Consumer Reports likes Macs

--- begin forwarded text

From: Janet Chesne

I share your frustration about Consumer Reports always giving short shrift
to Macs and often comparing Apples and oranges. In fact I wrote a letter to
the editor a few months ago after a previous denigration of the Mac. It
didn't get into the magazine, though a similar one did. However, I received
a personalized letter saying they received many such letters and were going
to take another look at the Mac.

Perhaps you could write them with your knowledge of costs, features and ease
of maintenance, so that they get the idea of making decent comparisons.

I appreciate your contributions to TidBITS.

Jan Chesne

--- end forwarded text

Jan has a good point - if we as a community have a problem with how
Consumer Reports is covering Macs, letters to the editor are likely
to have a useful impact. However, it is important that they be good
letters, concise and polite (and original). So if you have a minute
or two, send them a note about how they're covering Macs poorly. They
have a contact form on their site:

<http://www.consumerreports.org/main/detailv2.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=719&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=703&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=456975&bmUID=1100608223422>

cheers... -Adam

On Friday, November 12, 2004, at 04:39 PM, Tony Meyer wrote:

>> However, the Mac is way behind the PC when it comes
>> to games. If you are getting a computer for the house, and you have
>> kids, getting the type of computer that plays the latest and most
>> popular games is very important.
>
> A few people have mentioned games now, which seems odd to me.
>
> With the exception of the real fanatics (who tend to be *nix people
> rather
> than Windows/Mac), everyone I know that plays games (from occasionally
> to
> ridiculously often) uses a PlayStation or Xbox to do so. Desktop
> computers
> don't even come into it. This is especially the case with those still
> of
> school age.
>
> It seems to me that the obvious decision is to get a Mac and a
> PS2/Xbox.
> You've then got access to pretty much all the hot games, a dedicated
> machine
> for them, and aren't really spending that much more (apart from the
> games
> themselves...).
>
> Is this a local thing? Are regular people (i.e. not those that work
> in some
> sort of computing field) in the US really still keen on gaming with
> desktop
> computers?

The problem with this is the lack of educational and edutainment
software for Playstation, Xbox, etc. Many people I know, particularly
with younger children, prefer to keep hot games away from their kids
and aim for titles that are both fun and illuminating.

I don't think it's a tendency endemic to the US, but rather an attempt
of many parents to cut down on violence, etc., that children are so
exposed to on television and at the movies.

Marilyn

This year my folks bought a Hoover vacuum that was very highly rated by
"Consumer Reports". After having significant trouble with the sucker
they took it to our city's resident vacuum guru, who promptly told them
this model is widely known throughout the industry to be a lemon.

I've looked at C.R. on and off for 30 years and have never felt
comfortable that they know what they're talking about.

Christopher Stone

Of course Consumer Reports seems not to get it. Whenever they address a topic about which I know something, their reviews seem all wrong, from computers to cameras and everthing inbetween (a joke, co to ca doesn't encompass that much). I used to think they knew their stuff when it came to household items, like washers, dryers, paint, etc.; but no, according to painters, they get it all wrong there, too. I finally came to realize that if you need an average amount of information about an average item, you're probably OK to follow their advice. Do not expect more.

Pam

At 10:10 AM -0800 11/11/04, David Weintraub wrote:
>* Lack of expandability. With FireWire and USB, you no longer need to
>open up your computer to "expand' it. Besides, most people don't
>anyway. But, if you decide to install that new micro lazerDisk (or
>whatever they come out with in two years), you can open up your PC case
>and plop one in. You certainly can't do that with an iMac.

Actually, the new iMac G5 is reportedly much more user-servicable
than prior models. According to this Wired article and Apple support
doc, one can service quite a few of the internal components parts
including the optical drive, LCD display, power supply, and
"mid-plain assembly," which contains the main logic board and G5
processor.

<http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,65510,00.html>
<http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=86812>

Andrew

--- begin forwarded text

From: "George Douglas Allen" <allengmsu.edu> (by way of Geoff Duncan)

I have been a long-time reader and user of Consumer Reports and, like you, I
have been stunned, bemused, whatever you want to call it, by their clueless
reviews and ratings, not just of Macs, but of PCs in general. I would
never rely on CR for information on buying a computer, and I'm therefore
happy that other sources of information (like y'all) are available to help
me.

I imagine that CR readers, as a group, are on the whole pretty
sophisticated, and I wonder what CU would learn if they surveyed their
redership on the usefulness of their computer reviews. I'll bet they'd be
stunned at the low ratings they'd get, while at the same time receiving high
marks in virtually every other category of consumer products.

Finally, did you send CU a copy of your review? They might not like it, but
they'd read it.

Thanks for all the good work --

George D. Allen, Ph.D.
Michigan State Univ. College of Nursing

--- end forwarded text

Here's a perfect example of the costs of poor quality and service.

cheers... -Adam

--- begin forwarded text

From: Michael Gibbs

Adam,

As a long time reader of Consumer Reports I enjoyed your piece on
their computer coverage. Obviously, they failed to account for the
costs of situations such as that recently experienced by Randy
Cassingham <http://www.thisistrue.com/dellhell.html>, wherein he was
unable to take his brand new Dell laptop on a business trip to Europe
due to a motherboard problem. Too bad it took Dell more than a month
and a half to get the problem remedied, and then only because a Dell
executive is a subscriber to his electronic newsletter "This is True"!

Michael Gibbs
Phoenix, AZ

--- end forwarded text

"David Weintraub" <davidweintraubworld.net> wrote:
> * Lack of expandability. With FireWire and USB, you no longer need to
> open up your computer to "expand' it. Besides, most people don't
> anyway. But, if you decide to install that new micro lazerDisk (or
> whatever they come out with in two years), you can open up your PC case
> and plop one in. You certainly can't do that with an iMac. Besides,
> you'll probably have to wait for the Mac drivers to come out before you
> can install it.

I disagree with a number of David's points when it comes to the *typical*
computer user (as opposed to more advanced users), but I'd like to focus on
the above argument in particular, as it comes up frequently in computer
reviews.

For a number of reasons, I think internal expandability is the most
overrated "feature" in consumer computers, especially today. A good part of
it is that, as David pointed out, FireWire and USB are now the most common
way for computer users to add hardware functionality. But even ten years
ago, when you had to open up the computer and install new hardware, "lack of
expandability" wasn't a convincing argument. Few home users *ever* upgrade
their computers other than adding RAM, and even that's becoming rarer given
how many manufacturers and vendors now throw in "free" RAM at the time of
purchase. Of the the scores of people I personally know who use Windows PCs
at home -- most of whom are pretty sophisticated users -- the only ones who
have actually "expanded" their computers are the gamers (who will likely
never buy a Mac anyway) and the ones who added FireWire cards. Considering
that more and more Windows PCs are shipping with built-in FireWire, fewer
and fewer people will ever open up their PC to add hardware other than
memory.

I think those of us who read TidBITS and/or work in the industry sometimes
forget that we're not typical computer users. Most consumers buy a computer
to accomplish tasks, and they generally choose a computer that lets them
accomplish those tasks -- they don't plan on (or even end up) adding the
latest gizmo. Unfortunately, too many reviewers and salespeople either don't
realize this, forget it, or (especially when it comes to Mac reviews)
purposely overlook it and end up making a big deal out of "expandability."

(The irony of this situation is that I have a lot of Windows-using friends
-- who have never upgraded a thing -- who frequently complain about how big
and bulky their PCs are ;-) )

--- begin forwarded text

From: James Tummins

I your TidBITS article about Consumer Reports on the Mac. The typical Mac-PC
price comparisons chaps my butt, too, and I agree that it's particularly
frustrating from Consumers Union. There was a similar statement in a recent
article in Scientific American about dual core processors.

Some months ago, before I became aware of the LinuxInsider article, I did a
price comparison of Macs and and PCs. My analysis came to very similar
conclusions as LinuxInsider. In most cases, Macs are cheaper for similar
configurations. In my opinion, the cheaper PCs are almost unusable.

I posted it on my .Mac site, if you're interested in it. It's in PDF form,
but if you want the Excel spreadsheet, I probably can find it.

     <http://homepage.mac.com/jtummins/FileSharing8.html>

The second comment you made, quoted below, I'd have to take issue with. You
seem to say in part of your article that Macs are less expensive, but at the
same time their higher prices are justified. Macs are not more expensive.

[As I noted to James privately, there are cheaper options than Dell;
hence my comments about higher prices. -Adam]

One other topic that is usually glossed over is regarding Mac and Windows
interoperability. Once upon a time data could not be exchanged easily
between the two platforms. This is much less of an issue today as there are
more standard data formats. To name a few:

     JPEG
     TIFF
     PNG
     Text
     RTF
     HTML
     Word (defacto)
     Photoshop (defacto)
     PDF

This is becoming even more true with the emergence of XML as a standard
document interchange. While the interchange isn't perfect in every case,
they are pretty close. Windows and OS X have multiple applications that
support these standards. It's simply a matter of choosing one to work with.
This commonality should be touted loudly.

James

--- end forwarded text

--- begin forwarded text

From: tedd

Adam:

Good comeback and review of the CR review -- I read it and had the
same objections.

However, my perspective on the "Mac's have fewer software choices"
issue is a bit different than yours -- perhaps you'll consider it.

You see,I develop software for the Mac. I am usually hired by
companies who are successful in selling their windows software and
want to expand their market share into the Mac market.

What this means is that usually the companies who are seeking the Mac
market are already successful in the Windows market. Those who are
struggling in the Windows market, aren't interested -- they're too
busy just trying to survive. The market forces at work here,
translate to better quality software for the Mac.

So, when discussing the apparent "lack of software for Mac" issue, I
often say "Sure, in the Windows market you have a choice of ten word
processors, but you would only seriously consider the top three --
and those are available for the Mac as well." I add, "Any software
that isn't available for the Mac, isn't software that I would use."

Keep up the good work.

tedd
http://sperling.com/

--- end forwarded text

I can't help adding my bit to what Pam wrote (below). I was a loyal subscriber to Consumer Reports for many years until they added Ralph Nader to the board. While that excited me, expecting emphasis on safety, I was cruelly disappointed. I had just purchased a Rover sedan because of great features contributing to safety when CU came out with an issue damning that car for all of the safety as "unproved". They had just complained that Detroit never even discussed it in their ads and now complained when Rover did! After that I had the same feeling that Pam did and cancelled my subscription. Since then, reading issues at a friend's house has only confirmed that feeling.

--- begin forwarded text

From: George Giftos

Adam,

Nice job on taking on Consumers Union. I don't understand how they keep
the legions of readers they have. Virtually all articles they write are
biased and include a number of half-truths along with some totally
erroneous statements thrown in for good measure. I used to call on a
company which made over 75% of all refrigerators purchased including
Frigidaire, Admiral, Philco, Westinghouse, etc. All were identically
constructed except for trim, yet, CU found all sorts of things to point
out like one wouldn't keep items in the door cold enough, the freezer
was warmer than average, etc. That manufacturer used to laugh at the
articles. I own a vacuum store and can tell you that their vacuum
cleaner ratings are a big joke. We suspect payola, as those articles
are that inane.

___________
George Giftos
Cadillac Vacuum
Vacuums & Allergy Products
www.cadillacvacuum.com

--- end forwarded text

--On Friday, November 19, 2004 7:59:51 AM CST -0800 Dan Frakes
<DanFrakes.org> wrote:

> For a number of reasons, I think internal expandability is the most
> overrated "feature" in consumer computers, especially today.

Actually it's really overrated in enterprise computing too, at least if,
IMO, the tech group is doing its job properly. Most enterprises lease
their computers on a 3 year cycle. When we purchase a new computer we over
stock it -- we buy more memory than we think will be needed 3 years down
the road. Same for the hard drive. The video card too, although those
seem to be improving quite a bit faster than the other needs. The processor
we tend to purchase one back from the fastest chip (the fastest chips seem
to have issues that get fixed in later revisions.)

Attempting to purchase just the computer a user need now leads to the need
to upgrade the computer before the lease expires. Upgrading involves
either downtime for the user, or overtime pay for the technician. Many
upgrade purchases can't be leased. When the lease expires on the main CPU
the purchased upgrades have to be removed and the original items put back
in, and you usually can't use the upgrade items in a new computer due to
new memory types, or the existing equipment already exceeds the upgrade
item's capabilities.

If you happen to have a user that really does need an upgrade, buy a souped
up computer for something else going off lease, give that to the high-end
user take their less capable computer and give it to someone that can still
benefit from it. Still takes technician time to do this, but less than
doing upgrades all the time.

Kevin

> From: George Giftos
>
> Nice job on taking on Consumers Union. I don't understand how they keep
> the legions of readers they have. Virtually all articles they write are
> biased and include a number of half-truths along with some totally
> erroneous statements thrown in for good measure. I used to call on a
> company which made over 75% of all refrigerators purchased including
> Frigidaire, Admiral, Philco, Westinghouse, etc. All were identically
> constructed except for trim, yet, CU found all sorts of things to point
> out like one wouldn't keep items in the door cold enough, the freezer
> was warmer than average, etc. That manufacturer used to laugh at the
> articles. I own a vacuum store and can tell you that their vacuum
> cleaner ratings are a big joke. We suspect payola, as those articles
> are that inane.

People who score badly in ratings or on tests never like the
methodology or results, and the tendency is to disparage them.

Actually, in over 25 years in ad sales (including managing the consumer
electronics and computer categories for 5 magazines), every client or
ad agency person I spoke to would attest to the scrupulous honesty of
Consumers Union and Consumer Reports every time the organization was
mentioned. Test products and vehicles are even bought at retail
anonymously.

And companies that earned glowing ratings were not allowed to use the
Consumer Reports ratings, trademark or information in their advertising
or marketing. This policy is very strictly enforced.

Consumer Reports is also frequently sued by companies that don't like
the ratings they receive, and the suits are summarily tossed aside:

<http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2004/11/10/ap1648471.html>

The famous Suzuki vs. Consumers Union lawsuits, which Suzuki kept
losing in appeals, were finally settled out of court because Consumers
Union was being drained of cash while Suzuki had deep pockets; but
Suzuki had to agree that Consumer Reports' reviews and ratings were
accurate:

<http://www.consumerreports.org/main/content/display_report.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=348609&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=333153&bmUID=1101171635199>

To attest to the power in the marketplace of the Consumer Reports,
clients in all categories told me how sales soared after receiving good
ratings and how sales dipped when they were bad. And I've read many
times that about 40 -50% (I don't recall the exact number) of new car
purchasers consult Consumer Reports before making a decision. And a few
years ago they started selling the car issue on the newsstands at a
premium price with great success.

As was mentioned previously in the thread, although we might not like
what Consumer Reports says about our beloved Mac, the magazine speaks
in the voice of its members/readers and they test products as to how a
typical reader would use them. TidBITS readers "think different," and
therefore are not only atypical, but geekier than most, and I think we
tend to be more passionate and reverential than even typical Mac users.

[Fine points, Marilyn, but they don't really address my criticisms of why the magazine doesn't apply criteria, such as interface or industrial design, or cost of ownership, to Macs in a reasonable way. They do that with other products. -Adam]

Marilyn

On Nov 23, 2004, at 9:39 PM, Marilyn Matty wrote:

> People who score badly in ratings or on tests never like the
> methodology or results, and the tendency is to disparage them.

I think Marilyn has lots of excellent points, but I still agree with
the other comments here that Consumer Reports reviews are done by
generalists. There is probably always someone in a specific field that
has more knowledge and different opinions that the expert reviewers.

But for most people and most products, they have more knowledge than we
do. I grew up in a house that always subscribed to CR, and I would
always check it before buying something large (cars, appliances, etc).
The main criteria I was looking for was dependability.

Would I ever use CR to choose a computer, even if I was buying a
Windows machine? No, because I have more knowledge than their articles
convey, and I want more specific details. Don't forget they aren't
writing reviews for Ars Technica's readers.

Steve Cochran

I'm a little behind the curve on reading this November TidBITS article about Consumers Reports December 2004 cover story. I've read ACE's article and 30 comments by fellow TidBITS readers saying that CR has not been kind to Macs. Evidently few of us read CR all the time – I don't. However, I have seen that they have been kinder to Macs than anyone on these TidBIT pages has acknowledged. Give credit where credit is due. In 2003, in their April and June (if I recall correctly) issues, CR chose the iBook and the PowerBook as their Best Buys among laptop computers. Among the primary criteria for their selection were device reliability and ruggedness, and customer service by the computer makers. (ACE missed this fact when he wrote his story.) Apple was on top in all categories. You'll have to find the hard copies of the magazine. Only subscribers can access CR's online archives.

[I'd have to go find the hard copies, but I wonder how the recommendation was phrased, merely because I generally check out their computer coverage, and I think I would have noticed if it had been surprisingly understanding of the Mac. Nonetheless, my primary subject for that brief rant was the most recent issue, which flip-flopped between saying very nice things and ignoring other equally obvious aspects of the situation. -Adam]

Marilyn,

The refrigerator manufacturer I referred to made both the highly rated
brands as well as some of the criticized brands. They could care less
in which order their brands were listed. I think the problem is that
you can't expect Consumers Union to be expert and proficient in
everything they test. It's just impossible. They develop their own
testing methods, but begin with some pre-conceived ideas.

In audio gear, for example, they seem to proceed from the basis that,
"If units under testing measure alike, then they must, therefore, sound
alike." That's simply not true. Apparently there are problems yet not
discovered in the way we measure amplifiers, for example, which don't
yield legitimate conclusions. CDs were supposed to sound identical to
the source. "Perfect sound forever," was the phrase used. Yet we've
improved the CD over the years. You don't hear it on a Walkman, but you
sure can hear it on a high definition audio system.

CU also has no way to determine the ultimate life of an appliance, yet
they attempt this by pointing to frequency of repair statistics
gathered from members. This will show historic information, but no
information on current models, which may be manufactured at a totally
different factory in a different country.

I maintain that CU misleads more people than they help. I know from
running my own tests and also from our service department comments that
CU's ratings of vacuum cleaners is all wet. (They have also
flip-flopped ratings of 2 models in successive year's reports-the one
which was number 1 the first year traded places with the one that was
further down the scale the second year.) They can distinguish between a
lightweight vacuum and a heavy vacuum, but they can't tell you whether
or not you will like the feel of any product they test. You need to
investigate on your own and you can't really do that by walking into
your local Zippy Mart and reading the boxes.

Rating a model number 1, and then telling me in the capsule comments
that they had concerns that the nozzle was flimsy is ludicrous. If the
nozzle is flimsy, it's going to break. If the nozzle is going to break,
why should I want to own it? (We do a lot of repairs on that one!)

George Giftos
___________
George Giftos
Cadillac Vacuum
Vacuums & Allergy Products
georgecadillacvacuum.com
www.cadillacvacuum.com

You can however learn some interesting things from Consumer Reports, but it does depend on doing a bit of background research beforehand. The Camry always appears near the top of realibity lists for CR, and Saab, Mercedes has done pretty badly. However the Camry or a Lexus is a much simpler car than a Merc, and therefore that's not really a surprise (law of averages. Crudely put, if you can a car with 1000 pieces in it, and a car with 10,000 pieces in it, although there's a 1 in 1000 chance of something going wrong, the car with 10,000 pieces will appear less reabile in any group comparsion). But if you're in a crash, then a Saab or a Merc is a much safer vehicle to be in.

With vacuum cleaners, the best vac I've had is a Dyson (which CR claims is too expensive). If you ever use one you don't want to use anything else and its worth the price. Their washing machine reviews are pretty good, but that's because you can carry out easily quantifiable tests between all the models (e.g. how long it takes to do a washing cycle).

Turning to computers, CR tries to put itself into the mindset of a typical user. Unfortunately one of the things they forget is that people like to be able to switch things on and forget about them. They don't want to spend all their time updating virus and spam filters. If they were really looking to give a proper recommendation to their readers, it would simply be, if you can afford a Mac, get one, solely on the basis of virus protection.

********************
Paul Guinnessy

> In 2003, in their April and June (if I recall correctly) issues, CR
> chose the iBook and the PowerBook as their Best Buys among laptop
> computers. Among the primary criteria for their selection were device
> reliability and ruggedness, and customer service by the computer
> makers. (ACE missed this fact when he wrote his story.) Apple was on
> top in all categories. You'll have to find the hard copies of the
> magazine. Only subscribers can access CR's online archives.

Just a quick note for any subscribers who go off looking for this --
the relevant articles from 2003 seem to be unavailable on the CR web
site, having been superceded by the more recent reports.

BRIAN/bpearcecloud9.net
<http://www.redjacketpress.com>

On Tuesday, December 7, 2004, at 09:57 AM, George Giftos wrote:

> Marilyn,
>
> The refrigerator manufacturer I referred to made both the highly rated
> brands as well as some of the criticized brands. They could care less
> in which order their brands were listed. I think the problem is that
> you can't expect Consumers Union to be expert and proficient in
> everything they test. It's just impossible. They develop their own
> testing methods, but begin with some pre-conceived ideas.

Their testing and rating methods were developed to help average
American John and Jane Does to make decisions, as well as to warn them
about purchasing products that could potentially harm them, and to act
as an advocate for product safety, reliability and integrity.

They do try their best to take personal preferences into account when
they measure and rank criteria that include personal preferences, but
this can only be accomplished to a limited extent.

I'm not a subscriber to Consumer Reports, but my mother is, and I've
found that when I'm in the market for certain things, the ratings, etc.
have been very helpful. When I needed to make decisions about health
insurance coverage amid a confusing and costly array of services, I
found their analysis, advice and resources to be outstanding. Their
analysis and advice about drugs and health advice, which are
uninfluenced by advertising, are IMHO, are without peer - and for many
years I worked on many OTC and ethical drug accounts for a number of
consumer magazines.

But as someone who is somewhat geeky and more than a little predisposed
to Macs, as I think most TidBITS subscribers are, I'm not likely to pay
attention to their computer advice.

I have not yet read the CR analysis of computers and Macs (I will when
I go to visit my mother next week), I'm not surprised that TidBITS
readers might not be pleased with every word in it. Adam's article did
mention that Consumer Reports noted that Macs were not subject the
viruses, pop-ups, spyware, epidemics as PCs are. These are major
concerns that plague PC owners with increasing frequency and severity,
and CR did not include a cost/benefit analysis in their review as we
would have liked, John & Jane Doe average consumer and small business
owner are finding their productivity and the enjoyment of using their
PCs is being severely curtailed. More important, the safety of their
personal information and important data are being increasingly called
in to question. The fact that CR did emphasize that Mac owners do not
have to take frequent drastic action and spend lots of money and time
will not be lost on CR's average reader.

>
> In audio gear, for example, they seem to proceed from the basis that,
> "If units under testing measure alike, then they must, therefore, sound
> alike." That's simply not true. Apparently there are problems yet not
> discovered in the way we measure amplifiers, for example, which don't
> yield legitimate conclusions. CDs were supposed to sound identical to
> the source. "Perfect sound forever," was the phrase used. Yet we've
> improved the CD over the years. You don't hear it on a Walkman, but you
> sure can hear it on a high definition audio system.

But you're someone who obviously knows more than the average Joe about
audio equipment, testing procedures, etc., and that you've had repeated
exposure to the products. John & Jane Doe just want the best value in
a speaker, and sifting through minor differences in products and
judging reliability within a price range is all they need or want.

>
> CU also has no way to determine the ultimate life of an appliance, yet
> they attempt this by pointing to frequency of repair statistics
> gathered from members. This will show historic information, but no
> information on current models, which may be manufactured at a totally
> different factory in a different country.

They make this very clear in their surveys that the ratings apply to
the particular products listed, although when they register a large
number of unsatisfactory ratings within a category for a particular
brand, I think they are correct in assuming that there are problems.

>
> I maintain that CU misleads more people than they help. I know from
> running my own tests and also from our service department comments that
> CU's ratings of vacuum cleaners is all wet. (They have also
> flip-flopped ratings of 2 models in successive year's reports-the one
> which was number 1 the first year traded places with the one that was
> further down the scale the second year.) They can distinguish between a
> lightweight vacuum and a heavy vacuum, but they can't tell you whether
> or not you will like the feel of any product they test. You need to
> investigate on your own and you can't really do that by walking into
> your local Zippy Mart and reading the boxes.

Although I am hoping that Santa will bring me a Roomba for the holidays
so I no longer have to push a vacuum around, I bought our vacuum
cleaner about 5 years ago based upon a Consumer Reports rating, and I'm
more than happy with it. It replaced one we had for 15+ years that I
also decided upon via Consumer Reports - inexpensive, but a great value
for the money.

In categories where I am not an expert or do not have the time or
inclination to become anything resembling an expert, Consumer Reports
performs valuable services.

Marilyn