Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!unisoft!hoptoad!wet!roger
From: roger@wet.UUCP (Roger Niclas)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: PCMagazine recriminations
Message-ID: <2429@wet.UUCP>
Date: 8 May 91 21:30:55 GMT
References: <5.28200D82@zswamp.uucp>
Organization: Wetware Diversions, San Francisco
Lines: 46

root@zswamp.uucp (Geoffrey Welsh) writes:
> In a letter to All, Casey Leedom (casey@gauss.llnl.gov ) wrote:
> 
>  >  Uhmmm, if I *was* buying PC Magazine, or any other 
>  >magazine that specialized in any area, whether computers, horses or 
>  >whatever, I would expect to get value for my money.
> 
>    We should expect the same of consultants, wouldn't you say?  However, 
> having worked for a few and as one myself, I can assure you that anyone 
> making a recommendation based only on things with which they've had extensive 
> personal experience is a rare animal.  In fact, the thing which limits my 
> 
>    I don't know if this experience is unique to the computer industry; I 
> best they can, learning from their mistakes (after the fact) as do most of 


I think Jeff's got a point.  The pace of development of products in the 
computer industry is such that many of  us find it nearly impossible to stay
current.  Why would a magazine be any different?
 
Certainly, they can't be expected to test every feature, run everything 
with every driver, on machines operating under every condition; at least,
not *reasonably* expected to do so.  
 
I think readers have to apply some judgment to whatever they read (whether
that's a government press release, a product review, or a research grant
proposal) and to understand the limited perspective that gave rise to the
piece.  
 
My objection to PC's reviews in particular, though, is that they seem to be
designed more to produce impressive charts and statistics than to approximate
(and I *mean* 'approximate') the users'concerns.  
 
Does anyone remember an ad (I think it was Northgate's) that had a little 
footnote at the bottom that read something like "Technobabble, without which
no computer ad can be considered complete: " and then went on to list the
machine's specs?  It seems to me that, lately, at least, PC tends to focus
on the technobabble and, in doing so, often loses sight of the fact that
'the objective was to drain the swamp.'


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*  Email: roger@wet.UUCP    |                                                  *
*    alt: rogerd@well       |  witty remark designed to exhibit intellect goes *
* CompuServe: 72730,1010    |                    here                          *