever I want it, and if the G5 was indeed the best out there and did what I needed it to do, it would be sitting here on my desk without another thought. Can you make the same claim? Probably not.

So please, enough with the stupid Taco-Bell references, it makes you look very petty... jealous even.

[michae1]

Apple has put it's proof out there for the world to see and challenge and not one PC or chip maker has. Not Dell. Not Xeon. Not HP. Not Compaq. Not Intel. No one. Zip. Nadda.

http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/

You guys can argue it all you want. Heck, some people argue that we never landed a man on the moon, but until a legitimate entity proves them wrong, Apple makes the world's fastest PC.

[alienrace]

"Wow, squire-nuts has a friend.

Do you hang out in the same basement, or just IM back and forth while playing "Everquest"?"


Ooooh, I'm hurtin' [img]smile.gif[/img]

[alienrace]

"Not Xeon."

I'll leave that alone [img]smile.gif[/img]

Anyway, I doubt the other chip makers really care since in a month or two it's going to be a seriouly moot point.

[michae1]

Is Xeon not a chip maker? Man, I hate when I don't know stuff.

But yes, Apple's moment in the sun will be brief.

[ravenfan1]

*"As I've said time and time again, I have no doubt that the G5 will not remain at the top of the speed heap for long. But for now, it is there. "

Not really. The Apple ads say it's there and you have demontrated that you buy into that crap. NEXT!

*"Squires I'm a little concerned about the tone of your posts. In the absence of evidence"

What a rediculous statement from someone who has been argueing with no facts at all. Just heresay. If you could at least answer to some of "Squire nuts" great arguements your side of the arguement MIGHT start to hold some water. Until then, oh well. Mr Olesker gets paid very well to dodge the issues, so no big deal, right?

* "you are increasingly turning to bitter, personal attacks. If it was anyone else I wouldn't care but, as we've seen many of your posts reflect some deep-seeded issues. I have tried to reach out and be civil but I cannot overlook the fact that we live in an age when people act on their frustrations. I do not want something as silly as this thread to send you into a WaWa at 4 a.m. blasting away."

Another move to discredit your oposition. Not with facts about your side (IOW, not with facts about how great the G5 is), but by trying to paint him as crazy. Sounds like James Carville's wet dream.

*"I enjoy a good arguement as much as the next person but always within the bounds of good, clean fun. Pesonal attacks, insults and threats are not welcomed here. Please keep your arguements on topic and your rage against the world in check. "

Kinda like suggesting someone is going to go postal?

Please. You're one of my favorite posters on the Tech board. Take a pill.

[lyon]

michae1, the Xeon is an expensive line of beefy Intel CPU chips with large on-board caches (several megabytes) and unique packaging that requires specialized motherboards. They usually go into servers manufactured by Dell, HP, etc. (though they are availble to the public -- check pricewatch).

[SquireSCA]

-->"Is Xeon not a chip maker? Man, I hate when I don't know stuff."

If you don't know even that kind of stuff, what are you doing in this debate?

As for us proving Apple wrong, we did.

Apple makes the silly claim, it is for them to prove it, and no, a link to themselves claiming it, is not proof of their claim, moron.

Apple- "We have the world's fastest PC".

Consumer- "Really, can you prove it? Have any data showing real world performance comparisons? Where is your proof?"

Apple- "The proof is on our website. See? Right there at the top, it says 'we have the fastest PC in the world.' What more proof do you need?"

And them the lemmings that don't know what Pentium4's or Xeon's are swallow it hook, line, sinker, etc...

Don't discuss things that are obviously beyond you.

[michae1]

You notice when I'm wrong about something, I admit it. It's easy. Try it sometime.

Anyway, speaking of being wrong, I notice that there is still not one company that is disputing Apple's claim, so you've proved nothing.

Now can we please put this issue to rest? Please?

[SquireSCA]

You are an idiot.

As soon as the G5 hits the streets and review sites get ahold of it and run REAL benchmarks, not filtered and modified by Apple's Marketing group, the proof will slap you upside your pointy head...

Apple made the claim of being the fastest PC.

The burden of proof is on them to prove it, and to date, they have not done so. Just SAYING it is not proof.

[michae1]

(sigh) Again with the name calling. Listen, the G5 'hit the streets' last month. If I were you I would seize on that error to insult you. But why? I have no malice toward you. You're just misinformed.

But in the month since its release there have been no companies or regulating entities that have formally challenged Apple's claim.

Now honestly, isn't this getting a little tedious?

[SquireSCA]

Apple does this every time, and lemmings like you fall for it, every time.

They make a claim of being the world's fastest PC, and in the fine print it will point out that it "based on blah blah blah"...

My point, and the point that others have made, is that "blah blah blah" might be *Apple's* definition of the fastest PC.

It isn't the criteria that most of the market goes by.

It is like saying, "I have the best retaurant in the city", but hidden away in the fine print you note "this is based on what my cousing Bill told me"...

Maybe that is all YOU need to hear, but the rest of us want something a little more substantial...

Apple only proved that they were better at cheating on an obscure benchmark that is not in any way indicative of real world performance in the first place.

I won't argue that. LOL

[michae1]

If the recent lawsuit by the Beatles has taught us anything, it's that anyone will sue Apple if given half a chance.

So how come no one has sued Apple for making false claims?

[SquireSCA]

Their claim was accurate.

They do have the fastest PC on the planet(running modified code with an unheard of benchmark that nobody else uses against a crippled Intel rig)...

The question is, does that stupid benchmark actually mean anything?

Nope. That's why Apple uses it.

We did not dispute whether Apple actually got those scores, we dispute that those scores actually mean anything.

And yes, arguing with one such as yourself is tedious... I think I would have more fun throwing my legs behind my head and massaging my sweaty bag with a cheese-grater for an hour...

[octoburn]

http://stream.qtv.apple.com/qtv/vide...tp_300_ref.mov

"Antialias: To slightly soften and blend the edge pixels of a foreground object with the background so there’s no harsh transition between the two."

Explain to us how IE6 can take a prerendered 2D JPEG, and look at the picture, and "know" what pixels represent objects, and what pixels represent background?

I mean, if you have a picture of a boat with Niagara Falls in the background, and people walking by and a car on the side of the pic, how can IE6 look at it and decide what part of the pic is an object, such as a person or a car, and what part is the background, like perhaps trees or the Falls themselves?

You know, gals, sooner or later you are gonna have to just admit that you are wrong.

Or I can just keep the links and info coming, and let everyone else come to that conclusion... LOL

The link provided does not work.