Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Cnet FULL REVIEW of iMac Core Duo
- Thread starter dwd3885
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
Be interesting to see if they update the review when more dual-binary applications are available.
benjamindaines said:Here's some irony for you
That seems to have been removed now.
The review's not exactly glowering, but I suppose it's pretty accurate.
benjamindaines said:Here's some irony for you
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
MondayNgt said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).