First off, PC mag is owned by Ziff-Davis, and I believe that Ziff-Davis is owned by M$.
Problems with the article I saw were:
Comparing the gPC and monitor against just a HP without monitor in power usage, then going on to note that most machines can use 500w while the gPC only uses 80w. I don't get how using less isn't green. He complains it's slow and he knows it's a ViA CPU. He must not really understand much bout CPU's. Slams the gPC because it's not certified and therefore isn't green. Certification doesn't really guarantee anything. A lot of those certifications have loopholes that let manufacturer's get away with stuff. He says it wouldn't make a good machine to tinker with, but only talks about it's interface limitations out of the box as a reason why. He complains that it won't run Windows or Mac software...DUH He basically nitpicks the interface without really giving any solid reasons why it's bad. If you wanna nitpick, have a look at Vista or Leoard, you could spend days on that one. He says at the end that isn't alot to recommend about the machine, from the article all I heard him say is he doesn't like the interface. Guess he's the type that is only comfortable with his old worn shoes and not new things.
It's a pity that PC mag is so petty and has articles that pretty much shill for it's parent company instead of offering anything of value.
Slashdot Mirror
First off, PC mag is owned by Ziff-Davis, and I believe that Ziff-Davis is owned by M$.
Problems with the article I saw were:
Comparing the gPC and monitor against just a HP without monitor in power usage, then going on to note that most machines can use 500w while the gPC only uses 80w. I don't get how using less isn't green.
He complains it's slow and he knows it's a ViA CPU. He must not really understand much bout CPU's.
Slams the gPC because it's not certified and therefore isn't green. Certification doesn't really guarantee anything. A lot of those certifications have loopholes that let manufacturer's get away with stuff.
He says it wouldn't make a good machine to tinker with, but only talks about it's interface limitations out of the box as a reason why.
He complains that it won't run Windows or Mac software...DUH
He basically nitpicks the interface without really giving any solid reasons why it's bad. If you wanna nitpick, have a look at Vista or Leoard, you could spend days on that one.
He says at the end that isn't alot to recommend about the machine, from the article all I heard him say is he doesn't like the interface. Guess he's the type that is only comfortable with his old worn shoes and not new things.
It's a pity that PC mag is so petty and has articles that pretty much shill for it's parent company instead of offering anything of value.