PC Advisor- time to change?

  anskyber 10:18 28 Aug 2005

First of all I think PC Advisor is doing a great job, but. Reviews seem to be based on pure technical performance rather than the overall performance/reliability package. Some really impressive kit in terms of performance is later panned by some users for reliabilty. Is it time to press for more rounded reviews with reliable manufacturer analysis rather than people such as I having to trawl the IT Fora and try to make sense of the results? Or am I alone?

  freaky 10:50 28 Aug 2005

I have been a subscriber to PCA for some years now, and a member of this Forum for about a year.

I read the product reviews, and have bought on their recommendations.....pleased to say that the results were highly satisfactory.

You state "Some really impressive kit in terms of performance is later panned by some users for reliabilty". This is a blanket comment, there will always be situations when a particlar product is not reliable.....sod's law. There will always be a % of products that have faults. You cannot blame a PCA review for this!!!

  anskyber 11:01 28 Aug 2005

freaky, you have made the point for me. I said some users and this gets to the heart of it, how do we know? I do not blaim PCA Review for this I ask for a more comprehensive service.
An example in a recent thread Mesh had a bit of a bad time from one person. I have a reliable friend who works as a courier who says that he has more send backs from Mesh than other manufacturers. This is probably totally unfair on Mesh who for all I know may make brilliant computors, but am I going to buy one now?

  Stuartli 12:45 28 Aug 2005

How on earth is a magazine reviewer expected to test the reliability of a product over the comparatively short period of time it's in his/her possession?

How would it prove a solid basis for analysis on the back of one product sample?

Me thinks a little bit of common sense and the ability to read between the lines of what is put down in print by reviewers whose work is respected would be more valuable and informative.

  anskyber 13:42 28 Aug 2005

Well they are not, but I talked in terms of manufacturers not individual bits of kit. Surveys are the answer, it is done for cars and we all know there are manufacturers to avoid and those with good records.
Reading between the lines is scarcely scientific in an area of technological excellence.

  wee eddie 13:48 28 Aug 2005

Reviews are written about 2 months before publication of the article and frequently before the product is available on the open market.

How on earth is a Reviewer able to report on more than the demo product that he has in his hands?

  anskyber 14:11 28 Aug 2005

Oh dear, I do wish people would read the words. One more time, it is about manufacturers and their overall performance record, not individual bits of kit.
Is the courier right about Mesh? Who knows! But a suitable survey which is say updated annually will show whether these tempting bits of kit with high specs or whatever are actually a good investment.

  anskyber 14:27 28 Aug 2005
  bremner 15:43 28 Aug 2005

That would be the same as the annual PC Advisor Brand Awareness Survey then.

  anskyber 15:56 28 Aug 2005

That was an "eg" my full comment was an impartial survey based on verifiable data. What I have found interesting is an apparent lack of interest in reliablity, given the high cost of many bits of kit that does surprise me. Perhaps there is a general acceptance that IT kit is unreliable, I trust we are not all feeling complacent?

  JYPX 16:08 28 Aug 2005

Why do the replies to this topic all come across as either grumpy or over-defensive of pca ! I think there could have been an interesting debate here but I guess nobody is in the mood.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Galaxy Note 8 vs iPhone X

This is what design agencies will look like in 2032

How to update iOS on iPhone or iPad

WhatsApp : comment lire vos messages sans que l’expéditeur le sache