Not really, THG is after more content, rather than good content. Same as sponsored car ads make more money than a bunch of enthusiasts talking about how uber low their temps are.
Not really, THG is after more content, rather than good content.
More content, good content? I have been slowly been becoming less familiar with such from the editorial staff. Or perhaps I am mistaken. I seem to remember a couple articles about a QX9770 written some months ago, praising Intel and how its working hard to supply us with new processors. Well, the first article called the QX9770 a paper tiger, but a few days later was an article that said the QX9770 was real and would soon be in our hands, along with a new X48 motherboard. Seen any of those "real" CPUs for sale?
Maybe that was a hint of the future. Can't say for sure. What did you name it, TC, the TomQuirerZilla? Lest I be mistaken, I'd rather see articles written about products that are real, that I can buy at Newegg or some other e-tailer, and not about products that are in the distant, unknown future, products that may in fact never be delivered.
Maybe the car ads arent' so bad.
---------------
Evil lurks in the databanks as it lurked in the streets of yesteryear. But it was never the streets that were evil.
Charlie is an ignorant imbecile who wouldnt know what a CPU was is it was shoved up his behind. His reputation, outside the Horde and horde cliques who love him since he himself is an AMD fanboy, is that of fallacious supposition. His only purposes are sensationalism and promotion of his opinions with absolutle disregard for any facts which contradict his opinion. His employment is a clear signal of the direction that BoM wants to take Toms - all advertising, all the the time, with no care for accuracy.
The reasons his reviews are "short and sweet" is that they refelect charlies intelectual capacity - short. While thats great for the brainless consumer (bovine), for people who actually want to know what they are getting for their money, those reviews amount to little more than paid adverts.
Well I must say this is the sort of paid comments you get from an Intel fanatic who constantly whips the brood into frenzied anti-AMD comments that derail threads, and personally belittles others with opposing (or even neutral) opinions.
It is clear we need some change here ... Having editors with a different view is refreshing and I am sure the articles will be far less Intel orientated.
As for you my fine friend ...
You know what to do ...
Find Jack and join him.
That sort of personal attack is unwarranted and frankly the sort of bahaviour that requires banning.
Be man enough and do the right thing - apologise sincerely or leave.
Well I must say this is the sort of paid comments you get from an Intel fanatic who constantly whips the brood into frenzied anti-AMD comments that derail threads, and personally belittles others with opposing (or even neutral) opinions.
It is clear we need some change here ... Having editors with a different view is refreshing and I am sure the articles will be far less Intel orientated.
As for you my fine friend ...
You know what to do ...
Find Jack and join him.
That sort of personal attack is unwarranted and frankly the sort of bahaviour that requires banning.
Be man enough and do the right thing - apologise sincerely or leave.
Message edited by TechnologyCoordinator on 02-14-2008 at 12:57:43 PM
Well I must say this is the sort of paid comments you get from an Intel fanatic who constantly whips the brood into frenzied anti-AMD comments that derail threads, and personally belittles others with opposing (or even neutral) opinions.
It is clear we need some change here ... Having editors with a different view is refreshing and I am sure the articles will be far less Intel orientated.
As for you my fine friend ...
You know what to do ...
Find Jack and join him.
That sort of personal attack is unwarranted and frankly the sort of bahaviour that requires banning.
Be man enough and do the right thing - apologise sincerely or leave.
I haven't seen a neutral opinion in Mr. Demerjian article. And, as matter of fact, i actually don't want to see an opinion at all in an article.
I don't know about you but i'm not fourteen and people don't have to draw conclusions for me or pass their opinion onto me. If i'm given factual information i can make up my mind on my own. How can i trust in such articles or take them serious? If the author writes:
"This means that the CrossfireX architecture will have to be completely redone if they want an XP version, something they deemed not worth doing at this point, and I hate to say that I agree with the decision, but I do. That said, because of this, you are never going to see more than 2 GPUs working on XP making CrossfireX pointless to anyone not liking the tools that come with Vista. That would be me." I have to seriously consider the authors writing as garbage. The factual content could be condensed into a single sentence without the words "me" or "i hate to say" etc. I don't want to read articles made by bloggers or sales people but by journalists and real writers. I could even live with a blogger that seriously tries to write an article, but all i have seen is something i would expect on the front page of the "sun", "the globe" or "the national inquirer".
If THG is to be turned into a cheap blog or supermarket tabloid, please someone tell me.
THG has been an Intel paid site for some time ... the forums are a different matter ... tho at present the broodlings seem to be multiplying with turpit's unhealthy mothering.
Even in the FX days this site posted crap benchies claiming the P4's were great.
What about the D vs X2 4 day trial under load?
A good site Like Anand's would have flogged Intel for the crap stability of their rig.
THG merely covered the whole thing up.
TC your post doesn't count ... your just an appendage ... you know what I mean fact boy?
THG has been an Intel paid site for some time ... the forums are a different matter ... tho at present the broodlings seem to be multiplying with turpit's unhealthy mothering.
