Horrible Article @ PC Mag

[Ian]

Just more proof that PC Magazine sucks.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1321971,00.asp

The article itself isn't bad, but when you start taking a look at some of the scores they gave the drives, I really start to wonder wtf they were smoking. Do they not realize that some of these drives are essentially the same?

Take a gander at some of the performance scores:

http://www.pcmag.com/image_popup/0,3003 ... 969,00.asp

Some of the DVD-RW and DVD+RW writing times just seem odd to me.
For example the Memorex.. 25:19 for DVD-RW and 7:16 for DVD+RW. Come on.. 2.4x isn't that much faster than 2x.

[aviationwiz]

Those Performance scores are crap, how big were the disks they were burning? Obviously not too big, as they can get a DVD done in 5 min.

[VEFF]

The Memorex Dual Format and A06 scores are a full 10 points apart, even though I thought they were (basically) the same burner?

[Ian]

Those Performance scores are crap, how big were the disks they were burning?

1.3GB I believe. Why not something larger? Go figure..

[Noua]

I think they were somokin a join while they we're doing the tests... And I used to had that magazine in consideration... What teh world has come too....

[tig2002]

You can find the difference in ratings on the same product not only in computer industry, but everywhere, including car industry. How can you explain the different ratings on Isuzu Rodeo and Honda Passport (Honda's rating is of course higher ), or Mercury Villager and Nissan Qwest (the Nissan, of course, is the winner). These are exact the same vehicles, as some drives are same in PC Magazine's review.

Who knows how all these editors / reviewers are connected with manufacturers?

[VEFF]

You can find the difference in ratings on the same product not only in computer industry, but everywhere, including car industry. How can you explain the different ratings on Isuzu Rodeo and Honda Passport (Honda's rating is of course higher ), or Mercury Villager and Nissan Qwest (the Nissan, of course, is the winner). These are exact the same vehicles, as some drives are same in PC Magazine's review.

Who knows how all these editors / reviewers are connected with manufacturers?

I know

Look at the Audi A4 1.8T and VW Passat 1.8T:

In one magazine's reviews, the A4 scored highest in its group of peers, whereas the Passat (which is basically a larger and cheaper, but less luxurious in terms of some std equipment, A4, was grouped with cheaper cars and was therefore considered too expensive to win its group.

[Ian]

Who knows how all these editors / reviewers are connected with manufacturers?

You buy more ad space in the mag... your scores magically get higher?

[hoxlund]

haha good point ian

yeah im now a proud owner of the memorex - Pioneer drive

anyone know how i can flash this drive to be a total pioneer drive?

[Bhairav]

hox, what happened to your 510A?

[hoxlund]

it was just way to media picky, bought a 50 spindle of Ritek G04's and i started to burn with em

3 outta 12 burned, rest garbage, so i said enough was enough, dvd media isn't cheap, so i brought it back to staples, and got $26 back and a new Pioneer dvr-106d burner, and burned through the media great

[Stoner]

Well, isn't it obvious? The mofos at PC Mag got paid more by a certain company to make its product look better in PC Mag's review, which will in turn give false impression to J6Ps reading PC Mag, and ultimately leads to better sales for a certain company's product. Simple Marketing 101.

[RJW]

PC magazine is one of the worst magazines ever.
The Dutch version is Probally one of the worst magazines you can buy in Holland. See we got quite some bad magazines over here to.
Specially the way how they treat copyrights and how they test is really bad.

[NUT ek]

Just more proof that PC Magazine sucks.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1321971,00.asp

The article itself isn't bad, but when you start taking a look at some of the scores they gave the drives, I really start to wonder wtf they were smoking. Do they not realize that some of these drives are essentially the same?

Take a gander at some of the performance scores:

http://www.pcmag.com/image_popup/0,3003 ... 969,00.asp

Some of the DVD-RW and DVD+RW writing times just seem odd to me.
For example the Memorex.. 25:19 for DVD-RW and 7:16 for DVD+RW. Come on.. 2.4x isn't that much faster than 2x.

A 2.4X is much faster than 2X when you are smoking...........isnt it hehehe

Sex, Drugs and DVD's is there motto:p

Almost as good as Toms effort

[integspec]

Makes me think that true IT Journalism died with Data Communications and Byte magaznies.

It's just too sad...

[noycan]

In their October 2003 issue, PC World tested various DVD-burners. I happened to notice that many similar drives had substantially different test scores. I also noticed that the drives were tested with the manufacturer-supplied software and media, which could explain some and perhaps much of the different test scores? Since the review is directed at average consumers who will probably use the supplied software, this seems reasonble. However, it makes the review of little use to advanced users, who will probably use other software. So, journalistic integrity aside, people on forums such as CDRLabs should probably ignore mainstream magazine reviews of DVD-burners.

BTW, the testing procedure used by PC World is as follows:

We test rewritable DVD drives under Windows XP Home on PCs with 1.67-GHz Athlon XP 2000+ processors and 512MB of DDR SDRAM. To test each drive, we use the DVD video authoring, mastering, and packet-writing software supplied by the vendor. We use media supplied by the vendor or media supplied by Verbatim.