[dndog]

In reponse to Cnet's article comparing the MacBook Pro against the Acer Travelmate, someone commented with an excellent response at the Cnet website. It was so good, I felt I must repost it here at MacNN.

Originally from cNet:

Straight out of the gate I want to mention that CNET as a whole, although my
number one resource for most technology reviews, has in my opinion had a
bias slant against Apple computers for a while now. This supposition is of
course a personal opinion of mine, but I feel that this latest Macbook Pro vs.
Travelmate 8200 contest is just another glaring example of bias. If anything,
it could just be an attempt to push buttons and raise eyebrows, as ranking a
budget laptop (and Acer specializes in this category) higher than a first class
apple product will certainly do. My argument is outlined as follows:

The rounds are broken up into 7 categories: Display, Features, Performance,
Battery Life, Software, Warranty and Support, and Price.

Display:

This category I have no issues with and both laptops seem to get a fair
treatment, but one thing isn't mentioned that in my experience has never
received a proper lashing: XBrite/Trubright (whatever you want to call)
display technology. Take one look at any Acer, HP, Sony, etc, and you will
notice that the screen has a high gloss finish to it due to this technology.
Yes, there is an obvious gain in brightness and color representation using
Sony's technology, but technology reviewers and pundits fail to recognize
(maybe they aren't truly testing the product?) that having a HIGH GLOSS
FINISH ON A LAPTOP SCREEN MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO USE OUTDOORS OR
NEAR LOW LYING LIGHT SOURCES. I promise that will be the only use of
caps-lock, but the emphasis is required. I recently saw two twins using
identical Gateway computers outside on a sunny day, only having to pack
them up and go inside because of the horrible glare on their screens. The
Macbook Pro won this category, I realize, but no mention of the glossy screen
was mentioned on the Acer, throwing the entire analysis into question.


Features:

The Acer wins this category, although the features Cnet has chosen to
showcase for each laptop seem unusually selective. The article mentions that
Acer has all the features Apple has plus some extras, including S/PDIF, S-
Video, 2 extra USB ports, memory card reader, and a PCIMCIA slot. Funny, no
mention of the features the Macbook has that Acer doesn't have:

-IR Remote with Front Row software (It's an absolute joke that they left this
out)
-Fiber-optic backlit keyboard (which was actually mentioned in the previous
page, but amnesia seems to have settled in)
-light sensors which automatically dim the SCREEN (which never gets
mentioned in the entire piece; the backlit key dimming is mentioned instead)
-hard drive protection via motion sensors
-Magnetic lid latch (whose absence is hilarious since the precursor to this
round mentions lid latches as laptop features)
-LED battery life indicator on bottom of laptop (this one the author probably
didn't even know about, but it's a very handy feature being able to check
battery life without turning on the laptop)

In response to the features that the travelmate has that the macbook pro
doesn't, I will say a few things. The memory card reader is a silly feature
which in my opinion breaks the aesthetics of laptops while also offering a
temporary solution seeing as how memory formats change so quickly and
cameras are starting to get bluetooth and wifi for picture transfer. As far as
the camera tilting and swiveling, in my opinion the reason Apple stays away
from these kind of flashy features is because of the philosophy that the more
moving parts a laptop has, the more chance of failure there is. The isight on
the Macbook is intended to be a video conferencing tool, not something that
turns the laptop into a digital camera.

The biggest point to realize in the feature round is that Cnet gushes over
Apple's aesthetics in the previous page (which I'm convinced Cnet believes is
the only redeeming quality of an Apple product), and then turns around and
bashes the Macbook for the lack of card readers, ports, and swiveling
cameras which arguably destroy the aesthetics of the Acer (making it bigger,
uglier, and more prone to mechanical failure). Logic would lead one to
believe that a 40 pound laptop with every port connector known to man
would beat the Macbook Pro in features, but who would buy something like
that? There's an obvious deficiency in the way that these categories have
been weighted.


Performance:

This is easily the most laughable comparison of the 7. Although it is
mentioned that the benchmarks used in the comparison are of applications
that are not yet universal for OS X 10.4, Cnet happily continues its
comparison as though this is a simple detriment to the Macbook. The fact
that the Acer and Macbook are fairly evenly matched in every category except
for graphics performance (which again, no mention of whether the universal
binary of Doom 3 is used) doesn't seem to come into play in the final
analysis, since Cnet chooses to comment only on the Apple's losses in
categories where non-universal applications are used as benchmarks. I'm
sorry, but if you open up an article with the cheeky statement about
comparing "apples to apples", you should either test the Mac in XP Pro
exclusively or stick to universal binaries. This is the most blatant case of bias
reporting in the article by far.


Battery:

This test, as it is laid out in the article, seems to be the least scientific. The
Acer Travelmate's wireless features are disabled, but no mention of the
Macbook's wireless being disabled is made. The Macbook's screen brightness
is simply reduced to half using the slider, while the unlike the Travelmate,
never gets a mention of its true brightness statistics. The point being, for all
the reader knows, the Macbook (having a much brighter screen as mentioned
in the article), may very well be pumping out twice the brightness as the
Travelmate in the battery test in this article, as well as powering bluetooth
and wifi. The entire piece suffers from subjectivity and a complete disregard
for scientific testing. And what's more, is that the Apple still only comes out
8 minutes behind the Travelmate, which to Cnet is a dealbreaker. Eight
minutes could arguably be the difference in the quality of the specific
batteries each unit is using, which is something neither Apple or Acer could
control. Without performing this test on more than just one machine for each
brand, it's a complete waste of time.


Software:

If the Macbook didn't win this category I wouldn't even have bothered writing
into you guys, but for thanks sake it wins. We'll defer comment on this
category until the price round by keeping in mind a quote from the article:
"The MacBook Pro, which includes hundreds of dollars of equivalent PC
software, easily takes the round"


Warranty and Support:

This category is worthless because of one line: "Note that we opted to limit
our evaluation to the terms of the support package and not the quality of
support, which is highly subjective and can vary depending on the support
issue." Please, tell me what the value of a comparison is if you don't focus on
quality? This is a complete cop-out. By the author's logic, price is really the
only thing that matters when considering a warranty, and a company who
offers terrible quality of support could beat a more expensive option that
offers first-class service and support. This destroys any remaining shred of
respectability the article may have had in my opinion, and I'm honestly trying
not to be harsh here. If the author would have done a little research, it would
have been abundantly obvious that Apple consistently gets the top or nearly
the top rating when it comes to service and support. They pride themselves
on that fact year after year. For instance, they're the only company who
doesn't outsource their phone support to India. It's a very simple thing to
either pick up the phone and call both companies, or refer to respected
consumer reporting firms when comparing Acer to Apple. The author
completely dodges the issue and unbelievably gives the Travelmate the win in
this category, based on price alone.


Price

Ok, here's where everything falls apart.

The author says, "Still, Apple computers come with a software package that
would cost hundreds of dollars to purchase for a Windows system. To help
us focus, though, we return to our starting premise, which asks which laptop
is better if you configure a PC and a Mac with identical components."
However, the author is quoted as saying "..comparing them not only on
performance and battery life but on characteristics such as design, features,
and price." in the opening page of the article, which to me sounds a lot like
an opening premise. Basically, what the author has chosen to do is compare
price on all the categories mentioned in the article except for the one where
price actually matters: software. Joke.

What's going to happen is that people are going to read this article and think
that they're saving money on the Travelmate. This will of course be true at
the register. That is, if they don't buy digital lifestyle software, virus and
spyware protection ($100+ a year!), media center software, etc., all of which
will cost upwards of $300-$500. If this price gap is bridged by all these
after-market purchases, then the consumer has basically paid the same thing
for the Travelmate they would have for the Macbook Pro. But what did they
get? A heavier laptop that doesn't look nearly as sleek. A laptop that in
terms of lifespan will not last as long as the Macbook, which I realize is as
subjective an opinion as anything, but I think that independent studies would
show that Apples last on average longer than Acers (I'm an acer owner myself,
and after 3 years my Acer laptop won't charge its own battery, the PCIMCIA
slot doesn't work, the screen goes blank randomly, and the plastic casing
looks completely beat up). The worst part is that when they get home and go
outside to enjoy their laptop on the porch with their wireless connectivity,
they won't even be able to see the screen.. they'll see themselves, which I
guess is a feature if you want a mirror built into your laptop, but I'm guessing
for most people this isn't a benefit.

All joking aside, I think it's sad that this article is getting any press. Cnet has
lost a good deal of its creditability in my mind due to this article, and what's
worse is that there are more on the way. As a recent switcher to Mac (I was a
windows user of 20 years previously), I'm surprised at the amount of anti-
apple sentiment out there. It's as though PC adherents feel left out or self-
righteous or something for not being sucked into the seemingly aesthetics-
only benefits of Apple computers. However it has always been amusing to
me that for every person I know that actually took the chance and moved to
the Mac platform, not one of them would ever go back to Windows.

As usual, I feel that many of these technology writers compare with double standards.

[TheIceMan]

Thanks for sharing that link. Yeah, this happens quite a bit with the press not doing their homeowork. I'm not "pro-Apple" or "anti-PC." But if one thing is better than another then, that's what I'll use. It does suck that much of the press continues to be ignorant and continues to print biased and anti-Mac reports.

[Dark Helmet]

Ah who cares, it is just CNET. Anyone who is stupid to make a purchasing decision based on a review there isn't going to appreciate what Macs have to offer anyway.

[mduell]

Straight out of the gate I want to mention that CNET as a whole, although my number one resource for most technology reviews, has in my opinion had a bias slant against Apple computers for a while now.

A quick survey of CNet reviews of Apple hardware:
PowerBooks: Very Good
iPods: Excellent
iMacs: Very Good or Excellent
iBooks: Good or Very Good
PowerMacs: Very Good

Oh gee, their lowest ranking is "Good"! Doesn't sound like a "bias slant against Apple" to me. A pretty weak start to the rebuttal.

If anything, it could just be an attempt to push buttons and raise eyebrows, as ranking a budget laptop (and Acer specializes in this category) higher than a first class apple product will certainly do.

Another completely wrong statement; Acer's laptop line covers everything from ultralight to desktop replacement in size and budget to premium (such as the Ferrari line) in price.

As far as his features comparison, some of the things he feels are notable are just too common to mention. Hard drive protection via motion sensors? LED battery life indicator on bottom of laptop? Please, these are standard on a number of sub-1k laptops. Why don't you mention it has a touchpad and audio jack while you're at it? Where by "it" I mean making a pointlessly long review.

Flash card standards are volitile? The flash formats in use today are the same ones that were available in what, 2000? That's longer than the typical laptop lifetime. Some new formats (such as miniSD) are even designed with adapters to current standards in mind.

As far as performance, I think it's totally reasonable to test in the configuration that users are most likely to use. The Acer is overwhemingly likely to run Windows while the MBP is most likely going to run OSX. What's the point in benchmarking a configuration that a tiny fraction of the users are going to use? If you want maximum performance on both, why not benchmark in a stage1 Gentoo environment?

Batteries: Hey, I agree with this guy. 8 minutes is nothing in a 3 hour runtime.
But (and there always is a but), "And what's more, is that the Apple still only comes out 8 minutes behind the Travelmate, which to Cnet is a dealbreaker"? Holy hyperbole! Look at what CNet actually says:
"Winner: By a nose, the Acer TravelMate 8200, which held out 8 minutes longer than the MacBook Pro."

Price: The MBP comes in $400 higher with a smaller disk; yes, it brings the extra software, but quite frankly not everyone wants it. The lack of bundling with the Acer leaves the user to spend more on the software they want.

Are CNet's reviews perfect? Far from it. But a lot of this guys "points" are worse than a Dvorak column.

Before y'all jump on me, I'm just stirring the pot a little and purposely not preaching to the choir. Note how may of his points I left unmolested.

[Salty]

I've heard people say c|net is anti Mac... but really... they gush over Apple all the time! If they're anti anyone it's Microsoft if you read the site regularly. I mean... I try and balance it, some c|net, some ars, some slashdot... I get all the different points of view. And honestly c|net is generally just a lil sub par as far as true journalism. They lack some times but they're not that often anti Apple.

[Kevin]

CNet always gives Apple grand reviews by itself. But when comparing it with a similar product, they seem to poo poo it for some reason.

[Zeeb]

I think that if more universal binary applications had been out at the time of this review then the two laptops probably would have tied with perphaps the MBP coming out ahead a little.

However, the reveiwers had to compare the software that is currently available for the machine they are testing. For example, if a universal binary of photoshop isn't available to the reviewer it certainly isn't going to available to a person who buys a MBP. It doesn't matter what the processor could be capable of with future software but what its capable of with the software you can go to the store and buy now.

As for the differences in ports, there are countless threads on these forums from die hard mac users criticizing the lack of them on a MBP. That being said, I myself own a MBP and I'm quite happy with it.

Competition is a good thing, it forces computer companies to improve their products. Personally, I would love a swivel camera and more ergonomic keyboard on my laptop like the travelmate has.

[Duracell]

Originally Posted by Salty

I've heard people say c|net is anti Mac... but really... they gush over Apple all the time! If they're anti anyone it's Microsoft if you read the site regularly. I mean... I try and balance it, some c|net, some ars, some slashdot... I get all the different points of view. And honestly c|net is generally just a lil sub par as far as true journalism. They lack some times but they're not that often anti Apple.

This is the same feeling I get whenever I've read C|Net, all the Apple reviews I've read have been positive.

None the less, what the guy has wrote was a nice read after reading the comparison, nice post

[Cody Dawg]

Not all PC and Microsoft owners and users are prejudiced...read this article titled "Why Microsoft Employees Should Own a Mac" authored by a Microsoft employee.

It's articles like the one above that give good reporters/authors/bloggers some reporting cred because it is superior journalism: The ability to be objective. (Which, if you think about it, is also a great character trait and a sign of an intellectual.)

I've known for a while that CNET is biased. Why? Because their entire business is based on PC reviews. They would have very little to report on if it weren't for PCs, you know?

[mindwaves]

I cannot believe that they do car reviews now.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

After watching CNets videos for some time I realized they employ buffoons. I especially don't like all that yellow and that Molly whatsherface who thinks she is funny. Everyone hates her (see comments)

[sabrejim]

The macbook pro has spdif... Or they stuck a red light inside the audio port for no reason...

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by kaze0

The macbook pro has spdif... Or they stuck a red light inside the audio port for no reason...

It does, with a mini-to-TOS adapter. From Apple's KB:

"Digital Out outputs digital audio and doesn't use the built-in speakers at all. It works with devices that support the S/PDIF format. Digital Out allows you to use a home theater system to play back 5.1 audio. If you use Digital Out, the volume slider is always at maximum and greyed out, because the volume is controlled by the receiver or speakers rather than by the computer."

[ghporter]

C|Net used to be a credible and worthwhile source for technology information. Please note that they used to have syndicated television shows and even a whole cable channel. That cable channel is now "G4" which is an indication of their rather weak committment to technology information-unless you're REALLY into games. As an online forum, at least they don't go around enforcing their editorial bent on what's posted...

So really, who cares?