Old, lying computer advertisements

[Shadmere]

Back in the 90s, I remember seeing these ads all over magazines like Computer Shopper that were advertising computers with absolutely stupid specs. Like, stuff that I knew couldn't be right. While I only had a 486sx (33 mhz!) at the time, my friends were beginning to get things like Pentium 133s and Pentium 2's, and I read PC Magazine whenever I could. I was in no way an expert, but I had at least a vague idea what was going on.

The ads, however, claimed things like 500 mhz, or maybe even 5000 mhz. I honestly don't remember, it's been quite awhile. The claims were obviously false, but I didn't know why.

I still don't know exactly what they were, and I'm having trouble finding copies of the ads online. I haven't thought about those things for a decade or more, but they were on my mind this morning and I got to thinking: What was up with that?

Does anyone else remember those things? Were the claims literal fabrications, or was there some bizarre marketing-speak behind it? (There are fifty 66mhz CPUs glued to the inside of the case, that's over 3000 mhz!)

 

[Numenorean]

You probably just don't know how to read. I find that far more likely.

 

[SandEagle]

You probably just don't know how to read. I find that far more likely.

lulz

 

[Elias824]

whats the difference between 500 and 5000? number confuse me.

 

[Gibson486]

It was probably those dual CPU computers. They had computers that supported two CPUs, so theoretically, it could be double the speed. With the advent of dual core, we do not see it anymore.

 

[Train]

All I remember is the huge debacle with regards to HDD sizes. 1024 MB = 1 GB not 1000 MB = 1 GB

If you give the marketing tards room for error when it comes to math, they will exploit it to the nth degree.

There was also the time (I want to say Pentium 4 days) that AMD released processor numbers that weren't that actual MHZ rating, but instead a "performance indicator" to show that the performance of the slower clock speed of AMD's were along the lines of current P4's. I wouldn't call that dishonest or anything, but it did lead to some confusion.

 

[Numenorean]

all i remember is the huge bebacle with regards to hdd sizes. 1024 mb = 1 gb not 1000 mb = 1 gb

if you give the marketing tards room for error when it comes to math, they will explot it to the nth degree.

There was also the time (i want to say pentium 4 days) that amd released processer numbers that werent that actual mhz rating, but instead a "performance indicator" to show that the performance of the slower clock speed of amd's were along the lines of current p4's. I wouldnt call that dishonest or anything, but it did lead to some confusion.

lol

 

[Train]

lol

new coputer, still getting used to the keebord

 

[Iron Woode]

All I remember is the huge bebacle with regards to HDD sizes. 1024 MB = 1 GB not 1000 MB = 1 GB

If you give the marketing tards room for error when it comes to math, they will explot it to the nth degree.

There was also the time (I want to say Pentium 4 days) that AMD released processer numbers that werent that actual MHZ rating, but instead a "performance indicator" to show that the performance of the slower clock speed of AMD's were along the lines of current P4's. I wouldnt call that dishonest or anything, but it did lead to some confusion.

that was the socket A XP cpus, like the XP 1800+.

 

[BurnItDwn]

There was Cyrix back then, marketing their 166mhz cpus as "200", model... They had pretty much the shittiest FPU ever. Their ALU was great, but, they were completely useless for anything related to any game.

 

[BurnItDwn]

that was the socket A XP cpus, like the XP 1800+.

At least the socket A Athlon XP CPu's were to some extent ...

Also, if you remember, With netburst, Intel was able to jump really quick from 1 to 3 ghz, BUT because of the giant pipeline, and mediocre prediction, the IPC was trash. ... netburst cps had trouble competing with other CPU's running at 2/3 the core clock. (remember when core 2 duo came out, it was like 1/2 the speed in terms of mhz vs the top end netburst cpus, but completely destroyed them in terms of performance?)

 

[Cogman]

that was the socket A XP cpus, like the XP 1800+.

It carried on to the 754 and 939 all the way up to the phenoms. Interestingly, it wasn't TOO bad of an indicator for speed, usually a 1800+ was on par with a 1.8GHz penitum (maybe a little slower). Ahh, those were the days.

 

[Shadmere]

I remember Cyrix, Wal-Mart sold their stuff a lot. I'm thinking of something different, though.

I guess I might be misremembering, but I swear I remember ads for things that made absolutely no sense.

 

[Cogman]

At least the socket A Athlon XP CPu's were to some extent ...

Also, if you remember, With netburst, Intel was able to jump really quick from 1 to 3 ghz, BUT because of the giant pipeline, and mediocre prediction, the IPC was trash. ... netburst cps had trouble competing with other CPU's running at 2/3 the core clock. (remember when core 2 duo came out, it was like 1/2 the speed in terms of mhz vs the top end netburst cpus, but completely destroyed them in terms of performance?)

He he, I remember that. What was somewhat hard for intel is they had been promoting to their fan boys for so long "Oh it is 3.7Ghz, Way faster than anything else, tomorrow it will be 10Ghz!" Then, all the sudden, they released a CPU at lower clock speeds that destroyed their other line in terms of performance. (As well as AMDs best offerings). That was certainly a shock that nobody really expected.

 

[Elias824]

Its much better now, all you have to do is sift through pages and pages of benchmarks to figure out the performance differences. Not like us geeks have anything better to do anyways.

 

[OutHouse]

lol i remember all the modification threads in here on how to get past the magic 1ghz mark... some people did some really crazy shit.

 

[Absolution75]

Clearly the advert was for a 133000 Khz PC.

 

[Cogman]

Clearly the advert was for a 133000 Khz PC.

Pshh. It was a 132995 kHz computer (Pentium floating point bug)

 

[AstroManLuca]

I remember a friend's parents bought a computer that was advertised as "NEVER OBSOLETE." Most blatant lie I've ever seen in any advertising, ever.

 

[Possessed Freak]

new coputer, still getting used to the keebord

Did you buy a Dvorak?

 

[Cogman]

I remember a friend's parents bought a computer that was advertised as "NEVER OBSOLETE." Most blatant lie I've ever seen in any advertising, ever.

I remember being irritated by this commercial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFRhSPNicgc

At the time it was neither the fastest nor the most powerful computer... (About a year later, they switched to intel and claimed something like a 10X speed up...)

 

[Train]

I remember a friend's parents bought a computer that was advertised as "NEVER OBSOLETE." Most blatant lie I've ever seen in any advertising, ever.

I bought the Gateway deal where you would get a completely new computer every 2-3 years. This may have been the "never obsolete" slogan.

It's basically a lease, you finance the computer over 1-3 years (you pick the length of the term) and they agree to buy it back for blue book value at the end, where you can then buy another shiny new computer.

The problem is the "blue book value" is in the shitter by the time your term is up. I ended up just paying it off in a few months, then built my own from then on.

The whole thing was just a fancy ad campaign built around gateways co branded Discover card so they make extra money off the financing, and to try and get you to be a repeat customer. I dont think the program was very successful.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

I remember a friend's parents bought a computer that was advertised as "NEVER OBSOLETE." Most blatant lie I've ever seen in any advertising, ever.

I remember these as well, but it wasnt because of the parts, they just had a trade in program that every so often you could trade up for the newer one

 

[SlowSpyder]

DEC Alpha chips? They were in the 500MHz range in the mid 90's I think.

 

[Pepsei]

computer gaming world museum

maybe look here for old ads.