Quantcast

Maximum PC

It is currently Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:53 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Core i7-975 Best of the Best still messsed up.
PostPosted: Wed Jun 10, 2009 6:32 am 
Listed as 3.2 instead of 3.33 and it links to INTELS homepage.

It's been like that way for over a week.


Top
   
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 8:05 pm 
Boy in Black
Boy in Black
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 1:40 pm
Posts: 24345
Location: South of heaven
I can get the 3.2 correction vise the actual 3.33Ghz clock...

...but why is it wrong to link to Intel? AMD, Motorola, IBM, nor Texas Instruments made it. Intel did. It goes right to their site, and is absolutely correct. Also, when they linked to the PentiumII 400, it went to Intel.com as well.

Really, I'm curious now...who do you think makes the i7 975? What would be the better link since Intel is the wrong one? What's the solution here?


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:53 am 
Team Member Top 10
Team Member Top 10
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 12:40 pm
Posts: 2653
Chumly wrote:
Really, I'm curious now...who do you think makes the i7 975? What would be the better link since Intel is the wrong one? What's the solution here?
I'm going to take a wild guess... his issue is with consistency, or the lack thereof :? I noticed it before but didn't care enough about it to complain :lol:

The i7 975 links to Intel, i7 940 links to MPC, and the AMD X4 940 links to Newegg. The rest of the Best of the Best is the same way, they all vary between Newegg, the manufacturer, and MPC articles. There doesn't appear to be a method to the madness. One would think they would all point towards MPC's reviews/content! Most of us don't visit MPC to find links to Intel or Newegg, but maybe I'm wrong. Its impossible to please everyone :D

The solution is simple:
"Don't pull my f@(#ing hand over there! I said choke yourself; now lean forward and choke yourself!" Gunnery Sergeant Hartman


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:05 am 
Maximum PC Editor
Maximum PC Editor
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 1:13 pm
Posts: 2308
If we don't have content on the site specific to the piece of hardware (since we don't have a review of the Core i7 975, a link to Intel would be the proper thing to do), we're supposed to link to the manufacturer's homepage. No idea why some are linking to newegg though. I'll get the inconsistent ones corrected.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:08 am 
Team Member Top 10
Team Member Top 10
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 12:40 pm
Posts: 2653
willsmith wrote:
If we don't have content on the site specific to the piece of hardware (since we don't have a review of the Core i7 975, a link to Intel would be the proper thing to do), we're supposed to link to the manufacturer's homepage.
That thought crossed my mind, but some of the others are on the site. Maybe the content wasn't on the website when the hardware was added to the BOTB list, like the newest review of the Ultra-120 eXtreme, and the BOTB links don't get updated when the content becomes available online. Seems to be a disconnect somewhere :?

Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition
Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5TB probably should be Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 1TB even though I'm scared of the firmware on both :x
Samsung SH-S223
Cooler Master ATCS 840
Audiobyte Speakers
Logitech G9

Hopefully, I'm not way off on the links. I'm not trying to nitpick either, just hoping to be part of the solution :D

EDIT: I doubt the G9 mouse link is correct now. The BOTB label probably needs to be corrected! BOTB label is "Logitech G9 Laser Mouse" Description says: " The smooth response and power-gamer-friendly features that the G9x delivers makes this the best mouse we’ve ever tested. The only difference from the G9 is its enhanced laser sensor, which clocks in at 5,000dpi, for true twitch gamers."


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 8:49 am 
willsmith wrote:
....since we don't have a review of the Core i7 975


This list is used as a primary source of info for purchasing decisions and recommendations to friends, and you’re saying it contains unverified data?

I thought Best of the Best was MAXIMUMPC opinion based on MAXIMUMPC test.

And the homepage comment was because (I felt) the link should at least point to the processor section on Intel’s site, if not the page detailing that specific processor.


Top
   
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 8:58 am 
Monkey Fed [PC]
Monkey Fed [PC]
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:53 pm
Posts: 7076
almax wrote:
willsmith wrote:
....since we don't have a review of the Core i7 975


This list is used as a primary source of info for purchasing decisions and recommendations to friends, and you’re saying it contains unverified data?

I thought Best of the Best was MAXIMUMPC opinion based on MAXIMUMPC test.

And the homepage comment was because (I felt) the link should at least point to the processor section on Intel’s site, if not the page detailing that specific processor.


In the last issue, the reviewed a whole machine that came equipped with this processor. It proceeded to blow away every other machine that they have tested. I would consider that verified. :wink:


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:06 pm 
Million Club 5+ [PC]*
Million Club 5+ [PC]*
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 5:23 pm
Posts: 6233
Location: Florida
almax wrote:
willsmith wrote:
....since we don't have a review of the Core i7 975


This list is used as a primary source of info for purchasing decisions and recommendations to friends, and you’re saying it contains unverified data?

I thought Best of the Best was MAXIMUMPC opinion based on MAXIMUMPC test.

And the homepage comment was because (I felt) the link should at least point to the processor section on Intel’s site, if not the page detailing that specific processor.


you should not be using this for purchasing decisions unless you have an insane amount money and don't care about value for your dollar. this list claims to be the best parts, not the parts you should buy. just because something performs the best doesn't make it a good value. the afore mentioned 975 should be proof enough of that


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 7:05 pm 
@bigtoyota479
check the date on the original post.

also, and I quote
"....since we don't have a review of the Core i7 975"


@Gailim
You should not make the misguided assumption that everyone lives in your pay scale, or that they purchase every item on the list.

But thanks for the concern


Top
   
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 10:30 pm 
Monkey Fed [PC]
Monkey Fed [PC]
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:53 pm
Posts: 7076
I did know the date on the original post. What does that have to do with how I responded to you? Did you not read the article in which they tested a machine equipped with that processor and declared it the Big Daddy of all processors now?

Your attitude sucks. It won't get you far here.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:15 am 
bigtoyota479 wrote:
I did know the date on the original post. What does that have to do with how I responded to you? Did you not read the article in which they tested a machine equipped with that processor and declared it the Big Daddy of all processors now?

Your attitude sucks. It won't get you far here.


Let’s see
First you ignore the Editor-in-Chief's response stating that they "don't have a review of the Core i7 975".
Then you have the presumption to tell me about how far my attitude will get me here.

Having angry delusions of grandeur are we??


Top
   
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:41 am 
Million Club 5+ [PC]*
Million Club 5+ [PC]*
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 5:23 pm
Posts: 6233
Location: Florida
almax wrote:
bigtoyota479 wrote:
I did know the date on the original post. What does that have to do with how I responded to you? Did you not read the article in which they tested a machine equipped with that processor and declared it the Big Daddy of all processors now?

Your attitude sucks. It won't get you far here.


Let’s see
First you ignore the Editor-in-Chief's response stating that they "don't have a review of the Core i7 975".
Then you have the presumption to tell me about how far my attitude will get me here.

Having angry delusions of grandeur are we??


not a stand alone review, but they have tested a machine that had one. It's not as if they didn't have hands on experience with the CPU.

and let me tell you how far your attitude will get you: Banned

or am I having "delusions of grandeur" too?


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:54 am 
Gailim wrote:
almax wrote:
bigtoyota479 wrote:
I did know the date on the original post. What does that have to do with how I responded to you? Did you not read the article in which they tested a machine equipped with that processor and declared it the Big Daddy of all processors now?

Your attitude sucks. It won't get you far here.


Let’s see
First you ignore the Editor-in-Chief's response stating that they "don't have a review of the Core i7 975".
Then you have the presumption to tell me about how far my attitude will get me here.

Having angry delusions of grandeur are we??


not a stand alone review, but they have tested a machine that had one. It's not as if they didn't have hands on experience with the CPU.

and let me tell you how far your attitude will get you: Banned

or am I having "delusions of grandeur" too?


The original post was directed towards the magazine editors as "Website Feedback" not as a question for forums members.

If the man in charge does not consider the 975 reviewed then it was not reviewed, and if you in any way think your response to my post trumps the EIC's response, then yes you are having "delusions of grandeur".


Top
   
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:19 pm 
Maximum PC Editor
Maximum PC Editor
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 1:13 pm
Posts: 2308
First off, almax. Your attitude is really bad, and if it doesn't improve, you're not going to last long here.

Second, we've tested the CPU, or we wouldn't recommend it. We've tested it in the machine someone further up the thread mentioned (plus one more, which we didn't actually list it as a Core i7 975 because the article was going to be published before Intel announced the hardware). We've also done some standalone testing for our internal use, that wasn't part of a larger story. This mostly happens with CPUs, because we don't do traditional reviews of them. Occasionally, we'll do this with videocards as well, if we review a reference design, instead of an actual board.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:21 pm 
willsmith wrote:
First off, almax. Your attitude is really bad, and if it doesn't improve, you're not going to last long here
.


First off, WILL. If I came off as too harsh in my response I apologize. But keep in mind I was posting website feedback to the mag, not questions/comments to forum members. The responses I got (not the original one from you) were unsolicited and self righteous and I responded in kind. (My bad, I should have ignored them)

But at the end of the day you have (for over a month and still today) the wrong frequency listed for the top processor and a link to the FRONT page of Intel. The fact that responses to forum post with threats is more important to the EIC than fixing a simple typo and link, is all that is needed to let me know I am "not going to last long here".

Second, I have been a patron of, and have bragged about, this mag since the days of Boot. But your support of an irrational threat and lack of concern for a fixing a simple yet month long, loud and credibility hurting error, tells me I should leave.

Therefore I am officially requesting my account be deleted.


Top
   
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:17 am 
SON OF A GUN
SON OF A GUN
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 5:41 am
Posts: 11605
You should know that if you post something in a public forum, you are going to get all kinds of people coming in saying their piece too.

I haven't read this thread (I have a life) but honestly, are you sure your "error" is an error? Could it possibly be that, you are wrong after all?

Will made no threats, he only stated a fact. You saw how people jumped all over you like white on rice when you came in with your shit attitude. You come in with a shit attitude you WON'T last. Whether you do something to get under the skin of a moderator or admin (the staff don't come here THAT often) and get banned or you get butt hurt and leave, you won't make it long with shit attitudes.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Core i7-975 Best of the Best still messsed up.
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 8:41 am 
Contributing Writer
Contributing Writer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 8:09 pm
Posts: 9602
Location: Land of the Lounge Lizards
almax wrote:
Listed as 3.2 instead of 3.33


Frequency typo fixed - thanks for bringing it to attention.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:21 am 
Maximum PC Editor
Maximum PC Editor
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 1:13 pm
Posts: 2308
almax wrote:
First off, WILL. If I came off as too harsh in my response I apologize. But keep in mind I was posting website feedback to the mag, not questions/comments to forum members. The responses I got (not the original one from you) were unsolicited and self righteous and I responded in kind. (My bad, I should have ignored them)

But at the end of the day you have (for over a month and still today) the wrong frequency listed for the top processor and a link to the FRONT page of Intel. The fact that responses to forum post with threats is more important to the EIC than fixing a simple typo and link, is all that is needed to let me know I am "not going to last long here".

Second, I have been a patron of, and have bragged about, this mag since the days of Boot. But your support of an irrational threat and lack of concern for a fixing a simple yet month long, loud and credibility hurting error, tells me I should leave.

Therefore I am officially requesting my account be deleted.


OK ALMAX. One of the best things about using a messageboard for this type of support is that the members of the forum are kind enough pitch in and help by answering questions that are asked over and over again. That's what these guys were attempting to do here, but they got sidetracked by the officious and entitled tone of YOUR posts.

If you want to submit direct feedback to me, then you should send me an email. As the spam in my inbox every morning will attest, my email address is plastered all over the site.

When you submit feedback to the forums, every other person with a forum account has the right to chime in. While I read most everything posted here, I don't have time to personally respond to most of the posts, and frequently if one of these guys answers your question, I'll leave it at that. While I definitely appreciate your support, I have very limited time to spend on the forums, and simply posting here doesn't entitle you to attention from me, especially if you're rude. There are about 250,000 people who pay for the magazine every month, and another 1 million or so who come to the website. There's simply not enough of me to respond to all the feedback we get personally. Even if there was, it wouldn't be a particularly good use of my time.

Whether you intended your post to be rude or not, that's how everyone who read it interpreted it. If you can't convey not-snippy intent with plain text, you should consider using emoticons or something to let people know you're not attacking them.

You'll also note that the problems you pointed out have been fixed. Thanks for your input!


Top
  Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group

© 2014 Future US, Inc. All rights reserved.