Consumer Reports Not So Great With Computers
I came across the Consumer Reports' web site today to read some coverage of an unrelated item. Then I decided to take a look at their "technology" area to see what they have to say about computers and I was shocked.
I've always looked to Consumer Reports as a voice I can trust when it comes to reviewing anything. But I know a great deal about computers and technology, so when I read what they were telling people it made me wonder how accurate the rest of their reports really are.
Let's look at their guide for buying a Desktop Computer. In the first paragraph I'm instantly surprised by this:
Fully loaded desktops selling for less than $700 are common, even among established brands.
Please point me to the "fully loaded" desktop for under $700. Does this include a monitor? I mean the top video cards run around $350 or more by themselves and I'd think that the term fully loaded doesn't just mean it comes with all the parts, but comes with the best parts, no? I mean a car that's fully loaded has power windows and a sun-roof, right?
So immediately they're making customers believe that paying over $700 for a top of the line desktop is too much when it's not.
Some of their general recommendations that follow are fairly good, but extremely vague. When they start getting specific again, they start with the fun...
More home and entertainment software is available for Windows computers than for Macs.
I'm sorry, but this is completely misleading. It suggests that there's some noticeable difference in the number of apps out there for Macs when there's not. Maybe if you get the statistics you might find Mac titles come up short, but both platforms offer hundreds of thousands of software titles. Would the consumer really notice 800,000 choices vs 900,000? That's just an example, but you get the point. There's plenty of software for any need on either platform.
Then they make recommendations about security.
Viruses and spyware are far more likely to target Windows PCs than Macs. It's too soon to know, however, whether new Intel-based Macs that Apple has begun shipping are more vulnerable to attack.Whether you opt for a Windows PC or a Mac, you should use antivirus, firewall, and antispyware programs.
First off, viruses and spyware aren't "less likely" to show up on a Mac, they are completely non-existent. And to even suggest that Intel Macs could somehow be more vulnerable to attack just illustrates their lack of knowledge on the topic.
Finally, you do not need to install anti-virus software for a Mac (yet), the firewall comes as part of OS X, and I don't think I've ever even seen anti-spyware software for the Mac because malicious applications have nowhere to hide.
The continue to make dozens of generalized mistakes and mislead consumers in pretty much every area. For instance, they say a Core Solo chip is not that much slower than a Core Duo. This is empirically false and users would notice a significant difference in real world situations.
They also recommend against extended warranties and tell you to save your money to hire 3rd party repair people. Terrible idea. If you have a repair warranty it covers almost anything that can go wrong (outside of things that are your fault, like dropping a laptop). Turning your computer into the vendor is much safer and more reliable than giving it to a mom and pop shop on the corner and it's much cheaper too.
Anyway, the list goes on and on. It's a shame because a lot of people look to CR for trusted advice and they won't know that this information is wrong. I can only hope the rest of their reports are more trustworthy.
Subscribe
Comments
Shane,
Mixed feelings about this one. I've often wondered how a company like CR can position itself as an expert on everything from bug repellents to Hi-Def television. They presumably contract with SME's and then take recommendations from their reviews for final publication.
Ultimately, ANY review, even the ones on CNET, are going to be vague in places. For space limitations and other reasons, you can't expect them to be entirely forthcoming about the products they review. It's unfortunate that all too often it's the omissions that can cause people to be misled.
Their success (CR) has come from being able to make qualified recommendations without the benefit of influence from outside advertisers. I think THAT'S what sets them apart from the pack.
As to your objections, just one comment... there ARE still some unknowns on the IntelMacs, from a virus perspective. Technically, their statements are accurate. Someone could exploit Bootcamp, or create something that works on the driver level. Separate partitions, yes, but not entirely strangers to one another (WIN/OSX) if they're living on the same hard drive.
Ultimately, you have to believe that consumers are basically stupid -- they'll read something like this, and STILL end up going with their best friend's recommendations, or something they heard from a coworker. The computer-buying public is a fickle bunch.
-Marty
Posted by: Marty | November 24, 2006 1:30 PM
Some good points, Marty. I'd agree in your defense of their vague recommendations, but my biggest issue was with the inaccuracy of the details they "did" get into. And I'm afraid you're wrong about the virus thing. Let me explain...
Yes, viruses can infect a Win install that was setup with Bootcamp, but for that virus to jump to the Mac partition would mean the virus would not only be able to run Windows and Mac code-bases, but also be able to read/write to an HFS partition.
There's nothing about the processor that would make any of this easier though. A couple examples: Windows viruses can't access or infect any files on an external HD formatted as HFS anymore than Windows itself can. You'd have to have special 3rd party software to make this possible. Not easy for a virus writer to create him/herself, nor worth the effort.
Second, if what you and CR were saying was even remotely possible, then we'd have the same issue with Linux or many flavors of Unix already out there. While viruses on dual-boot machines may be able to "see" the other partitions, writing to them and (more importantly) executing on them requires full OS/Filesystem compatibility.
The Mac code-base is completely different than it is for Windows so to get a single virus to do damage on both platforms it would need the payload of two full versions of the same app.
Some say that because Macs run on Intel that migrating software from Win to Mac is easier. Not really the case. The only place this is true is in apps that rely on hardware-level acceleration and optimization, such as games. Viruses don't use chip-level optimizations to run and for these standards apps, it "still" means writing a completely different program with completely different infection vectors and goals since OS X doesn't have security flaws in the same places as Windows. Essentially, the author of the virus would have to write a Mac version of the code that works just as well - This is just as hard with Intel as it was with PowerPC.
So ultimately, OS X could be on any chip in the world and still be no easier to infect than it was before. Viruses don't rely on hardware.
Also, I think people rely on CR much more than you think. I know plenty of my parents' friends who read this same stuff and tried to argue it with me because it came from "an authority" - which as I said - CR has clearly shown they are not.
So I agree about the need to keep their reviews somewhat vague, but when they do dive into specifics, they need to know something for sure or just leave it out.
Posted by: Shane | November 24, 2006 2:51 PM