For a professional e-publication, the amount of spelling and grammatical errors that appear frequently throughout articles on bit-tech is quite frankly shocking. Please either hire a copy editor or purchase/code some software which does a better job than a second pair of eyes skim-reading it before it's published. Harsh, perhaps, but it requires bringing to task imo.
Hmm seems Intel and AMD will be the limiting factors for drive speed now, P55 with only 16 PCI G2 lanes doesn't look so good now considering if you run a SATA6Gb/s SSD it drops it to 8x for your GFX card, so bye bye SLI and CF.
Originally Posted by kenco_uk For a professional e-publication, the amount of spelling and grammatical errors that appear frequently throughout articles on bit-tech is quite frankly shocking. Please either hire a copy editor or purchase/code some software which does a better job than a second pair of eyes skim-reading it before it's published. Harsh, perhaps, but it requires bringing to task imo.
If we did that, where would the fun be for YOU picking out the slight grammatical errors? :):)
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi If we did that, where would the fun be for YOU picking out the slight grammatical errors? :):)
Agreed :p
Let the grammar nazi's have their fun, but please at least edit the mistakes that are pointed out. Quite often, they go unedited even after they are quoted in the comment threads.
The title to this piece should have been "WD vs. Seagate 2GB Drive Performance", since that's what the entire article was about. Only in the last paragraph do you finally mention that the 6Gbps interface isn't bringing anything to the party (yet), which I suspect everybody already knows since there aren't any drives going hungry on the 3Gbps interface.
Let the grammar nazi's have their fun, but please at least edit the mistakes that are pointed out. Quite often, they go unedited even after they are quoted in the comment threads.
They are all changed at some point during the day/48hrs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kgwagner The title to this piece should have been "WD vs. Seagate 2GB Drive Performance", since that's what the entire article was about. Only in the last paragraph do you finally mention that the 6Gbps interface isn't bringing anything to the party (yet), which I suspect everybody already knows since there aren't any drives going hungry on the 3Gbps interface.
That's not it at all - we compared SATA 6Gbps to SATA 3Gbps, on two separate SATA connections on two separate motherboards that have completely different ways of using the Marvell chipsets. The graphs show all this data.
I've also amended the article to note the Asus board uses the 88SE9123, not 28: it does not feature RAID.
Dont SATA 3Gbps SSDs benefit anything from SATA 6Gbps?
I tested with an Intel G2 160GB, and no, there's no difference at all. I just didn't include the results because they didn't say much and the graphs are already very data-heavy.
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi I tested with an Intel G2 160GB, and no, there's no difference at all. I just didn't include the results because they didn't say much and the graphs are already very data-heavy.
Originally Posted by kenco_uk For a professional e-publication, the amount of spelling and grammatical errors that appear frequently throughout articles on bit-tech is quite frankly shocking. Please either hire a copy editor or purchase/code some software which does a better job than a second pair of eyes skim-reading it before it's published. Harsh, perhaps, but it requires bringing to task imo.
If we did that, where would the fun be for YOU picking out the slight grammatical errors? :):)
Althought it is unprofessional, I do agree it's fun pointing out the mistakes. I'd rather have someone with a passion for what they are talking about make a few mistakes than a grammar expert write a load of rubbish!
This sentence is best with a Mario accent, "...although as a premium, performance disk drive you'll pay a through the nose..." ;)
And this is a bit muddled: If the BIOS is has the setting of "Turbo SATA 3.0"
No need for the 'of': and we still have the same eight of SATA ports as the Gigabyte board
Originally Posted by kenco_uk For a professional e-publication, the amount of spelling and grammatical errors that appear frequently throughout articles on bit-tech is quite frankly shocking. Please either hire a copy editor or purchase/code some software which does a better job than a second pair of eyes skim-reading it before it's published. Harsh, perhaps, but it requires bringing to task imo.
For a professional e-publication, the amount of spelling and grammatical errors that appear frequently throughout articles on bit-tech is shocking. Please either hire a copy editor or purchase/code some software which does a better job than a second pair of eyes skim-reading the review before it is published. Trolling, but it requires bringing to task.
The grammer did not detract from the article in my op.
On page one where the hardware is listed at the top; I was wondering if that was placed there to show what was tested with, or if it is part of the [reviewers must state they have been provided with free hardware] that the U.S. recently sent around. I would like to think it's both, but for some reason that new legislation is kinda stuck in my head.
I also started to wonder at how small the graphs were, until thinking about how much time it takes to test hard drives, and that there really isn't any 6Gb drives on the market yet.
Overall a very informative review,
Originally Posted by B3CK The grammer did not detract from the article in my op.
On page one where the hardware is listed at the top; I was wondering if that was placed there to show what was tested with, or if it is part of the [reviewers must state they have been provided with free hardware] that the U.S. recently sent around. I would like to think it's both, but for some reason that new legislation is kinda stuck in my head.
I also started to wonder at how small the graphs were, until thinking about how much time it takes to test hard drives, and that there really isn't any 6Gb drives on the market yet.
Overall a very informative review,
Everyone provides us with hardware. It makes no difference to what we do and don't get - if someone doesn't want to send us something we don't care because there's plenty more to do, or, if we still want to cover it then we'll buy our own or seek out another partner. Thankfully we've exceeded critical mass where companies cannot ignore our traffic and readership, so it's less beneficial for them to ignore us.
We're not a US publication, we don't suffer pathetic litigation hehehe ;) the long standing quality and impartiality of bit-tech and now Dennis Publishing should ring loud enough :):) and yea, there are some people in our industry we know of that.. well, "do their own thing" on this front, and all I can say is that you should read many reviews for many thoughts! Not just for bias, but for multiple review styles, benchmarks, opinions, etc
I stated it up front because I wanted to let people know from the outset it's not a review of one particular product: there are several products we are covering. Sometimes people cannot differentiate between "feature" and "review".
Comments 1 to 25 of 37
ReplyIf we did that, where would the fun be for YOU picking out the slight grammatical errors? :):)
Agreed :p
Let the grammar nazi's have their fun, but please at least edit the mistakes that are pointed out. Quite often, they go unedited even after they are quoted in the comment threads.
They are all changed at some point during the day/48hrs.
That's not it at all - we compared SATA 6Gbps to SATA 3Gbps, on two separate SATA connections on two separate motherboards that have completely different ways of using the Marvell chipsets. The graphs show all this data.
I've also amended the article to note the Asus board uses the 88SE9123, not 28: it does not feature RAID.
Was expecting to see SSDs as the drives, not 7.200 RPMers...
WD > Seagate ?
There's no such thing as a SATA 6Gbps SSD until next year, otherwise I would have used one also.
so basic conclusion is SATA 6Gbps is not needed until ultra-fast SSD's come around.
I tested with an Intel G2 160GB, and no, there's no difference at all. I just didn't include the results because they didn't say much and the graphs are already very data-heavy.
No problem! :) Thanks for the question (I had already anticipated the answer to for a change) :)
Althought it is unprofessional, I do agree it's fun pointing out the mistakes. I'd rather have someone with a passion for what they are talking about make a few mistakes than a grammar expert write a load of rubbish!
This sentence is best with a Mario accent, "...although as a premium, performance disk drive you'll pay a through the nose..." ;)
And this is a bit muddled: If the BIOS is has the setting of "Turbo SATA 3.0"
No need for the 'of': and we still have the same eight of SATA ports as the Gigabyte board
For a professional e-publication, the amount of spelling and grammatical errors that appear frequently throughout articles on bit-tech is shocking. Please either hire a copy editor or purchase/code some software which does a better job than a second pair of eyes skim-reading the review before it is published. Trolling, but it requires bringing to task.
I fixed your grammatical fail!
tseax - no problem ;)
On page one where the hardware is listed at the top; I was wondering if that was placed there to show what was tested with, or if it is part of the [reviewers must state they have been provided with free hardware] that the U.S. recently sent around. I would like to think it's both, but for some reason that new legislation is kinda stuck in my head.
I also started to wonder at how small the graphs were, until thinking about how much time it takes to test hard drives, and that there really isn't any 6Gb drives on the market yet.
Overall a very informative review,
Everyone provides us with hardware. It makes no difference to what we do and don't get - if someone doesn't want to send us something we don't care because there's plenty more to do, or, if we still want to cover it then we'll buy our own or seek out another partner. Thankfully we've exceeded critical mass where companies cannot ignore our traffic and readership, so it's less beneficial for them to ignore us.
We're not a US publication, we don't suffer pathetic litigation hehehe ;) the long standing quality and impartiality of bit-tech and now Dennis Publishing should ring loud enough :):) and yea, there are some people in our industry we know of that.. well, "do their own thing" on this front, and all I can say is that you should read many reviews for many thoughts! Not just for bias, but for multiple review styles, benchmarks, opinions, etc
I stated it up front because I wanted to let people know from the outset it's not a review of one particular product: there are several products we are covering. Sometimes people cannot differentiate between "feature" and "review".
Appreciate the positive feedback though ;)
-
« Previous
-
1
-
2
-
Next »
Discuss in the forums