Intel Coffee Lake 8th-gen Core processors release date rumours
So do people think that PC mags are impartial when giving advice on certian pc makers or sellers.
Can you rely on a magazine not to favour one company that may advertise more heaverly with them, than another?
And do the best buys turn out to be that or not?
I would rather trust a PC mag than a salesman on a commission.
In the time honoured words of a dixons clerk!
"No sir that one isnt very good this (more expensive one) is better".
PCA proves for me time and time again to be pretty impartial. It is human nature to be slightly biased but most of the time PCA has shown they can be very good. Often we see new PCs from unheard of makers that are topping the charts.
I used to get another magazine many many years ago that was very biased but I did like the review style till I met with PCA when my mother on request from me to get the magazine couldnt get the other mag and grabbed a PCA to tide me through a plane journey and I now have about 10 metric tonnes of paper archived for PCA and an entire CD and DVD stand to the freebees, and 100s of posts in the forum.
Dear PCA people please please stop being so good at this. PLEASE ;)
I use to subscribe to many fortnightly and monthly computer magazines. I generally found that it wasn't a case of being impartial, more of a case of all covering similar grounds.
When you have large capacity manufacturers, then I suppose they will get the lions share of most reviews and comments.The little guy will not have a very easy field to ride on.
Read several Mags and reviews.
Search forums online to see what people are saying.
Go see the products in person at a store.
Compare prices online.
Look at the models either side of what you're looking to buy... ie next model up and next model down.
you'll realise that it's in our interests to remain impartial when reviewing computers and hardware/software.
If we were to deliberately favour one manufacturer or supplier we would be found out in no time at all - not so much by our readers, (although they're far from being the gullible fools that some people seem to think), but by other suppliers. Those companies would rapidly withdraw their advertising, and we would find ourselves with a falling readership, and a falling advertising revenue. Hardly a recipe for success, is it?
Take it from me (or don't - it's up to you) our reviews are as impartial as we can make them. If I thought for a moment that the magazine was biased towards any particular advertiser I would be looking for another forum to moderate, but I don't have to worry - I work with PCA because I know the people involved, and I'm very comfortable with their ethics.
Any magazine can only review what it has been lent/given by the suppliers. The worlds best computer, phone or car will not get a review unless it is given to the magazine testers to play with!If they don't have a sample to test they cant review it. Hence you don't see many reviews of RR cars in the hot car magazine.
i would venture whilst the pca staff may consider themselves impartial and no doubt this is an earnest felt felling, i would think that everybody has a bias in them. this may not consciously manifest itself, but it is there. after it is human nature, and i would say even the FE would not argue he is perfect.
Not me, that's for sure.
I used the word 'ethics', and that's what we're really talking about here. You'll fnd no magazines where the reviews (or the reviewers) are perfect, bu then you'll not be perfect in making your own judgments either, will you?
We do our level best to act in the interests of our readers when publishing reviews, and that means telling it like it is - or as we see it. Reviewers are human beings, just like the rest of us, and just like the rest of us they don't get everything right, every time. If it's perfection you're after you'll be looking for a very long time.
Theres no good reason to think PCA or any other mag. reviewers are not impartial.
But if placing an order on the strength of a particular mag. review it should be stated that the spec. must be the same as the equipment tested by the reviewer,as this is not always the case
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.