Worst review ever.

I had to write a reader review (which I have never done before) just because this is such bad journalism.

 

After reading 2 CNET notebook reviews, I decided it's not worth the time taking trouble to read and react to CNET reviews. So I'm not doing it anymore.

Slightly offtopic but might help some. Don't waste your time with those guys.

 

Yeah, I saw it.The review in which they ran G1 against some 17" laptops...
The number of their hits in the notebook reviews section is decreasing.

 

I stopped reading CNET a long time ago...

 

Me too.

So, a 7700 doesn't match up against a 7950GTX? Stunning.

 

If you watch the video review, the reviewer says the G1 has a 17 LCD". Hilarious, considering their reviews are seen by millions of people...

 

yea i brought this up months ago, not a good review.

 

Well, it won't cause so much trouble until someone notice that their G1's screen is smaller than other 17".

"Huh, why's my 17" is smaller than yours?" someone who bought G1 after seeing CNETs review...

 

God the guy in the video is so lame. Bet he really thinks he is super cool.

 

Na, they can't compare to the quality of NotebookReviews.

 

CNET gives random reviews. They will give a high rating to one laptop and a low rating to a nearly identical laptop. Example: CNET gives the Apple MacBook (Core 2 Duo 2.0GHz) an 8.4, but the Apple MacBook Pro (15.4-inch 2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo) and the Apple MacBook Pro (Core 2 Duo 2.33GHz, 17-inch) receive a 7.4. Why did the MacBook Pro have a 1 point lower rating than the Macbook?

 

I don't think it is possible to give a good review of a laptop without owning it.

 

While this is quite an unfair review, you have to agree with some of the things providing they are true. the weight issue is correct, the display as welll and since they called it a gaming rig, they pit it against other gaming rigs. admittedly these have better cards and faster CPUs, however asus do call it a gaming laptop so you would think theyd include a high end card. i still think the review wasnt very well made but it does raise a few points. btw how many other 15.4" laptops come with the go7700 or similar card?

 

Yeah, even before I purchased the G1, I saw this review, and I thought it wasn't well done. I have to wonder what this dude was smoking, when he did the review.

 

yeah, I realized cnet was talking out of it's *** a long time ago. i even gave them a piece of my mind in the user opinions section in the g1.

 

Actually, whats funnier about the MB/MBP is that in the jump from Core Duo to Core 2 Duo, the MBP got a reasonable bump (its config got a lot better) from 6.9 to 7.4, whereas the MB, which got a CPU bump and nothing else, went from 7.1 to 8.3 and Editors choice. I was like, yea its a good notebook, and yea it got updated, but it wasnt that great of an update....iono, Cnet reviews sometimes leave you scratching your head in puzzlement.

 

Pcmag has some pretty disappointing reviews for me ever since I found out about nbr. My family gets a free subscription to it so I glance through every issue. The prices aren't very accurate either. For an earphone review for this month's issue, the Etymotic ER-6i, it listed the street price as $130 which is twice what I paid a few months ago.

The laptop reviews aren't much better than the headphone reviews.

 

Offhand the only 15.4" laptops with a go7700 I can think of are the G1 and the VX2, both by Asus...so at the time, this was probably as high-end a card as could be fit into a 15.4".

I'd have to disagree here. While it's a nice to compare "gaming rigs"...you have to keep at least some variables constant - like the size. It just doesn't make sense to compare a 15.4" to a 17" even you call them both "gaming rigs". That's like saying, a laptop "gaming rig" should be compared to a desktop "gaming rig" just because they're both meant for gaming. It distorts the buyer's perceptions - quite often people choose the size they want first, and then narrow it down among those - so saying that the resolution of a 15.4" laptop is lower than what you'd find on a 17" is (besides being obvious) very pointless.

 

hmmm but havent we seen some 15.4" and even 14.1" laptops come with higher resolution than that?

the point is that they called it a gaming rig but clearly other laptops, that may or may not have been called gaming rigs were far better suited to games in terms of performance. as for the screen, im not arguing there but would we still be arguing if the G1 was a 17"? what about the G2, isnt that called a gaming rig as well, it will suffer the same fate as the G1 here.

I had high hopes for the G2, calling it a gaming rig then sticking an X1700 in it is quite puzzling and disappointing. Sure there are many 17" lappies out there with similar cards but theyre usually not targetted specifically to a group that values the best fps they can get, and the X1700 is a good card but they couldve done better.

As for the G1, well in a way it is really in its own niche, aside from the VX2 as you mentioned. i dont agree with the way they ddi the review, I would have included an X1600, 1700 or go7600 there to compare. Havent checked what and if theyve said anything about the G2, would they pit it against the same laptops as well?

 

The G2 deserved that review, not the G1. The G2 IS 17". The G2 IS more expensive. it is about a 6.9 for effort.

The G1 is a portable machine that is boosted for games. Also the stats in the review were wrong. The screen size was wrong, the screen resolution was wrong and there were more, but I don't want to read it again. If that comparison is okay then the XPS1710 is a terrible waste since you can get a desktop with similar specs for almost 1000 dollars less. Does that make sense?

Lastly, here is a gen from another article:
"Asus can create notebooks that give the likes of Sony and Apple a run for their money..."

It wasn't negative...but this reviewer obviously did not know much about Asus (i.e. The fact that they make Sony and Apple computers)

 

CNET is trash. Every CNET review should be taken with many grains of salt.

 

Cnet may not be the greatest most indepth reviews out there but it's convenient. They review thousands of things so you can compare quick, and usually when I go to Cnet it's just to see how the design is. As if I don't know the bigger numbers mean a better card (usually)

 

What is the use of reviewing thousands of things if you review them all badly?

 

Unfortunately, there are a good number of things where the only readily available review online is from CNet...

I wonder if NBR would benefit from some sort of standardized rating/ranking system or "editor's choice" system for laptops like CNET and so many other sites adopted.

My biggest annoyance with big sites like CNET and pcmag are that they're almost never consistent - you can look up a table of the exact same type of product, and the lists would be completely different, and "professional" reviewers from each site would give completely opposite reviews of the same product.

 

It is better not to rate things. I don't know where journalists got that idea, to give a rating to stuff, but it has been downhill since then.

 

It is quite hard to do the rating system, I have written many reviews, I have tried the rating system and even I find it hard to rate, due to the fact eveything relative. So there's almost no point in rating in most cases.

Once again with the Editor's choice system, it is subjective to what the people want. I may want an ultra portable and the editors choices is a 15.4" laptop. Of course you can have an editors choice for almost all types of sectors.

Ultra Portables
14" Consumer Use
14" Gaming
15.4" Consumer Use
15.4" Gaming
17" Consumer/light gaming
17" Gaming

But i'm sure there are other areas like Business and other markets that need to be considered.

 

Since they are totally digital now, they can have users enter a size (Any, Large, Medium, Small, Ultraportable) and a capacity (Business, Gaming, Mainstream, Design, Home Use) and a secondary capacity. It could rate the machine on an easy scale (Poor, Average, Recommended, Superior) and so long as it got an average recommended the site would display the Editor's Choice symbol. If they wanted to go more in depth they could even ask for specific ranges of clock speeds, RAM, GPU, etc. Let the user weight each of them to add up to 100. It would display a score based on their criterion. (Of course price would be a factor as well) Then they would have a quantitative performance score (out of 100, though it could be greater than 100), and a qualitative recommendation score.

 

Well, if you notice, they usually do have editors choices in every catagory. X60s and Sony TX in the ultraportables, MacBook in thin and light, (someething) in mainstream, Toshi Qusimo in desktop replacement, and XPS M1710 in gaming.

 

yea, but that doesn't really help. That is like saying if everyone wanted a certain type of laptop then there is only one laptop that everyone should buy. I meant something that would be able to generate a recommended or not recommended sticker, since everyone wants something slightly different.

 

The quantitive review makes sense. But I like the editor's choice because cnet is almost all design. I mean there's only like a paragraph or two way down at the bottom concerning proformance.

 

Just goes to show you shouldn't base your opinion on one review... or any review for that matter, except your own!

 

QFT. No website will tell you more about a notebook than playing around with it for even 10 minutes in a store.

 

Well, now I just have to find an arrangement where laptop makers will send me their laptops for free for me to "review" them...

So who wants to volunteer??

 

Best Buy carries Asus now. You can request they floor those models. Also you may be lucky enough to live near an Asus reseller that can do the same thing.

 

I still think I'd prefer it if people sent me lots and lots of laptops for free

 

I wonder why they don't do that?

 

Heh, the V1J SR refresh review from cnet isn't much better
http://reviews.cnet.co.uk/laptops/0,39030092,49290208-2,00.htm

I like the part about RAM and how the 8600M GT was just "slightly better" than x3100...

..and I thought all V1s came with a glossy screen?

 

thats probably the best advice I've seen on this forums

And never trust a reviewers subjective battery life figures! The last laptop i bought was supposed to have a battery life of over 4 hours according to reviews... turned out more like 3 tops with screen way down and radios all off.


Good to see all the G1 owners stepping up and speaking their minds

 

I couldn`agree more with that, but not every body has the change to test the notebook the would like to buy before they do. take me for example I live in Venezuela and in here there are no Best Buy, circuit city or any Asus resellers so I pretty much have to make a choise with what you guys write

 

That's absurd. Hello, half the price...