Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

NO PR Paper 6200 Event at TH ??

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 11, 2004 6:40:46 PM

Simply THank you. I'm still waitting to be able to find
any GF6800 Ultra months afters the... Release..
BS !!!
Greetings to you. Hope you'll not have to regret it. If it's the case, simply come back doing [-peep-], like the others.

Bye bye

Ebe

More about : paper 6200 event

October 11, 2004 7:03:39 PM

I agree, thanks THG. Nothing I hate more than reading about a device and not able to buy it anywhere.

***patiently waiting for 10Ghz processors and immersible virtual reality***
a b U Graphics card
October 11, 2004 9:59:04 PM

Yeah, I say good for them. I'm happy they took the stand not to play pawn in the PR battles.

ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 1GB Corsair XMS 4000 Pro Series, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
Related resources
October 11, 2004 10:22:53 PM

They just gave Nvidia the ol' kick in the nuts. Who would want any PR with a product like the 6200 any way.

-----------------------
oh, its a nice day. TO EAT CHILDREN!!!
October 11, 2004 11:45:40 PM

Actually, considering the depth of the review at anandtech for this, it seems that either
A.) THG is out of the loop or
B.) THG is feeling lazy
C.) Some combination of A and B

Most hardware reviews on the THG site seem to be paper releases (see a lot of the chip articles that basically say "Here's what a Pentium or Athlon 3 months from now will look like"). Sounds like whining....

I'm just your average habitual smiler =D
a b U Graphics card
October 12, 2004 12:51:39 AM

Other sites like firingsquad just had a preview and no card to test. Anand maybe got one of the few cards for payback from past PR help. :wink:


ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 1GB Corsair XMS 4000 Pro Series, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
October 12, 2004 4:16:58 AM

THG is an enthusiast's site, so they will enjoy making "what the future looks like" articles. I see no bearing on that with their decision.

--
<font color=blue>Ede</font color=blue>
October 12, 2004 4:20:07 AM

Omid's the man. Always had a stance I appreciated, and his past rants got the community discussing. Some will attack him, but I say he's a great guy leading THG. His stance is one tough one, and I assume nVidia may just deride THG from now on for fun.

Either way, a 6200 article IS in the works, but for the first time, a thorough test and a comfortably written one will be done. I am guessing Lars had enough of no-sleep testing!

It's definitely high time hardware websites stand up to the companies. We're not getting any product that is reviewed or advertised, for Christ's sake! In the end, who are they reviewing the product to? The company?

--
<font color=blue>Ede</font color=blue><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 10/12/04 00:20 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
October 12, 2004 4:21:28 AM

One thing to note is that ATi is also concerned in the article.
Granted, nVidia definitely has a play in this, probably more so than ATi because of their past actions and the driver playing they do, but ATi hasn't done any better giving us X800s.

--
<font color=blue>Ede</font color=blue>
a b U Graphics card
October 12, 2004 12:35:57 PM

Quote:
Actually, considering the depth of the review at anandtech for this, it seems that...

They have a special relationship with nVidia, or would that be too obvious?

Hmmm, in the past they've been given cards before anyone else with beta-beta drivers, in which only they were officially allowed to releease the review before anyone else (before their NDAs were up). Sounds like a special relationship which others aren't privy to.

And considering the poor qualityof Anand's reviews, especially the amount of errors (that can be attributed to rushing), I wouldn't say that's anyting to strive for.

Anandtech does not come up as being tops for review quality. They may get something out fast, but you can be sure alot of other sites do a far better job at reviewing than they do.

Better to get it right than to produce a review that will be ignored and discounted shortly after it's posting.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: 
a b U Graphics card
October 12, 2004 1:02:57 PM

Yeah I mentioned this with the X700 review.

While we all want a taste, really the quick 'reviews' suck, and the 'previews' without benchies would satisfy most with a 3Dmark score or two with the knowledge that quality reviews were to follow.

Even [H] was rushed in their review, and it shows.

Even Anand has holes in their review with some cards not making all the tests (where's the X300 in the HL benchie, just the X300SE [who thought that would be the better choice to compare to?]).

Before there were papr launches where the Reviewers spent days if not weeks with engineering samples and ground the heck out fo them, and then we had a review, which was then followed by the 2-4month wait for actual product (when it was a true paper launch).

Now we're seeing card basically being rushed to reviewers (likely solder still warm) so they can get them out there to halt anyone's planned purchase of current competing products. Even if they can only get a dozen boards in total into stores then they can say 'it's available' even though those first few samples will be gone within hours (likely full of bugs, faulty bioses, and fab issues), and resplacements will take that 2-4 month cycle to acctually reach real retail quantities.

This goes for both companies, although I believe the idea of halting current purchases is the tactic of one company who's not seeing their purchases in these segments strengthen. Expect the other company to have similar tactics with it's release of it's new chip in the spring (betcha we hear alot about it come X-mas buying time).

It's nice to see THG make a stand, I'd like to hear/read Lars/Borsti's view of this as he's the usual Graphics-Guy (and even the German THG doesn't have him making the statement). And while it's a nice stand if few other review sites do it, I'm not sure how much it will accomplish if it's just an 'open letter to ATI/nV', versus being a policy of not rushing reviews and getting serious about the content. If that's the case, that's always a good thing.

When THG and Xbit have to partner with other sites simply to run enough benchies and tests to give us a good brief glimpse of hardware, then there's something very wrong. It's better to do it right the first time then to have to print updates and retractions later (anyone remember Anand's GF6800+FartCry 1.2patch+DX9.0c review? Ooops why would adding AA+AF change fps? :lol:  )

I will look forward to this one review likely more than any other recent review at THG simply because they've basically set the stage for a quality review. Without that, there's not much point in taking a stand against reviewing another paper-launch versus just writing an editorial.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: 
October 12, 2004 4:44:52 PM

If this is just for GeForce 6200, then it's useless. If it's the beginning of the end of reviewing paper launch products, then it's not a bad idea, but not a great idea either. A paper launch product is always unavailable, no matter it's reviewed or not. What's so wrong with getting the review before seeing the product in the market? Most of the enthusiasts like to have a look at leaked, unofficial beta product benchmarks long before the product launch date. Now don't tell me that they don't like to see reviews of the official prouct ASAP.

And about Omid's "greatness": Omid is so great that now I check for THG articles after I finish reading Anandtech and other articles. Before I used to visit THG before visiting any other hardware website. If he's doing "great" as THG editor, then I must say he has done a great job of converting an enthusiast website to a marketing website. Now he's trying to say that "THG doesn't want to be a marketing website". Really great!

------------
<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig</A> & <A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/benchmark.html" target="_new">3DMark score</A>
October 12, 2004 6:23:50 PM

There's nothing more boring than the truth.

Athlon 2500+, Asus A7N8X Deluxe Rev2, 768Mb Corsair XMS 5-2-2-2.5, Sapphire 9800 Pro 128Mb, Seagate SATA 80Gb, Fortron-Source FSP400-60PFN
October 12, 2004 8:31:03 PM

I think you hit the nail on the head.

I'm just your average habitual smiler =D
October 12, 2004 8:49:19 PM

Anandtech articles occasaionly have flaws, THG articles have flaws, too. Number of flawed THG articles publish in last 2 year are by no means less than flawed Anandtech. And this is not taking "rushed articles" launched on the fist NDA closing date.

When it comes to admitting errors and correcting them, Anandtech is far better than THG. THG is very stubborn when it comes to admitting and correcting errors.

This all happend in Omid's reign. Tom should hire a 12 years old kid to edit THG. He won't do worse than Omid, but will do the job for significanly less salary


------------
<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig</A> & <A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/benchmark.html" target="_new">3DMark score</A>
October 12, 2004 10:05:39 PM

Good for Tom's for not bowing down and becoming a slave to corporate garbage pr strategies. Much respect.

Asus p4c800 Deluxe,1 Gig Mushkin PC3200 Dual Channel 400 Mhz(222),Pentium 4 3.0 512k 800fsb HT, Thermaltake Xaser III, Thermaltake Spark 7+, Sound Blaster Audigy2 ZS Platinum Pro, eVGA GeForce 6800 GT
October 13, 2004 3:48:20 AM

Yeah, THG likes to be paid "-----" of Corporate Garbage PR strategies. It's quite understandable that they just don't want to be slave without any extra bonus.

I think everybody has forgot THG's "Special HT supplemental" (it happened in Omid's reign, of course). I have never seen such shameless display of preaching marketing propaganda in a respectable hardware review website. These people can open a special section to preach marketing propaganda, just if they get big ammount of money. Now they're saying that they don't want to be "pawn" of corporate PR strategies. Yeah, why they would like to be pawn, when they're used to be queen?


------------
<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig</A> & <A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/benchmark.html" target="_new">3DMark score</A>
October 13, 2004 8:57:41 AM

I waited a few days to see other peoples oppinion.
I must say that I am surprised, very surprised, to find
so many people buying in to this crap about being
"more honest" than all other hardware sites.

I thought THG was a HARDWARE REVIEW SITE.
I want to read reviews, or previews, of the latest stuff.
I don't care if it is called paperlaunches.
I want to know what is coming, as far ahead in time
as possible.
That's the only way there is to know if I should update
one component today or wait another six months.

To me this means that THG who used to be FIRST with
all the news I want, will now be LAST.

If Omid has such little respect and understanding
of his readers interrest, he need to find a new job.

//Xtian

I woke up one morning, and then that day was ruined.
October 13, 2004 9:39:47 AM

I made an anti-Omid <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new">poll</A> few months ago. <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&..." target="_new">Here's the result</A>

59% people didn't want to see Omid as THG editor


------------
<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig</A> & <A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/benchmark.html" target="_new">3DMark score</A>
October 13, 2004 11:34:28 AM

I've heard all the bad things said about THG, but I never spent any time in these forums.
I wish I had.
I read Omids reply to your poll:

Quote:
I think you think I care.

I don't.

You need to learn proper English before you call people names.

You need to get a life.

You need to relax, and find a member of the opposite sex, or someone that
will give you some release.

Masturbate. Just masturbate.

How difficult can it be?

I don't care about Intel, or AMD, or whatever. If you don't get what I write,
don't read it. You, obviously, don't get it. You spew bile and venom.
You are a sick person.

How difficult can it be NOT to read something?

I am sure Tom will fire me at some point so, don't worry about it.
Just let it happen in its own good time.

Good luck.

Omid.
End quote.

Oh dear.......
So that's how Omid express his oppinions in the forums...
Is Thomas Pabst aware of this?
If he is, and stand behind what Omid says, it's not time
for Omid to ge fired, it is time for all of us readers
to quit reading THG.

Omid, I hope you read this.
It is a shame for someone in your position to express
yourself like this. It is extremely unprofessional and
unethical.

I woke up one morning, and then that day was ruined.
October 13, 2004 12:25:32 PM

HAHA, you need to find a member of the opposite sex, haha, how old is Omid 4?

Asus p4c800 Deluxe,1 Gig Mushkin PC3200 Dual Channel 400 Mhz(222),Pentium 4 3.0 512k 800fsb HT, Thermaltake Xaser III, Thermaltake Spark 7+, Sound Blaster Audigy2 ZS Platinum Pro, eVGA GeForce 6800 GT
October 13, 2004 12:29:50 PM

AFAIK, it was Omid's last post in the forums. Omid actually doesn't post like this in the forums. Though the reply was nowhere near professional quality, it wasn't unnatural for him to get mad at me (I had posted a poll like this 1.5+ year ago, Omid won confidence of majority that time). However when he posted something in the forums, he helped only to create but 100+ page thread long debate over his controversial opinions. Except his well known "columns" and some business expo. coverage article, I've never ever seen an article written by Omid. You won't find a similar example in other major hardware review websites.

Anyway, Omid is not the main topic of discussion here. I'm not entirely against his current decesion of not reviewing paper launched products, but I fail to see what's so "ethical" about this decesion. Most of the enthusiasts want to know about released products as early as possible. So many people including me don't think that it's a great idea. Omid's name comes since he's THG editor, the writer of the latest column and some people are applauding him about his "highly ethical" decesion.

------------
<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig</A> & <A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/benchmark.html" target="_new">3DMark score</A>
October 13, 2004 1:00:50 PM

This is a hardware review site, but they're taking a stand against hardware reviews? Huh?

The entire computer hardware industry is about "fastest to the market". What's the first thing anybody does after installing any type of hardware drivers?....search the Internet for a patch/update !! That's the way this industry works. But THG doesn't want to work within these parameters???? And worse yet they seem to be proud of this, as if somehow they alone can "save" us poor, oppressed computer people, who apparently up until now have been standing in line anxious to give away our money to products that don't exist.?

When THG says "Game Over...", they fail to realize that's not a game. It's about a video manufacturer surviving in a very competitive environment, (not to mention all the people employed in these plants and their families.) Would THG finally be satisfied if ATI had a monopoly over video cards? Probably...then they wouldn't have to "rush around" a few days a month, trying to write a review.

MoJo
a b U Graphics card
October 13, 2004 1:01:06 PM

Quote:
I waited a few days to see other peoples oppinion.

Why because you need others to form your opinions for you?

Quote:
I must say that I am surprised, very surprised, to find
so many people buying in to this crap about being
"more honest" than all other hardware sites.

Where does it say they are more honest, or that people think that this makes them more honest? Perhaps you need to read the actual article instead of other people's opinions.

Quote:
I don't care if it is called paperlaunches.

Of course you don't, no one told you to care, so you don't know why you would. However the companies themselves seem to care, and have policies to not paper-launch products; and while that worked well in the defined leader role, now the power of the paperlaunch to influence people like yourself is enough for both companies to bend their own rules. Now they create virtual paper launches by releasing engineering samples to select stores as if they were at full blown production just so they can appear on pricewatch. Who cares if less than 100 cards are sold in each continent, you CAN order them, so it's a good thing you put off that purchase of Xxxx product six months ago because the card you wanted is launched now. Of course you yourself won't see one for ANOTHER 4-6 months.

Quote:
I want to know what is coming, as far ahead in time
as possible.

Well then The InQ is your only answer, always has been always will be. There you can get the rumours, fact and fiction, long before most other sites, and consistently the first to 'print'. However what you may be reading will be FUD so of course you may be making your decision based on phantom hardware. Not that it'd matter to anyone who knows how to upgrade.

<A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19039" target="_new">Interstingly enough the InQ's take on this involves nV playing favourites</A>, which DOESN'T respect the readers of THG.

Quote:
I thought THG was a HARDWARE REVIEW SITE.

It is, and still remains among the best; but I guess the concept of validity and thoroughness just doesn't matter to someone like yourself.

Quote:
If Omid has such little respect and understanding
of his readers interrest, he need to find a new job.

Completely missed their point didn't you? If anything it's because they know how we feel about the reviews that they did this. That the review sites should have to rush to get their reviews done doesn't benifit anyone and gives people an incomplete picture. The reviews by sites like Digit-Life, Xbit, ComputerBase, TheTechReport usually come out after the rest, and they are usually far more revealing than a dozen graphs at 4-5 settings. They take the time to do it thoroughly. [H] usually has very thorough reviews, but if you look at this one, they obviously could've used more time to run tests the way they want.

You want speedy reviews then read Anand's or Hexus' reviews, you want quality reviews then look for a site that takes the time to do it right, and of course if you don't like THG's reviews no one's forcing you to read them and you can look elsewhere.

As for OMID's comments in that thread (personally I don't care one way or the other), you really need to edjucate yourself about what the 'OTHER' section is all about, because as a n00b who seems unaware of that section you look silly commenting on his statements. OMID like anyone else there has the right to say what he wants as long as it doesn't cross the VERY FEW rules that the OTHER section has. And if you don't like that, then don't go there, whether someone links you there or not.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: 
a b U Graphics card
October 13, 2004 1:21:45 PM

Well for breaking news no one beats the InQ (except occasionally EB which post different info usually). The only better way to get insider or 'ahead of the curve' information is to participate in B3D's forums. So there's no way that anyone's going to beat those sources, especially not as a reviewer or review site.

The thing that seems to be important here is that nV (and maybe/probably ATI, dunno) is playing favourites. If N.Am. review sites are getting the product early, but the Euro sites are getting them late and have overly tight timelines with which to do testing and write the review, then that doesn't benifit us, and THG (through Omid and the other authors [others are credited on the other language versions of THG]) taking a stand hopefully helps us. How many times have we read, 'we didn't have time to test....', or even 'because of time constraints we didn't have time to run all the tests we wanted or to do IQ comparisons..'. It benifits the card manufacturers to control the tests and not get the full picture, not us. To me a better idea would be to announce the card, and then to release the benchies once they have been done properly. But of course the card companies prefer to have 'KickA$$ Awards' and Buyer's/Editor's Choice awards to pump in their launch announcements along with the other BS.

Alot of sites do the smart thing and do a preview first without any benchies, except maybe 3Dmark, and then later come back to do an in-depth review once they get their own cards (most people don't seem to realise that the bord makers tend to take back the test cards so that extensive tests can't be done). This offers the balance of showing the new hardware and it's basic design/strengths, and then actually looking to see if the reality lives up to the hype.
What it appears that the goal of this article was is to try and shift the power back into the hands of the reviewers so they can give us quality information. There are very few companies out there that have the power but THG is one of them. [H] took a similar stance last year, even going so far as to tangle far more seriously with nV than FM did, and they got their resposnes and they still remain among the top of the game.

PErsonally I think these actions reflect the general feelings of alot of the people here who would prefer a good review to fluff, but of course maybe that's just me.
What I'd really like ot see is LARS' personal take, but as a member of the review/editing staff I'd be surprised if he'd comment (good or bad) simply for solidarity and clarity of message reasons.

As for OMID, well that's your little battle, and really before this article, and your original poll, he's had no impact on my time or experiences here or in the reviews section.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: 
October 13, 2004 1:52:49 PM

Quote:
What it appears that the goal of this article was is to try and shift the power back into the hands of the reviewers so they can give us quality information.

The power was, is and always always will be into the hands of the reviewers, especially when it comes to big names like THG. I think this "showdown" of power is stupid. Reviewers try to release the review ASAP and maintain good quality for their own good. Product manufacturers get benefit if they get a good review of their product, this is why they give free review samples. There's no "conflict" between the goal of two sides. As you said, they could've released a short article now, followed by a detailed article later. But why this desperation to be "ethical"?

They could've done this at the time of GeForce 6800, 6600 series release. But why they chose GeForce 6200? Maybe they were too afraid to lose page hits with previous big events. Now they think that they can play a gamble with a lesser event. Isn't this enought to prove that there's not so much "ethics" beind this column.

Another thing to note, we always see Lars wrting graphics card related editorial. This is the first time I saw an Omid editorial written specifically about ATI/Nvidia.


------------
<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig</A> & <A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/benchmark.html" target="_new">3DMark score</A>
a b U Graphics card
October 13, 2004 2:26:55 PM

Quote:
There's no "conflict" between the goal of two sides.

I think you're wrong there. I think the quality investigative review is the fear and nader to everything ATI/nV marketing PR/FUD tries to accomplish.

The Card Mfrs want to control the reviewers by limiting access and limiting their time with the product before launch.

In reality it seems like this is a combination of two 'errors'.

1) nV F'ed up their delivery of test product to the EU reviewers, supposedly some only having the card hours before launch time.

2) THG took the last minute arrival of product as a continuation of the time limiting trend that has occured in the Graphics market, and didn't want to play the managed PR game.

I think this combination of factors lead to the article.

Personally I agree with the article's main idea. We've had this discussion before about PaperLaunches, and it seems like it's time to revisit it. However it's going to be harder to argue 'true paper launches' vs limited release (how many X800XTPE and GF6800Us let alone UEs are out there?).

Quote:
They could've done this at the time of GeForce 6800, 6600 series release. But why they chose GeForce 6200?

Well like I said above I think it has something to do with the timing of deliveries in this case. But I don't see how finally taking a stand counts in any way against the statement itself. If they had snapped the first time this happened (they have mentioned issues like this before as part of reviews) then they would be seen as being rash and judging things based on one event. IT appears that this time the tightness of schedule was so close that they said enough! You could be right in that it's a '<i>who gives a rats a$$ about a cheapo card anyway</i>' review that is easy to 'boycott'.

Quote:
Another thing to note, we always see Lars wrting graphics card related editorial. This is the first time I saw an Omid editorial written specifically about ATI/Nvidia.

Yeah I mentioned that earlier.

If you look at the other language versions of the site it's others who are writing it (even the German isn't written by Lars). So it seems to be a formal THG decision/policy article.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: 
October 13, 2004 3:07:55 PM

I think this was a response to a whole whack of marketing crap that reviewers are tired of putting up with. Frankly, I'm tired of it myself.


1- Preview cards having specifications that are changed by the time they reach the market. I mean, you have to manufacture these cards in volume don't you? Jesus murphy, decide on a clockspeed before sending them out to reviewers for chrissake!

2- Paper launches... holy crap. We all know how well cards perform that aren't for all intents and purposes on the market yet. Previews are important, and I like to see how upcoming hardware will perform, but the card companies shouldn't be launching these things so irresponsibly. It's crazy.

3- Giving the review sites so little time. What is the excuse for this? If they have the cards today, they could have had them yesterday. Why needlessly punish the reviewers like this? Insane.


Are there any solutions to any of this? Well, if I had a hardware review site I think I'd handle the way I'd do reviews a little diffrently.

Basically, unless a card was easily available at retail, I'd call it a "preview". In a "preview", I'd concentrate more on card features and technical specs.

I'd never do overclocking tests on a "preview" card, because engineering samples are usually very different from their retail conterparts (especially the memory used!).

In a "preview", I would bench the card only using a few non-standard benchmarks and seldom reviewed games... no Doom3, no Quake, no HL2. These games are so heavily driver-optimized by the time the paper released cards are actually in stores, the benchmarks would be useless anyway.

And on principle, I'd never release any review or preview sooner than 48 hours after the moment I recieved the card, just to let the video card companies know I mean business.

Once the cards are released en-masse, I'd do a full review ON A RETAIL CARD, which will have the final and actual clockspeeds, using popular games and overclocking the bugger to see what happens.

That's how I'd do it if I ran a hardware site, anyway. Cleeve's Hardware Guide.com!

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9700 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 332/345)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>3200+</b></font color=red> <i>(Barton 2500+ o/c 400 FSB)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>5,354</b>
a b U Graphics card
October 13, 2004 4:14:11 PM

Exactly.

Marketing BS + Ficticious Cards!

Quote:
3- Giving the review sites so little time. What is the excuse for this? If they have the cards today, they could have had them yesterday. Why needlessly punish the reviewers like this? Insane.

Yeah I never got this. In some reviews (can't remember which THG one it was [I think the X800series]) They (Lars et al.) were given a specific time slot to bench and in order to get in enough runs, they had to share time with another site. Xbit had to do that for one of their reviews to and shared time with ComputerBase. It's brutal that it's that rushed/regimented (IIRC ATI's tests were with ATI reps in the rooms and on pre-selected rigs etc).
That some of these card MFRs have such tight guidelines and then force the review sites to return the cards so no further tests can be performed sux! I agree preview is just that. But I wouldn't mind if it was like a multi-chapter review that's updated with new games and new test, and any new findings (like bugs/IQ issues).


Let's hope this has a postive effect on the industry, and isn't simply ignored as rantings/whining.

This definitly isn't a tantrum and there is alot of people behind the sentiments expressed (as I think both you and I are). I just don't know if it's enough to overcome the marketing mavens in the IHV's head offices who don't seem to care about the actual customer so much as their money, not realizing that many of those wallets are attached to functioning brains.

Quote:
Cleeve's Hardware Guide.com!

I put that url into my machine and it made my computer reboot and say "You're not Worthy! :tongue: "


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: 
October 13, 2004 6:01:50 PM

I'm not supporting paper launch or I'm not saying THG's decision is entirely wrong. I think their decision is good from one POV and bad from another POV.

From the so called "rushed" reviews, I'm fairly confident that GeForce 6200 is a decent card, not a next gen POS like FX5200. FX5200/FX5600 series was proved terrible in early reviews and now with mature benchmarking conditions, they have no sign of improvement. Radeon 9600 Pro/XT was proved good in early reviews and they're still good with mature conditions.

The main thing I'm trying to say, that THG doesn't have a face to say something like this.

They've reviewed countless paper launch products before.

2 years ago, they've done full blown review of an engineering sample CPU that has never been even paper launched. I'm talking about 3.6 GHz Northwood P4 "engineering sample" review. According to many readers, that CPU was just a multiplier unlocked sample, not clocked @ 3.6 GHz by Intel.

There has been many flawed articles in recent past, which weren't "rushed" work. 65 CPU comparison article is a perfect example. No CPU used for that article was released 2 days before the article, but the article was full of errors and stupid comments. Time is not the only requirement for a decent article. THG article quality is declining, though quanity (and new stupid section like "Games") is increasing.

I think, this is a typical "attention wanting" Omid rant. Maybe THG had less page hits recently despite lots of newly pubished articles, and Omid is trying to increase page hits/get attention, but isn't confident enough to do this in a bigger PR event. I hope it will be ignored by hardware manufacturers. Cheap way of getting attention must die. Consumers' befit is ZERO from this rant, no matter hardware manufaturers listen to or ingore this.


------------
<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig</A> & <A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/benchmark.html" target="_new">3DMark score</A>
October 14, 2004 3:07:06 AM

You know what is interesting about all these registered newbies?

None of them have tried to put themselves in the reviewer's shoes, like we did here. Remember when Lars posted a few weeks ago? And PaulDH was commending him on his utter committment and endless time spent to make the VGA Charts IV?

I think none of these read such posts, let alone know how reviewers feel. Let's just ignore them, bleh...

--
<font color=blue>Ede</font color=blue>
October 14, 2004 3:16:41 AM

Quote:
2 years ago, they've done full blown review of an engineering sample CPU that has never been even paper launched. I'm talking about 3.6 GHz Northwood P4 "engineering sample" review. According to many readers, that CPU was just a multiplier unlocked sample, not clocked @ 3.6 GHz by Intel.

THG isn't perfect. They make errors. They were called on them, and changed their game. Did you see any more uncalled or unmentioned doctoring of photos?

Or how about the fact no more comments are used on CPU reviews? Remember how much criticism there was towards Frank and Bert? Not to mention the powerful yet funny satire by Bbaeyens? (P4Man now)
They don't add comments now anymore, in relation to the results. They listened, we made a statement.

Quote:
There has been many flawed articles in recent past, which weren't "rushed" work. 65 CPU comparison article is a perfect example. No CPU used for that article was released 2 days before the article, but the article was full of errors and stupid comments. Time is not the only requirement for a decent article. THG article quality is declining, though quanity (and new stupid section like "Games") is increasing.

Not every article will please people, or come out perfect.

I've personally loved recent CPU and graphics card reviews by THG. I just can't seem to find problems with them. Do you? Got anything to tell Lars about his work?

--
<font color=blue>Ede</font color=blue>
October 14, 2004 3:18:09 AM

On a side topic, how do you guys find the new layout?

It's not bad, at least I don't have to scroll down because sometimes an article is either updated or there is something new but isn't ordered at the top, making me sometimes miss it unless I scroll down.

It feels a bit tight though. Might contact Fredi about it. The colors may need some change too IMO.

--
<font color=blue>Ede</font color=blue>
October 14, 2004 4:12:29 AM

I think Lars and THG's graphics sections is doing pretty good. Unlike the only CPU comparison chart THG ever made, all VGA charts are almost perfect. But except graphics section, I've lost interest in most of the sections. I think Xbit and Anandtech are doing better CPU reviews these days. And other few other THG sections occasionally have interesting stuff, but they're not regular enough.


------------
<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig</A> & <A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/benchmark.html" target="_new">3DMark score</A>
a b U Graphics card
October 14, 2004 5:05:08 AM

I respect what you're saying, my view differs because I never did include the CPU side since it has less of an impact to me (very little iffyness to me compared to partial precision, cheats, SM support, drivers, etc). So my experience has been of fairly good quality reviews but seemingly more and more rushed ones of late. And I personally saw this as a Graphics-centric rant/statement.

I understand your cynicism, and I agree in someways, but I also think that like I said in another thread it was the perfect card to send a warning shot over the inductry's bow without risking sinking either ship.

You don't want to make enemies, you want to make a point, so you make a stand in what is really an otherwise inconsequential review/card. In fact this may be the most interesting thing about this launch, because really which enthusiast really cares PERSONALLY about this card other than for info sake. If it was a more impactfull card like even the GF6600/X700 releases, then more people would be talking about the card and release then about this little tiff, which does have a point, and hopefully doesn't get lost in other issues (including the english version's author's past).

Perhaps that better explains my point, and while you may not agree with it, I just want you to understand I have no interest in the participants themselves, be they the people or the entities they represent.

And I sincerely hope that this does impact the industry, because I think that's in all of our best interests, but I respect that you may not feel the same and have your doubts, because realistically how much impact do any of us have beyond the almighty dollar?

Now is that cynical enough? :wink:


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: 
a b U Graphics card
October 14, 2004 5:18:38 AM

About the format, I always have high resolutions (except on laptop), and at 16x12 and 19x14 everything looks significantly smaller than before. On the laptop right now (while watching Kerry and GW dumb each other down in CNN repeat) the layout looks just right, but that's at 1024x768 which is really so 2000-2002! :lol: 

I also didn't like it when it changed in the Graphics section (combining video+monitors etc) it's now many more steps/clicks to get to the information, and it seems the same way with the new layout.

The thing that I also enjoyed before was that the most recent reviews were at the top bringing their sections with them and exposing me to something I may have missed, so depending on the 'movement' of the the sections it may be hard to determine what's what.

But I can't complain, it's not like it's become Hexus. :lol: 


As for the nOObs, ahh watever, they're ATI and nV plants to mess with our heads and spread Forum-FUD. :evil: 


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: 
October 14, 2004 5:40:44 AM

Yeah that's one qualm I have, they don't label the new articles' sections, not even color coding.

I do want the space though, it feels choked. A good web design is one that lets you breath, in general. Exceptions apply if the design is more visual, but in cases like this, too much text hurts a lot.

--
<font color=blue>Ede</font color=blue>
October 14, 2004 7:33:35 AM

Of course you can disregard everything I say because I'm a noob. As we all know, the one with the highest postcount must be the most knowledgeable...

I still don't understand why you defend Omid. Do you think he is cool because he can write "masturbate" in a forum?
Do you respect him because he has been around in the industry for many years ?
Do you think he is our saviour because he write articles
that upset people?

I can't see that Omid is contributing with anything of
value to THG.
As I have a great respect for THG, which has given me a lot
of valuable information over the years, I get severly worried when a professional hardware site hires a
wistleblower running his own race.
As long as Omid stayed in his corner and just wrote
very bad columns I could live with it, but if gets the
power to change the direction and mission of THG, thats
something I can't just accept.

I want my THG to continue to be a great and professional
hardware review site.
I don't want to see it transformed into weekly world news
of hardware.

THG's mission used to be to review whats going on in
the industry, not to change the industry because they
know better than everyone else what is right or wrong.

THG should give us the facts, then you and me ourself
can judge what is right and wrong.

//Xtian


I woke up one morning, and then that day was ruined.
a b U Graphics card
October 14, 2004 1:10:57 PM

I'd say you definitely need to spend more time in the forums before being able to comment on statements made in the OTHER/Polls forums. As Spitfire said, OMID is not the focus of this thread, and really it says something that he's pointing that out to you. Regardless of who is writing the article it's the content that matters most.

<A HREF="http://world.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?..." target="_new">Does the author being Ewe and it being translated from german to english</A> change anything other than the now poor grammar and syntax? Does the message hold more weight because it is someone you haven't been introduced to (since likely you also do not KNOW Omid either)?

Quote:
THG should give us the facts, then you and me ourself
can judge what is right and wrong.

So why would you be against THG taking a stand in favour of having more time to gather the facts? What you are saying by not supporting the ideas within the statement is that you value the speed at which they can rush a review out far more than trying to get the facts straight the first time.

That you think they are trying to change the industry because they know better than everyone else shows either a misunderstanding of the situation or an unwillingness to even see it from their perspective. If you asked Kyle from [H] and a few of the other trusted reviewers I doubt they would disagree with the crux of the THG article. Even Kyle took a stand of similar sorts last year, so this is not uncommon, and if anything it made their site better.

Of course if you prefer quickly prepared information you can always go to the IHVs sites and read their PR, I'm sure that'll be far more 'factual' than the Weekly World News, err... yeah, sure it will.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: 
October 16, 2004 5:24:49 AM

Quote:
Of course you can disregard everything I say because I'm a noob. As we all know, the one with the highest postcount must be the most knowledgeable...

In this case the one who has the more experience in this forum DOES have more credibility. You can't even put yourself in Lars' shoes or any hardware reviewer of video cards. If you had the decency to read some of his comments around here, you'd have the slightest bit of an idea how much he and others can't take it anymore, they're rushing it all, leaving room for errors. It's stessful and completely unproductive. He's said it in this forum and we know how he feels. And the proof is out there, as Ape showed, with the time sharing of articles with other hardware websites.

So stop whining and start seeing a new perspective already.

Quote:
Do you think he is cool because he can write "masturbate" in a forum?

Actually I enjoyed that kind of comment, just shows he could care less if someone's out to hate him or make Polls against him.
Quote:
Do you respect him because he has been around in the industry for many years ?

At least he knows it and is in contact with it.
Quote:
Do you think he is our saviour because he write articles
that upset people?

I prefer saying it he writes controversial articles. Food for thought.

--
<font color=blue>Ede</font color=blue>
!