>Did you start that whole lame thread about the pic not
>being real? Because whoever did is an idiot, a complete
>moron.
I made the spoof if thats what you mean, yes. And yes it was about the faked picture, as well as about bad benchmarking, copy/paste articles, etc. If you read it, Im sure you noticed that. And I hope it made you laugh, if not, well, though luck, you where one of the few then.
>Why? The caption never stated that it was a 3.3GHz
>processor, it showed a REAL ENGINEERING SAMPLE.
Real ? Not real, the cpu didnt exist. They blanked out serial numbers (I suppose), and a part of that special "grid" which makes perfect sense, no problem with that. But its not coinidence they added a "3.3" there. That was not for covering up their source, and you know it. Besides, they didnt even have to doctor the photo at all, as the real ES which they published later didnt show any serial number information as far as I can remember. And if it did, they could have blurred it out. But it didnt show anything referring to 3.3 Ghz either, so they made a photo to make the review more spectacular. If you dont want to believe that, fine, then don't.
> Now I'm sure Intel keeps track of the numbers on
>engineering samples, which is likely why they covered
>them up!
As I said, its an obvious reason to doctor a photo, but just the serial or identification number, not the clockspeed.
>Anyone accusing anyone of making false claims when in >fact they made no claims is a true idiot
>who doesn't even deserve the right to speak in a forum of >class.
*cough* okay, deny me the right to speak my mind on this classy forum, be my guest. And call me an idiot and a moron if that makes you feel any better. I guess I'm the only one that cares about journalistic integrity around here. The simple fact that after all this hassle, all these discussions, flames we STILL do not know for sure (at least slvr doesnt) if that picture was fake or not, should make you wonder. THG has written a folow up of the article, they have published several posts in this forum on the subject, 100's of people have asked the question, yet *STILL* they have not said: the pic is real, or it is a fake. Such a simple question, yet no straightforward answer. Maybe you find that normal, I don't. And I am going to repeat this for the very last time: the picture itself is not important, the principle *IS*. If we allow them to publish fake pictures, perhaps fake BIOS screenshots, and then they deny it or refuse to answer when questioned, whats next ? temperature measurements of a (overclocked-but-forgot-to-mention-that) cpu, of a non existant XP 3000+, but with fake picture and bios screenshot (but nowhere does it say the shots are real) ? Fake benchmarks, extrapolated quake3 charts ? Is that okay ? I guess it would make me a true idiot for taking issue with that as well, since they wouldnt claim the benchmarks to be "real".
>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third
>class, but it's still class!
Well, I guess I don't fit in this class. Looks to me like THG and THGC deserve each other. Classy people, classy reviews. I'm out a here. Have fun with melty, fugger, Juin & company.
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =