Hello everyone,
In this quick, 2-part series, I’ll be discussing what to really look for in a media center/HTPC. However, according to most reviews available out there, most of them seem to be just “average” or “good” (including ours, according to CNet).
So, Instead of defining an ideal media center since it apparently doesn’t exist, let’s go over what doesn’t make a great media center system?
First, let’s start off with that fact that most media centers available out there don’t work out of the box. Pick any system from one of the big boys – HP, Dell, or even Gateway. Can you actually hook it up to a TV? How long will it take to configure? Does it even have a TV tuner, and if so, why aren’t there two tuners.
As I mentioned, we recently had our system reviewed by CNet, and while it wasn’t rated as high as we’d like, we can certainly understand why and accept their review as honest and truthful. Let’s take a quick look at their report here:
====
http://reviews.cnet.com/VidaBox_Slim/4505-3118_7-32025352-2.html
The good:
Slim design for home-theater setups; cheaper than many other premium Media Centers; component video outputs.
The bad:
Older CPU means this isn’t a system that can pull double duty as Media Center and regular, everyday PC; only 1GB RAM; password-protected BIOS and sealed case make upgrading a challenge.
The bottom line: The VidaBox Slim makes no bones about being a dedicated living room system and not a standard desktop PC. While it is overpriced based just on its specs, it boasts an impressive host of media-friendly features–we just wish the hardware and the BIOS weren’t locked away.
====
It’s interesting to note that they comment on how the hardware being old, only having 1GB of RAM, and BIOS being locked away & an older processor as “bad,” when in reality, media centers are NOT meant to be used as regular everyday PCs. Playing DVDs, videos, pictures, and music are not processor intensive – but stability and reliability then becomes THE most important factor in the equation. How many of you here have known someone who have had:
1. a computer that “froze”
2. accidentally loaded spyware, viruses, or other malware
3. try to install new programs or change software, which then broke something, or worse
4. opened up their computer to “fix” something, only to make it stop the PC from working completely
These are the exact reasons why the VidaBox is essentially “locked down” and uses older generation components. All the bugs have been worked out, and there are no stability concerns. There are no user-serviceable parts. If it does break, there’s a “bumper-to-bumper” warranty on the VidaBox. It also has VidaSafe™, which protects against hard drive failure, one of the most disasterous forms of system failure.
Furthermore, was any of the following tested?
1. Did it connect to a receiver properly and pass through the SPDIF audio without problems?
2. Did the analog surround outputs function properly?
3. Was it able to show high definition content without streaking or stuttering?
4. How was the uptime? Did it crash at all?
5. How was the DVD playback quality? Were the decoders set up properly?
6. Can it record shows properly, without skipping or stuttering?
7. Was it able to stream music and video?
Instead, (disappointingly) it went through tests of:
1. Multitasking test (Even though it’s not meant to be used as a PC)
2. Adobe Photoshop CS2 image-processing test (Why no high-definition test?)
3. Apple iTunes encoding test (A more proper test would have been to use the ripper within MCE, not iTunes)
4. Microsoft Office productivity test (Again, why run it for a media center?)
Yes, those are excellent, real-world tests – for a computer. However, none of the tests perform quantify how the system performs as a media center in a home theater environment.
In the end, we were rated a 6.4 – Good, which translates into:
6.0 to 6.9 (Good):
This range represents a product that is above average. Its strengths slightly outweigh its weaknesses, making it good for most uses but not a standout.
The tests are scientifically valid, and the rating is VERY accurate if the SLIM were to be rated as a computer. CNet does an excellent job of reviewing desktop computers – but media centers and their breathern deserve a category of their own – not to be categorized along with Dell XPS’s and other gaming PC/desktops.
So, short of the fact that it did not have a bleeding edge processor, only 1 GB of RAM, and a sealed case (with no user servicable parts, by the way), and despite the fact that we state it is NOT to be tested as a PC – according to the review, “we didn’t run into any performance issues with basic Media Center tasks.” Interesting enough, here’s what a 9 is defined as:
9.0 to 9.9 (Spectacular):
A product that receives a rating in this range scores high on all of its rating criteria. It succeeds at meeting all of its intended users’ needs and has no meaningful drawbacks.
Now, I’m not saying that the CNet rating is wrong – because a 6.4 is what the SLIM deserves if it was a PC – but it’s not.
Notably, none of our competitors ever got above a 7 – except for the Niveus Denali Edition, which costs a whooping $6,298, as tested. Personally, even as a competitor, I felt that the Niveus should have gotten a 8 or even a 9. It really is a good design, even if is a bit expensive. Why? Because it meets its intended purpose and performs well.
Folks – please, if you are looking to buy a VidaBox to use as a computer – consider the LUX, MAX, or our new SLIM Limited Edition instead. These models have dedicated graphics and the latest hardware. We are all about customer satisfaction – and we’ll tell you right now you won’t be happy with the SLIM Standard model for heavy video processing or encoding. It is not meant to be used as a desktop PC. It was designed to be a small, feature-packed media center for a home theater.
Putting a the SLIM media center through a desktop test is like running a Ferrari or a Mustang through a fuel efficiency test – it makes no sense when the test does not relate to its design purpose & does not quantify intended performance characteristics.
To properly review a media center, one would practically have to invent a new category and a new set of testing standards. I have some suggestions and thoughts as to what those standards should be, which will be covered in another post.
(To be Continued…)
