Well, that isn't exactly "intentional mislead".
Performance information isn't the same as specs, and specs is what they supply.
Only what a buyer needs/wants to make a purchase decision is
"performance information" or "specs _&_ performance info." This is
because buyers look at advertised info trying to determine what their
experience with the machine will be like and how it compares to a
competing product. Therefore in absence of any real, readily
digestible performance info buyers tend to try to draw inferences
about performance based on the specs. Resellers & manufacturers are
counting on this or for the buyer to be confused entirely by the
difference. Why? Because the market is so competitive, and profit
margins are frequently so slim, that even steering or stretching the
public perception about the benefits of a product a little bit can
make a big difference. Also if your competitor is doing it, it is
suicide to not play the same game.
When you buy a car, for example, and you want to know how fast it
goes. There are specs like "400 hp @ 6000 Rpm, 6.0 L V-8" but also
performance information like "0-60mph in 4.2 sec and top speed of 186
mph." Furthermore, it is easy for a customer to validate
manufacturer's claim. Testing your new car's acceleration & fuel
efficiency is very easy. Doing this, or at least feeling that you
could do this, helps give a sense of security that they "made the
right decision." What exactly is a customer supposed to do with
"ATA-100, 7200rpm" when they take it home? The info may be accurate
but it leaves you feeling uneasy and insecure. "Maybe I should've
bought SATA or ATA-133?" There is both the perception and the reality
that there is a lot of room to fudge a products assets & limitations
when _only_ handpicked specs are cited.
PC buyers don't generally get both specs and performance information
or if they do they have to convert the number, divide by a compression
ratio, recognize it's an artificial/maximal figure, etc. People are
used to shopping for cars, and even the most clueless drivers
understand a decent amount of the car terminology. The big problem is
PC buyers' expectations are wrong/misguided as they are based on other
kinds of purchases & products they already know. Yes carmakers trump
up their numbers too, partly through artificial testing, and also try
to confuse the un-savvy, but the buying experience as a whole is very
different due to the issues already described. (and yes it is
intentional that I cite car sales to be much more reputable than
computer sales).
If you read the specification manuals for diskdrives you'll find that the
performance figures usually comply whith those from the storage sites.
Yes and no. Even in a best case/most honest scenario specs are
exaggerated. First of all cited above are generally artificial,
maximal values. Also usually Mb/sec are used to create a bigger
number hoping that naive readers will think it is the same as MB/sec.
The numbers also do not directly translate to how files are going to
moving (average rates) once the drive is formatted and say OS
installed on it. Often you are not comparing apples to apples esp.
when all they see is a short list of specs like "80gig, ATA-100,
7200RPM." Other disk performance specs are even worse like drive
acoustics. Because of differing measuring methodologies you simply
can't compare the acoustic spec of say a Maxtor to a WD or Seagate.
And if you are in the market for a new PC, it's usually a total
crapshoot how noisy it will be.
I understand that there just isn't any widely accepted,
straightforward, unimpeachable performance measurement for them to
use, but the idea that the way tech items are described isn't
deliberate and part of shrewd marketing strategy is absurd. I'd argue
that to claim to the contrary is itself _extremely_ naive. I know,
Folkert, you have this notion that anyone that doesn't have your
perspective and knowledge is an idiot, but there is a larger world
than your own. The point of this thread is to discuss the issues
raised by the original poster. Your disdain for the average Joe is
irrelevant.
Right. It takes an un-naive look.
Exactly my point.
I'd continue to answer your objections point by point but I simply
don't have the time. I also don't think it's worthwhile as we aren't
generally disagreeing on _technical_ issues. Instead, all I'd be
doing is re-explaining my responses and voicing objections that you
are again loosing sight of the core argument of the thread or making
false assumptions about previous posts. I know how obsessed you are
with getting the last word and making the appearance of discrediting
someone even if your answers don't directly do so and/or stray from
the core arguments or even the point you are trying to contradict. So
go ahead. Say something snotty, have your last word, and lets put
this one to bed or at least hear someone else chime in.
