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.
Why don't you volunteer as a proof reader? No, seriously. The moderators donate their spare time to the upkeep of these forums. Some members (including myself) have contributed the odd article or review for free (mine are the very odd ones). You could make a valued contribution to the Bit-Tech community.
Bit-Tech needs you. Will you answer its call to glory?
Originally Posted by B3CK The grammer did not detract from the article in my op.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shigllgetcha sorry read your post wrong thought you said it had detracted from the article, was gonna be snarkey about a grammer mistake in your post.
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.
trouble is they aren't all fixed, i pointed out an error in the phenom 2 550 review on the first page where you said it has 8mb of L3 cache when it has 6mb in august and that slipped by. I'm not much of a grammar nazi but that's quite a misleading mistake to go unfixed :(
The 550 6mb 8mb cache should be fixed, can't be hard to change an 8 to an 6
(First post that failed was bit less blunt) Please do not make to much of an big deal about it make an new thread to correct it (seems fine to me the review but I no grammer expert) I have seen sites that are far wourse then any of bit-techs topics (if there are any)
Sata 600 not much use now until ssds get it as hdds do not need much more then sata150, its the usb 3.0 I be far more intrested in and sata 300 is plenty for ssd due to its the random access that makes the ssds faster then hdds (why raid has limted speed benerfit with ssds and lack of trim support so the 2 ssds in raid would end up slower then 1 ssd that this sata 600 work around most likey does not support trim command due to its drivers)
Modern OS's such as Windows 7 cache plenty of data to compensate for a hard drive's much slower performance...
I do hope you've not forgotten that older Windows versions (as far back as WFWG 3.11 IIRC) also cached hard disk data, with earlier versions using the DOS Smartdrv utility.
Of course, more recent versions have more memory to play with but anything from NT onwards will use all spare memory for disk caching.
Originally Posted by Nexxo Why don't you volunteer as a proof reader? No, seriously. The moderators donate their spare time to the upkeep of these forums. Some members (including myself) have contributed the odd article or review for free (mine are the very odd ones). You could make a valued contribution to the Bit-Tech community.
Bit-Tech needs you. Will you answer its call to glory?
Comments 26 to 37 of 37
ReplyI think you'll find bit-tech are thankful for people pointing out errors in their articles.
Why don't you volunteer as a proof reader? No, seriously. The moderators donate their spare time to the upkeep of these forums. Some members (including myself) have contributed the odd article or review for free (mine are the very odd ones). You could make a valued contribution to the Bit-Tech community.
Bit-Tech needs you. Will you answer its call to glory?
Actually, it's spelt grammar! hehe
Does that include re-allocated bad sectors straight out of the box like the 7200.xx series? :)
Shush you :p
The 550 6mb 8mb cache should be fixed, can't be hard to change an 8 to an 6
(First post that failed was bit less blunt) Please do not make to much of an big deal about it make an new thread to correct it (seems fine to me the review but I no grammer expert) I have seen sites that are far wourse then any of bit-techs topics (if there are any)
Sata 600 not much use now until ssds get it as hdds do not need much more then sata150, its the usb 3.0 I be far more intrested in and sata 300 is plenty for ssd due to its the random access that makes the ssds faster then hdds (why raid has limted speed benerfit with ssds and lack of trim support so the 2 ssds in raid would end up slower then 1 ssd that this sata 600 work around most likey does not support trim command due to its drivers)
The HDD limitation is still a major factor.
Maybe USB3 will be the biggest performance increase
Of course, more recent versions have more memory to play with but anything from NT onwards will use all spare memory for disk caching.
Nexxo: The Propagandist par excellence.
-
« Previous
-
1
-
2
-
Next »
Discuss in the forums