vifl@hou2f.UUCP (M.MEKETON) (02/21/85)
The reviews in INFOWORLD on PC products are some of the most
ludicrous I have ever seen:
o WORDSTAR 2000 gets panned because the reviewer
didn't think it was a significant upgrade, that it runs
slow, and is hard to convert old WORDSTAR documents.
Actually, it is a nice word processing package that I found
powerful and easy to use. It is slow, but still a great
program. (I was not a prior WORDSTAR user.)
o IBM PC-AT: Gets panned each week (in their capsule review
section) for hard disk problems. I have not heard of any
recent (i.e. within the past 4 months) problems. Get with
it, INFOWORLD, update your reviews.
o AT&T PC 6300: Got panned for (among reasons) that it had no
on-line help facility for MS-DOS.
NO MS-DOS COMPUTER HAS ON-LINE HELP. Why isn't this mentioned
as a negative point for all MS-DOS computers. What right
does the reviewer have to do product planning. I don't mind
comparing one MS-DOS computer to another, but that reveiwer
went too far.
o APPLEWORKS: An integrated, 1-2-3 like product for the IIc,
it is outselling Lotus 1-2-3 in retail outlets. Yet INFOWORLD
panned this product because individual functions aren't fancy
enough. Hasn't stopped 40000 users from buying it each month.
o PC PAINTBRUSH: Panned for lack of error messages. Unfortunately,
it was reviewed on an old version. I own this program, and find it
quite easy & fun to use.
o HP-150: (Touch screen computer): INFOWORLD loved this computer.
However, retail sales are dismal!! Further, corporations buy
this computer because, without the disk drives, it serves as a
terminal and costs as much. I have seen hundreds of HP-150's,
almost all of them without disk drives. No one uses the touch
screen. Yet INFOWORLD loved this. Are they out of touch with
reality?
The reviews are inconsistent and shows the bias of individual
reviewers. One reviewer's 'neat feature' could be another reviewer's
bug.
Another flame is that it seems as if every new innovative
product that truly sets standards resets the grading level. Hence,
computers that would be marked as 'excellent' for performance may
be marked (after the introduction of the AT) as 'good'. But
prior ratings never change.
My last flame is with INFOWORLD's capsule reviews. They should be
kept up to date, and when a manufacturer or software fixes a bug or
adds a feature that the review panned, the capsule review
should reflect the fact. If INFOWORLD thinks this is too much work, then
take out the capsule reviews, because they are a disservice to their
readers.
END OF FLAME.
(Don't send flames to me because I posted this in net.micro.pc instead
of net.flame: this newsgroup probably can appreciate the above more
than net.flame.)
Marc S. Meketon, writing frankly.