|09-02-02, 09:31 AM||#1|
Join Date: Jul 2002
Paul Sullivan's editorial (9/1/2002) had some interesting points but I do not believe the author understood what Tom Pabst was trying to do with his editorial (8/25/2002).
There are two major issues here.
The first issue deals with the "freebies" and how different sites react to the freebies: some won't let themselves get pushed over and thus don't get the freebies while others bent over backwards for the companies. Rumor has it that "Damage" of Tech-Report didn't get the ATI 9700 because of the cheating article that they posted. I don't know if that was true.
The second issue deals with the topic that Pabst talked about--source of information. Apparently, Pabst claims that if the source of information came from competing companies than that is "dirty laundry" and he does not want to participate in providing free marketing to the company that disclosed the information. That is what Pabst wanted us to believe. In reality, it was an excuse to attack two people.
Sullivan's editorial deals with the first issue. He seemed to mistakenly believe that Pabst was talking about that one as well when he wasn't.
Pabst tried to play the "high road" with his editorial but in reality it was just a smokescreen to cover up his real reason to write the editorial: attack two people he hated the most. In doing so, he provided tidbits of information that opened the "floodgates" to his way of thinking, which draws into question his integrity.
He openly admitted to knowing about the "cheesy" things that companies did to beef up scores in benchmarks (i.e. ATi) and deliberately not say anything about it. It is a fact that Pabst posted up Quake 3 benchmarks knowing full well that he thought that ATi did some "cheesy" things with the drivers. In his drive to attack Bennett of HardOCP on the ATi cheating scandal, Pabst didn't even realize that he was making himself look bad.
I guess Pabst completely forgot about the Radeon 8500 review that he quickly put together. I guess the speed at which he wrote the review is a good enough excuse to not talk about the "cheesy"-ness of the drivers?
The BAPCo mess is the other example. How can one justify removing the ACCESS2000 portion of the benchmark just because the Athlon XPs dominated the scores? Isn't the point of benchmarks is to see who does it the fastest? Yet, Pabst advocates removing that part and refers to it as "overly high scores" and "unreasonably high impact". The impact were all reasonable before the Athlon XPs hit the stores.
And ACCESS2000 was the only thing he specifically mentioned. Everything else was vague and he downplayed it by saying that the data was "inconclusive". Perhaps it would have been helpful if he actually listed the allegations against BAPCo? Read more about it here: http://www.geocities.com/legion88/race.html
In conclusion, I think Paul Sullivan misunderstood what Tom Pabst was trying to do with this editorial.
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Editorial: The Pre-Order Heist||News||Archived News Items||0||11-14-12 05:30 PM|
|Editorial: My surprising, unlikely love affair with Guild Wars 2â?²s PvP||News||Gaming Headlines||0||09-08-12 02:40 AM|
|Editorial: E3 doesn't care about the PC||News||Gaming Headlines||0||06-30-12 05:40 PM|