Continuing in the "rehash" vein, how's this for a tired and sagging blast from the past? One of the latest controversies to make headlines this week is-- are you ready for this?-- the "Apple lied about the G5 benchmarks" dust-up. Yeah, we know-- we thought it was long-dead, too, but apparently not all of the analysts (even "chip analysts") bother reading anything other than tech headlines and "Love Is..." comic strips. Specifically, faithful viewer David Poves pointed out an article in The Inquirer about how senior analyst Peter Glaskowsky over at the Microprocessor Report labels many of Apple's G5 claims as "simply not true."

Now, to be perfectly fair, he's got a point on at least some of the issues; for example, yes, there were 64-bit Windows NT workstations seven or eight years ago, so Apple's claim to have the "world's first 64-bit personal computer" is slightly iffy and depends entirely on the vague distinction between a "workstation" and a "personal computer." (We figure it comes down to price; betcha those 64-bit Alpha systems didn't start at $1999...) But Pete's claim that Apple is lying about the benchmarks because the Pentium 4 and Xeon numbers as available elsewhere are "considerably higher than those that Apple reported," well, looks like Mr. Big Shot Chip Analyst somehow slept through all the followup which explained every single facet of the alleged discrepancy and put, we assumed, this issue to rest once and for all. Guess we were wrong.

It's nice, then, that The Inquirer is fair-minded enough to give a rebuttal equal time. It's also nice that said rebuttal takes the form of a link to an Applelust article by Joe C. Carson that's so infreakingcredibly thorough that it doesn't just run the arguments into the ground, it punches them straight through the earth's core with enough force that they pop out of the ground upside-down in China with little subterranean mole people clinging to them and screaming at the unaccustomed exposure to sunlight. Assuming you're not totally sick of the whole sordid spiel, give that article a look-see, because it even goes so far as to provide hints as to the identity of the guy who wrote the original "Apple's lying" tirade. And links to said fellow's other rants on topics as diverse as religion and the evils of purebred pets might prove enlightening, although not necessarily in the way the author intended. (Whether or not you agree with his views, it's his method of making an argument that we find revealing.)

Of course, it wouldn't be necessary to keeping beating this dead horse if uninformed so-called chip analysts didn't keep propping up the carcass à la Weekend at Bernie's. Sadly, though, this is not the best of all possible worlds, and therefore deceased equines are rarely left to rest in peace. Poor fellas.