14 DAY TRIAL // "The extraordinary thing about Apple's new iMac is how ordinary it is to operate. It looks, sounds and works almost exactly like the version it replaces, to the point where many Mac users probably couldn't pick it out of a lineup," Rob Pegoraro writes for The Washington Post.
This opinion of the new Intel based iMac is echoed by others, such as Mossberg. The new machine is at times almost indistinguishable from the previous models, despite the huge differences between the two. So far, Apple has made its latest major transition, the third in its history, a seamless and transparent one. Of course, Apple has experience at transitions, of both the software and hardware type.
"Most computer companies switch processor architectures only a little more often than human beings switch heads?" Pegoraro himself writes. So if Apple makes these transitions, that no other computer company does, and even does such a good job at them that the new iMacs are almost indistinguishable from the old ones, shouldn't everyone be cheering for Apple? Apparently not.
"Both the promise and the reality of the Intel iMac -- especially the cheaper, $1,299 model, once upgraded to a gigabyte of memory -- make it one of Apple's most appealing releases ever. But it would still be wise to wait a month or so if you don't need a new machine today..." Pegoraro writes. "Waiting a little will give Apple time to find and fix... bugs, then work on taking better advantage of Intel processors. It will give the developers of Mac software time to rewrite more programs as universal releases -- or at least make sure that their current releases function correctly under Rosetta. It's barely been six months since Apple even announced that it would move to Intel processors. Waiting a little longer won't hurt and could save you a lot of trouble."
The idea of not buying the product to give Apple "time to find and fix... bugs" implies that there are major bugs in there which have yet to surface. Had this been another software company with a history of major bugs and security risks and vulnerabilities not to mention virus threats, this sort of concern might have been justified. Had this been a preview written before the actual use of the final product, again, the concern might have been justified. But recommending not buying because the 'big bad bug' might be in there, somewhere, lurking and menacing seems inadequate, to say the least. As for the software manufacturers, minimal research is required to find out if the programs you need are compatible with Rosetta or available as Universal Binaries.
If a little paranoia goes a long way, a little more might go even further?