From: palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane)
Subject: Re: Why do we read PC mags?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:50:02 GMT

In <GERRY.93Jan8111215@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:

>Seriously:

>Page 164: data for G2000 wrong... but page 193 its correct.

I assume you're noting that 4MB of RAM were incorrectly listed on page 164, 
but 8MB is the correct amount. Noone's perfect.

>Page 193: G2000 as Editors choice, but the review was mediocre and the
>chart nothing special.  The stuff they picked on, e.g., 64 kB cache is
>a simple and cheap problem to fix.

I'm guessing here, but the system had outstanding graphics performance,
was very competitively priced, and had no signficant weaknesses. Add this
to the company's good reputation and strong balance sheet and you get their
choice. One might compare it to the ZEOS which came with a mediocre monitor
and low DOS processor/memory scores.

In truth, I don't think there were any truly outstanding systems (that is,
much better than all the rest). GateWay might be considered something of a
standby, as it's primary competitions (Dell, Compaq, IBM, Northgate, and ZEOS)
all fell down in one way or another.

>Page 232: Tangent has 4 dots for upgradability, but the review
                                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>specifically says it has limited upgradability.

The review states that the system supports only 486 processors. The 4 dots
are for expandability, which implies adding memory, more drives, etc. In
those terms, a base case, a SCSI controller, and room for 128MB of RAM
qualify for 4 dots.

>Need I go on?  As these people on drugs or just plain stupid?

I think you found one editing goof, you misunderstood one rating, and just
plain disagree on the editor's choice. Admittedly, I'm sure that you just
picked several annoyances and could cite other examples.

>Also, how about this.  The G2000 and the TriStar are basically
>identical machines.  They have the same graphics card and the same
>mother board.  So, why do they show different performance figures?

I don't know. I didn't run the tests. But I do trust the staff's competence
to run them. The review specifically noted the similar configuration.

>Also, why do none of the reviews shows a WinMark benchmark for the ATI
>VLB of greater than 22 when it is advertised as 28 and people here
>have reported 29+? 

Two reasons. One is that claimed performance is not actual performance.
You see quite a few ads where claims of 66MB/sec are made for local bus
systems where in fact this is a theoretical limit that nothing will approach.
The other is that the WindMark rating depends upon the resolution on bit-
depth selected. I forget the magazine, but they were testing a board at
several different settings and got different WinMarks results.

>Sorry about the tirade.  However, I know that there are at least a 
>dozen readers of this bboard who could team up to produce a vastly
>superior journal.

I hope you didn't mind my playing Jane (as in Point/CounterPoint). I fault
PC Magazine for completely ignoring vendor service. They simply quote the
stated warranty whereas PC World actually bothers to call vendors and note
service and support ratings. One of the primary reasons for different cost
between vendors is that one company has practically noone available and under-
cuts everyone by $100-$200. It isn't worth it.

Paul Lane

Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware