Cnet FULL REVIEW of iMac Core Duo

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by dwd3885, Jan 20, 2006.

  1. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
  2. macrumors 68030

    Benjamindaines

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Location:
    A religiously oppressed state
    #2
    Here's some irony for you :p

    [​IMG]
     
  3. macrumors 68000

    Abulia

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Location:
    Kushiel's Scion
    #3
    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.
     
  4. macrumors 604

    kretzy

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Location:
    Canberra, Australia
    #4
    That seems to have been removed now. :D

    The review's not exactly glowering, but I suppose it's pretty accurate.
     
  5. thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    #5
    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
     
  6. thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    #6
    Ouch because the iMac G5 with iSight 2.1 ghz got 8/10 and is a BEST BUY
     
  7. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #7
    >> 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).
     
  8. macrumors 604

    kretzy

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Location:
    Canberra, Australia
    #8
    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.
     
  9. macrumors 68020

    theBB

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    #9
    CNET reviews are not very insightful

    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.
     
  10. thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    #10
    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
     
  11. macrumors G3

    bigandy

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Location:
    Murka
    #11
    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...
     
  12. macrumors 68020

    theBB

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    #12
    USA Today

    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. :)
     
  13. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    #13
    I agree, it's very bare bones
     
  14. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    #14
    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).
     

Share This Page