Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 13th May 2011 10:30 UTC
Mac OS X "Ars Technica's John Siracusa looks back with a decade's hindsight at his early reviews of Mac OS X. He talks about what went right, what went wrong, and what he's still waiting on." I've read them all over the years, and Siracusa is by far the best reviewer on the web. His Mac OS X reviews are worth it for the technical details of the inner workings of Mac OS X alone - even if you don't use or like Apple's operating system.
Thread beginning with comment 472950
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
SKAFC
by aftermath on Fri 13th May 2011 13:53 UTC
aftermath
Member since:
2010-10-29

I used the context to constrain the “Best Reviewer on the Web” title that you’re conferring on Siracusa to the specific area of “when it comes to Mac OS X”. If that is in fact what you meant then I agree with you. He is the best Mac OS X reviewer, putting a huge distance between himself and second place. Before it starts sound I’m throwing him under the bus, I will say that his reviews should be compulsory for the whole body of Apple-faithful and Apple-curious because you learn far more about Mac OS X from him then from Apple. Objectively, you don't learn enough.

If instead you actually meant that he is literally the greatest reviewer on the web then I strongly disagree, because he’s not even a good one. That’s disappointing too because he is such a good writer who has so much knowledge and insight. Of course, he doesn’t stand alone as a low quality reviewer either on the web or when in comes to Mac OS X. In fact, being the best Mac OS X reviewer turns out to be SKAFC territory (Skinniest Kid At Fat Camp), and I can’t help but wonder if he’d start doing a better job if he had any real competition. To me, Siracusa’s reviews read like a popular Foodie plying his trade on Kentucky Fried Chicken’s “Double Down” product. It’s entertaining. It’s insightful. It’s even marginally useful. However, it rather misses the point, which become even more obvious if you’ve ever stood in the lobby of a KFC or listened in to a Yum! Brands shareholder call.

Reply Score: 1

RE: SKAFC
by testman on Sat 14th May 2011 05:51 in reply to "SKAFC"
testman Member since:
2007-10-15

He is "not even a good [reviewer]", but he is a good, insightful, knowledgeable writer.

You don't learn enough from him, but he is essential reading if you are considering an Apple product.

However, it rather misses the point, which become even more obvious if you’ve ever stood in the lobby of a KFC or listened in to a Yum! Brands shareholder call.

Sorry, but what on Earth was your point?

You never stated any solid reason why you consider him poorly in spite of your otherwise glowing recommendations. Something like, "he is a bad reviewer because he omits important details" would have sufficed. Much better in my opinion, than a bird's nest of mixed metaphors and ambiguous analogies that did more to induce groans than understanding. :-)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: SKAFC
by BluenoseJake on Sat 14th May 2011 13:29 in reply to "SKAFC"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

His reviews are technical, well thought out, with strong rational reasons given to everything he dislikes or disagrees with, what else would you want in a reviewer?

I think you may just be standing to close to the RDF.

Edited 2011-05-14 13:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: SKAFC
by StephenBeDoper on Sun 15th May 2011 02:52 in reply to "SKAFC"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

A review of a reviewer that criticizes him for a lack of substance, without any substantiated criticism*? My brain is collapsing in on itself...

*it's like poetry, so that it rhymes

Reply Parent Score: 2