Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!carbon!stanford.edu!leland.Stanford.EDU!elaine54.Stanford.EDU!fangchin
From: fangchin@elaine54.Stanford.EDU (Chin Fang)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: Quoting PC Magazine and much more(was Re: Comparing 486 to 386 Systems)
Message-ID: <1991Apr12.215521.5962@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 12 Apr 91 21:55:21 GMT
References: <1991Apr9.213259.17287@leland.Stanford.EDU> <84050022@hpfcmdd.hp.com>
Sender: news@leland.Stanford.EDU (Mr News)
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Lines: 41

In article <84050022@hpfcmdd.hp.com> edm@hpfcmdd.hp.com (Ed Moore) writes:
>>But I would like to point out one fact -> PC Mag's editors
>>are humans beings too. => they would make mistakes just like the rest of 
>>us. 
>
>Yes, this is true of anyone.  But PC Magazine has resources that can be
>matched by few.  I've bought a number of hardware and software products
>based on the recommendation of either PC Mag or InfoWorld; I've never been
>disappointed.  It does make me feel better, though, to find laudatory
>reviews of a product in two different publications.
>

But sad to say, too many people that I have met blindly believe PC Mag even
people in the know treat some materials in it just as jokes.  That's why
I put in some real tests honestly conducted by myself just to make my 
point more clear.  People who have experience with X386 X11R4 server 
will agree with me for sure.  I am confident.

Furthermore, regarding UNIX and X Windows (or it's related products, like
the contributed Andrew Tool kit), PC Mag editors are generally not experts
even I am convinced that some of them are good at these.  But those who
are good are not talking, those who don't know much often big-mouthing, 
That's irresponsible! See my remarks above for reason.

>>One big editor (hint, who writes the Inside Track) sometime earlier this year
>>(? I don't read PC Mag anymore) claimed that someone TOLD him that MIT's X
>>Windows can be only run on 486 class machines.  So he want on and said that
>>he considered X just another passing fad!
>
>Inside Track is the comic strip of PC Magazine.  I read it for laughs.
>There is considerable variation in the usefulness of the different
>columnists.  There is one other whose column I consider a waste of my time.
>A third one is worth reading even if I don't care about his topic.

I am hoping that your comment and my earlier posting will give people who
have not gotton such perspective a healthier view towards pubs like PC Mag.

Chin Fang
Mechanical Engineering Department
Stanford University
fangchin@leland.stanford.edu