LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksAs I'm typing this, theres a komplett advert above, false advertising, saying that the Q6600 is "The best quad core cpu on the market!", when clearly it's not, theres the Q6850 etc...
As I'm typing this, theres a komplett advert above, false advertising, saying that the Q6600 is "The best quad core cpu on the market!", when clearly it's not, theres the Q6850 etc...
"Best" in what sense though? Absolute fastest? Best value? Prettiest colour box? It's advertising puff. I could say that Phenom's the best, because Hector Ruiz has a better moustache than Paul Otellini...
I'd say that it's arguable that bang-for-buck, especially when considering the OC'ing potential, they're telling the truth.
edit: Do either Ruiz or Otellini have moustaches...?
Define 'best'.Originally Posted by Teh_Evil_Cupcak
I'm sure theres a little * sciting where the quote was from. Stating that "in its class" and all the other useual bollocks.
But David, if your reading this, please get rid of that sodding smilile advert that makes sound when you roll over!
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
OMG....
I would say it was the best Quad Core for value for money in terms of performance.
Correct me if I am wrong.....////
__________________
Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot.
Error exists between Keyboard & Chair replace User and press Any Key!
.... Where's the Any Key???
It depends how you quantify "best".
EDIT: I think our minds are melding.
Anyway, forget best definitions - the grammatical error of the 8800GTS advert kills me
"specially build for gamers...it love you loooong time!"
The advert is kinda dodgy in it's claims. Unfortunately I'm not sure that web advertising has to follow the same kind of rules as TV, radio or magazine advertising.
*shrugs* I don't think it is. Ask most sensible hexites what processor they'd recommend at the moment and I'm sure Q6600 would be the most popular choice.
Nichomach is right - it's "mere puff".
There's a long-established principle that some claims in advertising are mere hype, and not only not intended to be taken as serious claims, but that wouldn't be taken as serious. For instance, if you sell a car privately, about the only thing you have historically been liable for is that it was "as described" - the usual Sale of Goods Act stuff about quality and fitness for purpose don't apply because it's sold privately, but you CAN be held liable for what you claim about it. But where is the line drawn? If you said it was a 1600CC Audi and it turned out to be a 1300CC, or a Lada, you'd be liable. But if you said it was "best in the area", you wouldn't be held to that because that sort of advertising hype is "mere puff".
But there's a line between what you can wriggle out of in claims by calling it "puff" and what the courts will let you get away with. See Carlill v Carbolic Soap Co. They tried to wriggle out of a fulfilling their promise on the basis that it was "puff" and the Court of Appeal threw it out ..... in 1893.
nichomach (10-12-2007)
Indeed. That would probably be the "best" for someone wanting value for money, but not "best" for someone wanting sheer performance at any price. So "best" according to what criteria?
nichomach (10-12-2007)
I just KNEW the word "carbolic" would make an appearance in this thread...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
