Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Desktops > check out the competition...

check out the competition...
Thread Tools
dwishbone
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Location: On the moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2002, 03:25 PM
 
hey guys check this out
http://www.gateway.com/products/desk...allmedia.shtml

is that not the ugliest POS you have ever seen.
there bench marks are a complete joke.

one has a 1.7ghz running 5 times faster than an 800 G4.
It is to laugh.
24" iMac 2.13ghz C2D | 15" MBP 2ghz CD | "Soundwave" 60GB 5G iPod
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2002, 03:30 PM
 
Yeah, it's pretty funny how the link says:

View the independent
comparison report.

Then when you get to the test, it says:

Test report commissioned by Gateway Corporation.


     
dwishbone  (op)
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Location: On the moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2002, 03:36 PM
 
yeah, that is pretty funny.
apple admittedly has embelished numbers a little, but nowhere near what gateway is claiming.

that thing is ugly, bigger, and has virtually no customization options.

i found this one too.
http://www.northgate.com/products/no...ktops/integra/
it is a little better, but not by much. still ugly. still less powerful overall than an iMac. plus, it has the one fatal flaw nearly all PCs have...MS Windows.
24" iMac 2.13ghz C2D | 15" MBP 2ghz CD | "Soundwave" 60GB 5G iPod
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2002, 03:37 PM
 
And one more thing.

I havent tried the new imacs yet, but that test states that they have a coldboot startup time of about 80 seconds.

I find this rather odd, cause I just timed my imac 333, and it clocked in at 52 seconds from coldboot to completely ready.

     
CubeWannaB
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2002, 03:45 PM
 
Originally posted by PacHead:
Yeah, it's pretty funny how the link says:

View the independent
comparison report.

Then when you get to the test, it says:

Test report commissioned by Gateway Corporation.


That's common practice, actually. The independant testers earn their repute by being unbiased given their tests are usually paid for by an interested party. Usually the results are only disclosed to the customer, and if the results are favorable then they are released to the public.

You'll notice that Apple's benchmarks are not done by a third party, but done internally at Apple. Personally, I find that practice much more questionable.

As for the content of the Gateway benchmark I am *very* surprised at the Quake 3 fps of the 17" iMac. I think there is obviously something wrong - either the 17" is in fact much disabled or the test was very flawed. I am familiar with Quake (an addict) and a Mac user and while I have not used the 17" mac itself I have used both gf2mx & gf4mx on a powermac 733 and the difference between both cards is great.
     
Peabo
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: London, England
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2002, 03:45 PM
 
Originally posted by dwishbone:
that thing is ugly, bigger, and has virtually no customization options.

i found this one too.
http://www.northgate.com/products/no...ktops/integra/
it is a little better, but not by much. still ugly. still less powerful overall than an iMac. plus, it has the one fatal flaw nearly all PCs have...MS Windows.
Better? that's even worse! ICKKKK
LC 16Mhz • LC 475 25Mhz • Centris 650 25Mhz • Performa 6200/75Mhz • G3 266Mhz • Snow iMac DVSE 500Mhz
G4 QS 733Mhz • 17" Powerbook 1.33Ghz • 15" MacBook Pro Core Duo 2.16Ghz • Mac Pro 8-Core 3.0 Ghz
     
Apple Pro Underwear
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: NYC*Crooklyn
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2002, 05:38 PM
 
Originally posted by CubeWannaB:

You'll notice that Apple's benchmarks are not done by a third party, but done internally at Apple. Personally, I find that practice much more questionable.
apple releases their benchmarks to reporters and press with instructions on how to repeat the tests for transparency...

i have seen more than 1 article where a reporter/article writer takes a machine and software from apple and does the tests for his articles. results vary but it seemed like common practice for apple to send people machines and tests to duplicate results.

anybody have any links to articles? there was one recently from a really ugly looking old geezer...
     
JNG
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2002, 05:58 PM
 
I find these test results to be highly at odds with both my personal experiences and other easy-to-replicate tests of which I have read, not only in the degree of difference between results for the PC in question and iMac, but between the two iMac models. I am starting to feel as if there are benchmark tests than can prove anything these days. These speed test results seem increasingly abstract and, in my opinion, are not especially useful information when choosing a computer system or platform.
     
fireside
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Floreeda
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2002, 05:59 PM
 
kinda funny how they choosed a java script test because os x has horrible java support.
     
dlefebvre
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Where my body is
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2002, 07:37 PM
 
Have you also noticed the general specs?
On the main Web page, they say that the Profile 4 X comes with a 2.4GHz P4 and 256Mb, but the PDF claims something else. They apparently used a 2.66GHz P4 with 512Mb. That is So fair, since the iMac they used only had 256Mb. I guess that's the GateWay to go.
     
derbs
Senior User
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Nottingham, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2002, 07:48 PM
 
Good link

35 seconds from a cold boot! Hahaha. What bullshit. I wonder what version of Windows they were using. Maybe they were just using MS-DOS!

My PC at work, 1gig athlon e-machines or something similar, can't remember, hasn't even hit those DOS type BIOS screens by 35 seconds, running Win2K
     
Scotttheking
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: College Park, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2002, 07:51 PM
 
this looks like it belongs in imac.

Moving it there.
My website
Help me pay for college. Click for more info.
     
gto47
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2002, 09:19 PM
 
As far as i'm concerned, the only machine close to the imac in price and quality is the IBM Netvista.
http://commerce.www.ibm.com/cgi-bin/..._US&scrfnbr=73
Not quite as good looking as the imac, but they are pretty sharp. The gateway is just a cheap shot at apple. I find the speakers to be ironically similar to those on the old bondi and five flavor imacs. Ah well, we might as well laugh, we know who is going to sell more of their product...
( Last edited by gto47; Aug 26, 2002 at 09:27 PM. )
Mac Pro 8x2.8 | Macbook 2.13 | Saab Trionic 7 (thats right, runs on a 68k!)
     
doppler
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: east lansing, mi, usa
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2002, 12:51 AM
 
That web page linked to above is confusing as only two models are shown. Aparently there is another profile 4 XL model not shown on that page which costs 2k and does have the 2.66 GHZ processor. here is a link showing all three models: Gateway Computers

I had this conversation with Andy the Gateway online support person who showed me the third model.

Andy: Hello , thanks for choosing Gateway.com. My name is Andy, and I will be your eSales Advisor. How may I help you today?
Jon: I'm looking at the comparison of the Gateway profile 4 x and the Apple imac. In the pdf comparison the gateway listed is a 2.66 GHz while the actual product is only 2.4 GHz. Is Gateway trying to be deceptive in it's comparison of the computer?
Andy: No.
Jon: Why is there a difference in the comparison model and the actual model for sale?
Andy: The Profile 4XL has 2.66Ghz processor.
Andy: Are you looking at Profile 4X?
Andy: that is downgrade from 4XL. The 4XL is what was tested.
Jon: Sorry, I didn't see the third model xl. Thanks for your clarification. Jon
Andy: no problem
Andy: can we get that ordered for you today?
Jon: No thanks the operating system is still to user unfriendly!!!
Andy: For your convenience and future reference, you will receive a detailed transcript of our chat session including all page links provided today via e-mail. Thank you for using the eSales Advisor Center. Our chat session will now be closed.

After my last comment Andy disconnected our chat without a single defense of the operating system his company includes with every system the sell! I think an Apple rep would at least try to point out the advantages of X (and have some valid points).

The Dop
     
dwishbone  (op)
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Location: On the moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2002, 08:24 AM
 
Originally posted by JNG:
I am starting to feel as if there are benchmark tests than can prove anything these days.
Im pretty sure if I took the time i could prove that my Texas Instruments graphing calculator is faster than either a G4 or a Pentium 4. Benchmarks can be rigged to show pretty much anything.
It's just getting ridiculous.

I really wish computer companies would adopt the proposed TPI (True Performance Initiative) proposed by AMD. It is a rating they came up with that shows true real world performance. AMD, Apple, Sun, IBM, Moto, and several others have agreed, but refuse to switch until all parties are in agreement. the one hold out...Intel. They are winning the "Mhz Myth" war and if they adopted the TPI it would show that their processors are no better than AMD processors running at 2/3 the clock speed and G4s running at 1/3.
24" iMac 2.13ghz C2D | 15" MBP 2ghz CD | "Soundwave" 60GB 5G iPod
     
sunrunnerfire
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2002, 08:54 AM
 
This sort of thing is going to push somebody into fire-bombing gateway stores. If there is one thing Gateway doesnt want to underestimate, its the rabid nature of many a Mac evangelist. I just hope Apple comes up with a good comeback campaign. Personally I think Gateway is getting desperate to make some money, (can anyone say $4 a share?).
...Playing the worlds most dangerous
game of hide and seek.
Check out www.intel-ops.com, you
wont be disappointed.
     
cenutrio
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: missing
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2002, 10:23 AM
 
Originally posted by sunrunnerfire:
This sort of thing is going to push somebody into fire-bombing gateway stores. If there is one thing Gateway doesnt want to underestimate, its the rabid nature of many a Mac evangelist. I just hope Apple comes up with a good comeback campaign. Personally I think Gateway is getting desperate to make some money, (can anyone say $4 a share?).
I agree, the cow is going down hard!
     
dwishbone  (op)
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Location: On the moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2002, 11:11 AM
 
i agree. it is just their last ditch effort to make some money.
bye bye bald guy and bye bye cow.
24" iMac 2.13ghz C2D | 15" MBP 2ghz CD | "Soundwave" 60GB 5G iPod
     
NeoMac
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2002, 11:30 AM
 
#1) I doubt Apple will respond to Gateway's ad. But we might see Apple's "Celebrity Switcher" ads come out sooner.

#2) Here's hoping that this provides some impetus to Apple to update the iMac line with significantly better specs. Stop crippling the damn thing.**

** I don't say this because of the Gateway ad "results". I just think a better bus and some L3 cache are needed in the iMac.

"Last time the French asked for more evidence, it rolled through France with a German flag." - David Letterman
     
kmkkid
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Brantford, ON. Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2002, 03:48 PM
 
Originally posted by derbs:
Good link

35 seconds from a cold boot! Hahaha. What bullshit. I wonder what version of Windows they were using. Maybe they were just using MS-DOS!

My PC at work, 1gig athlon e-machines or something similar, can't remember, hasn't even hit those DOS type BIOS screens by 35 seconds, running Win2K
My Duron 800 cold boots into XP in a working state in just about 25 seconds. XP is fast at booting, ALOT faster than 2k for sure. And if you disable certain startup items it can be even faster.

(of course I also have 640 MB of ram, I'm sure that helps as well.)

Also nothing loads before the BIOS screen (the OS loads after) so if it's taking 35 seconds to see the BIOS splash, then that computer has a problem

Chris
     
BobK
Forum Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Denver CO
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2002, 09:53 AM
 
We have about 25 Gateway Profiles here at work. They are anywhere from 1 year to 2 years old.
They are the biggest pieces of crap I have ever seen.
7 of the have had the mobo replaced, and 7 others have had to make the trip back to the Gateway farm. You could not give me one of these things.
It is not a windows thing! I like Windows! I prefer MAC OS X and think it is (even at this stage) a more refined product.
These machines flat out are CRAP!
     
janitor
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Isla Vista
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2002, 01:26 AM
 
...these are the Key Findings?

     
nbnz
Senior User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2002, 11:55 AM
 
There is no mention of how many times the Gateway pieces of crap crashed and needed to be restarted ?
     
Jim Reese
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2002, 12:39 PM
 
From what I've read from various sources, I suspect the results were biased in favor of the Gateway model due to the following conditions:

1. The Quake 3 test was run in Classic mode, not in OS X native mode.

2. The startup time for the iMac was significantly increased due to Classic loading on startup. I believe this is the default configuration of the iMac. I turned this feature off, as I only need Classic occasionally, if at all, and am soon going to be totally free of ever needing it. This is also a very minor issue, even if true, because OS X invites you to keep your machine powered up, but sleeping when not being used... another reason the power button is on the back of the iMac.

3. The file loading times and slower javascript performance are probably valid, as they are recognized issues of OS X, but Jaguar should siginificantly improve performance in these areas.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:30 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,