PDA

View Full Version : Cnet FULL REVIEW of iMac Core Duo




dwd3885
Jan 20, 2006, 03:33 PM
Ouch!

http://reviews.cnet.com/Apple_iMac_Core_Duo_20_inch_2_0GHz/4505-3118_7-31661466.html?tag=cnetfd.sd



Benjamindaines
Jan 20, 2006, 03:43 PM
Here's some irony for you :p

http://static.flickr.com/12/89037644_15fddf55c8.jpg

Abulia
Jan 20, 2006, 03:48 PM
Why "ouch?" c-net's review scale aren't linear; a 7 is actually, like they say, "very good."

Be interesting to see if they update the review when more dual-binary applications are available.

kretzy
Jan 20, 2006, 03:50 PM
Here's some irony for you :p

http://static.flickr.com/12/89037644_15fddf55c8.jpg

That seems to have been removed now. :D

The review's not exactly glowering, but I suppose it's pretty accurate.

dwd3885
Jan 20, 2006, 03:50 PM
Here's some irony for you :p

http://static.flickr.com/12/89037644_15fddf55c8.jpg

lol. one thing i do want to note though, is that in Cnet's tests, there was an iTunes encoding test.

PowerMac Dual 2.7ghz w/4gb RAM...........73
Apple iMac Core Duo 2.0ghz w/1gb RAM....86


Now that is impressive

dwd3885
Jan 20, 2006, 03:51 PM
Ouch because the iMac G5 with iSight 2.1 ghz got 8/10 and is a BEST BUY

MondayNgt
Jan 20, 2006, 04:33 PM
>> Ouch because the iMac G5 with iSight 2.1 ghz got 8/10 and is a BEST BUY

The G5 iMac didn't have the issue of Rosetta/non-native apps working against it (for now).

kretzy
Jan 20, 2006, 04:38 PM
>> Ouch because the iMac G5 with iSight 2.1 ghz got 8/10 and is a BEST BUY

The G5 iMac didn't have the issue of Rosetta/non-native apps working against it (for now).

You beat me to it. Seeing as this was the only thing mentioned in the "negatives". And realistically, it does detract from the product, hence the lower score.

theBB
Jan 20, 2006, 04:46 PM
CNET reviews are not very insightful anyways. They usually just convert the list of features supplied by the manufacturer into paragraph with a few sentences. Then they state some obvious facts, such as "Photoshop may not run very fast under Rosetta" and come up with a point rating. It was not much help when I was buying a digital camera, either.

In this case, their negative points seem to be due to compatibility (not everything is in Universal binary, not every Windows software has a Mac version etc.) and probably their great observation that the innards of iMac is not very accesible for upgrading. Uhh, thanks for your hard hitting analysis.

dwd3885
Jan 20, 2006, 04:52 PM
CNET reviews are not very insightful anyways. They usually just convert the list of features supplied by the manufacturer into paragraph with a few sentences. Then they state some obvious facts, such as "Photoshop may not run very fast under Rosetta" and come up with a point rating. It was not much help when I was buying a digital camera, either.

In this case, their negative points seem to be due to compatibility (not everything is in Universal binary, not every Windows software has a Mac version etc.) and probably their great observation that the innards of iMac is not very accesible for upgrading. Uhh, thanks for your hard hitting analysis.

That's a good point. Their reviews were no help when I tried to buy a digital camera either! It doesn't seem like there is any insight into what they are saying. You are right on the money

bigandy
Jan 20, 2006, 05:41 PM
I can't stand c|net. Never been able to, even when i was naieve and used a windows box!

*yes, i admit it, i didn't know any better!* but we all learn from our mistakes...

theBB
Jan 20, 2006, 06:00 PM
USA Today has a review as well.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/edwardbaig/2006-01-18-imac-intel_x.htm

I find it much more interesting. He claims that he had problems with Quicktime and his GarageBand program froze up, requiring a "manual shut down". (Not sure whether he means a reboot.)

"Intel is Microsoft's longtime partner, and I'm not suggesting guilt by association. But my first encounter with the new Mac was the kind of experience I might have expected to see on a Windows machine." His words, not mine. :)

azzurri000
Jan 20, 2006, 08:58 PM
CNET reviews are not very insightful anyways. They usually just convert the list of features supplied by the manufacturer into paragraph with a few sentences. Then they state some obvious facts, such as "Photoshop may not run very fast under Rosetta" and come up with a point rating. It was not much help when I was buying a digital camera, either.

In this case, their negative points seem to be due to compatibility (not everything is in Universal binary, not every Windows software has a Mac version etc.) and probably their great observation that the innards of iMac is not very accesible for upgrading. Uhh, thanks for your hard hitting analysis.

I agree, it's very bare bones

nutmac
Jan 20, 2006, 09:18 PM
Having once worked for CNET (strictly as a developer), I would like to defend CNET. But it's true, their reviews are often lousy with little details and CNET's awkward layout makes for poor reading experience. Essentially, CNET reviews are for joe-six-pack Walmart crowd and not for those looking to get a taste of "out-of-the-box" experience (e.g., Arstechnica).