what does TG think of this?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
That anandtech article is very, very thorough. I don't see why M$ can't make a patch based on the registry fix they've already posted. To me, the problem appears to be an M$ one. So intel was right- it's a M$ driver issue.

I'm very surprised that it took this long for someone to detect it. This problem should have been noted way back when SP2 was released... I guess no one ever caught on until THG's article.

One quick comment: had THG never published that article in the first place, we'd all still be walking around oblivious to the USB 2.0/SP2 problem. Including anandtech.com.

-mpjesse
 
I'm sure the boys will look into it, but I think from the clearly provocative tone of their news article they're spoiling for a fight. This is the second story trashing THG in as many months, the first being an old one they dredged up about the change of CEO and Ed in Chief, which was months old in itself and dragged up after we found the core duo thing.

The only time I can recall us mentioning them of late was in the x1900 article I did, and that was praise of their comparisons table... the boys can investigate their article, but what gets me is their general tone. Spitting the word "Tabloid" at us and suchlike.
 
I am, well, not feeling happy, that's for sure. My natural tendency would be to sue them outright, but I am going to hold back because, I know how some people will twist it :)

This is my email to Anand regarding the issue. We are going to fight this crap every inch of the way.

Anand,

I feel the need to write to you personally, and not as a CEO of a competitor. Because, the disgust I feel is palpable and very personal.

I must say that your latest articles regarding Core Duo and the nasty slander slung by your people at Daily Tech is beyond excusable. Actually, your articles are WRONG, but I am sure you fell good pandering to the more odious elements of your audience that get joy from trashing anything by Tom's. I am sure you felt the need, for some bizarred competitive reason, to come across as the anti-Tom's. But in so doing, you went beyond nasty to a place that borders on psychotic.

By the way, I never expected to see you, of all people, concerned about the impact on Intel's PR of our story, to the extent that you would go to these extraordinary lengths to sling mud at us.

It seems that you feel aloof and willing to use all manner of techniques to smear Tom's Hardware Guide and its editors. Using Daily Tech to write what I must only believe is what you feel just makes no sense unless you really want to hurt the people here and do it with no regard for professional ethics. The last thing they wrote about us was a piece of garbage about Thomas Pabst stepping down as CEO one weekend, and absolutely no attempt to follow up and get the story verified.

No attempt, by the way, to rectify the story even when I had politely written to the site's Editor in Chief to make it clear that they had it ALL wrong.

Your methods are dishonorable, not to mention juvenile, and we will deal with them as such.

You really hate Tom's. I don't get it. I really don't get it. No one here has harmed you, in fact, the opposite: you benefited enormously from your relationship with Thomas Pabst. We have not written about Anandtech, or Anandtech's articles, or its people. We don't need to hide behind anyone or any publication.

It's just plain disgusting.

Omid Rahmat
CEO
TG Publishing
Click to expand...
 
To tell the truth, I haven't been real happy with Anandtech lately anyway. While the articles are usually very indepth, they have seemed to me to be a lot more agenda driven lately. They have also missed on some things, like taking so long for a raptor review. And the article in question just drips of being directed here solely. (Perhaps because they failed to identify the issue?)
 
I guess the major point of contention in their article are these statements, correct?

when paired with any USB 2.0 device? The folks at Tom's Hardware originally uncovered the issue, when they noted that battery life on their ASUS Core Duo notebook dropped dramatically after merely connecting an external USB 2.0 device.

How much more frustrating could things get? After spending years of work on a new mobile CPU and platform, your customers still really can't buy them and the one thing that everyone remembers about them is that they have some sort of a bug that reduces battery life. When you've spent a good deal of your design time trying to increase battery life, having a reputation of decreasing it before notebooks are widely available has got to be a tough pill to swallow.
Click to expand...

and...

Once again, implying that this is a Core Duo issue alone is simply incorrect; the problem affects Sonoma platforms just as much, if not more, than Core Duo platforms.
Click to expand...

and...

The title of the article, "Intel Core Duo USB Issue: A Mischaracterized Bug"

Otherwise I don't see anything else in the article that's overtly critical of THG. Or am I missing something else?
 
I discussed an article they wrote about the Athlon FX-60 in here once...

My point of contention was they used cheap generic DDR2-667 memory timed at CAS 5-5-5-15 timings to benchmark the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 955, P4 EE 840 and Pentium D 820. Those timings are nearly the SLOWEST you can get for DDR2-667.

On the Athlon FX-60 based system they used premium OCZ PC3500 memory timed at CAS 2 (2-2-2-7). That's pretty much the fastest RAM you can get for an Athlon system (timing wise).

Seems a little unfair and biased, doesn't it? See for yourself:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2668&p=2

If super low memory timings are good for AMD then they should be good for Intel. That's my point I guess.

-mpjesse
 
I agree. I am pretty sure that Intel's netburst benefits more from low memory timings than AMDs arch. Even with the increased latency of DDR2.

I hate seeing Apples vs Oranges or "rigged" comparisons where the results are predetermined.
 
Here's some ultra low timed DDR2-667 memory from OCZ, Geil, and Corsair:

http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/memory/ocz_eb_ddr2_pc2_5400_titanium CAS 4
http://www.corsair.com/corsair/products/specs/TWIN2X1024A-5400UL.pdf CAS 3
http://www.geilusa.com/proddetail.asp?linenumber=64 CAS 3

So it ain't like lower timed DDR2-667 memory isn't made. Going from CAS5 to CAS3 is a big frigin jump and would make a noticable difference in benchmarking.

(for the record, THG used DDR2-667 timed at 4-4-4-8 in their FX-60 review)

-mpjesse
 
Personally, I would use Corsair TWIN2X1024-8000UL running in DDR2 800 mode with 4-3-3 latency or lower. Of course this is an overclocking configuration so it's probably not as widely excepted. I would think this would be especially beneficial to 800MHz FSB processors since they would then run in synch further reducing latency, but I haven't seen any reviews on this subject. It's probably a point of interest more than anything though.

On a similar note, the AnanadTech review of the Core Duo used DDR2 533 which was out of sync. I would love to see how the Core Duo performs with dual channel DDR2 667 RAM.
 
Quite frankly, we are quite stunned by the route Anandtech has chosen. We do not feel that those articles as well as previous pieces are in line with journalism ethics.

On a more factual basis, both articles basically repeat what we have said, with the emphasis that the problem shouldn't be blamed on Core Duo. Which we haven't done anyway.

The key here, however is, that Anandtech does not provide a solution for the user. Anandtech's article is incomplete in terms of the end result. We will be following up on our article, after having tested multiple notebooks with and without patch, with varying USB devices and with close participation of Intel and Microsoft. In the end we all can only speculate - only Intel and Microsoft know who is at fault.

Interestingly, Anand Shimpi stated in his blog that he has been working on the problem for quite a while, now we are reading that he was prompted by our article to do further testing. Quite frankly, I don't buy it that Anandtech knew about the problem before we wrote about it.


Our interest is a real solution for the problem; there was no follow article so far, as there was little new information to publish. Simply repeating that certain devices suffer and others don't does not help anyone here, with the exception of Anandtech. But we are glad that Anandtech found the Microsoft KB note with the help of our article, so the issue may get more exposure overall and may help contribute that people will be patching their notebooks.

However, the patch published is merely a band-aid. There is more information to the story. Stay tuned for a follow up article to be released on TG Daily soon.

Wolfgang
 
Technical stories are great. That's why we are around. However, distorting facts is not. I just read the TG Daily story twice, but I cannot finy anything that would be 'grossly incomplete', nor statements saying that Core Duo were flawed, nor any information that was actually missing. This mud party seems to be about satisfying personal daemons.

TG Daily did not state that the bug was a Core Duo issue only, but it stated what we had found: That we die not observe the bug with other systems at that point.

If TG Daily is such a tech tabloid, why did the competitor decide to imitate TG Publishing's course of action and launch a news website itself? In case the editors might not have noticed: TG Daily lacks lurid wording for a tabloid.

It's easier to dig into something after somebody else made the first step. Let me make sure that the solution to this issue will be presented pretty soon... on a TG Publishing website, as a matter of course.

Here is the TG Daily news piece I'm refering to:
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/01/28/toms_hardware_uncovers_power_drain_issue/
 
I sent this email to the author of the TechDaily article published. Read below, it includes the response I was given by TechDaily's editor in chief.

Hi Jesse,

Unfortunately, I can’t speak for Anandtech because none of the people at DailyTech work for that company. You’ll have to ask Anand why he tested that stuff the way he did.

Anyways… “tabloid” is not a derogatory term, and I do not think anyone there would deny that either.

Hope that helps,

Kristopher Kubicki

Editor In Chief, DailyTech.com

email: kristopher@dailytech.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Sven Olsen [mailto:sven@dailytech.com]
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 6:09 PM
To: 'Kristopher Kubicki'
Subject: RE: Core Duo Battery Drain Bug Demystified news article

Sven Olsen
sven@dailytech.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Sollien, Jesse [mailto:Jesse.Sollien@alliedbarton.com]
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 5:42 PM
To: sven@dailytech.com
Subject: Core Duo Battery Drain Bug Demystified news article

“Grossly incomplete reports previously stated that Intel's Core Duo was flawed; today the missing information is revealed

Several weeks ago, tech tabloid TGDaily reported that the Intel Core Duo platform was flawed by a battery draining bug. In their tests, they used a "standard technician's tool" -- which is still unidentified -- and found that battery life was reduced over 40% when using certain devices with Intel's latest mobility platform. In a conclusion, they stated that the bug they witnessed was a Core Duo issue only. However, today AnandTech has released an extensive report which indicates otherwise.”

This is completely out of bounds. All you had to do was post some news linking the article, but instead you had to go and get all nasty. Calling TG Daily a “tabloid” and what not. Just what exactly do you think you’re doing? Isn’t it a bit of “the pot calling the kettle black”? I don’t seem to remember TG Daily ever bad mouthing any of your flawed articles or reviews. And before you ask “what flawed reviews?” Let’s start with this one:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2668&p=2

Super low 2-2-2-5 timings were used on the AMD test bed. Super high 5-5-5-15 timings were used on the Intel test bed. If super low timings are good for AMD then they should be good for Intel. Just in case you want to buy some decent, proper DDR2-667 memory for intel test beds, here’s some links:

http://www.corsair.com/corsair/products/specs/TWIN2X1024A-5400UL.pdf
http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/memory/ocz_eb_ddr2_pc2_5400_titanium

Jesse Sollien
Click to expand...
 
This was my reply to their editor:

Not to be rude (really, I'm not), but I think maybe you should read up on the common definitions of tabloid.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/tabloid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabloid
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861698690
http://www.bartleby.com/61/48/T0004800.html
http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=tabloid&matchtype=exact

Yes, the literal definition is a small magazine with pictures. But most people associate tabloids with the 2nd definition listed in each of those links. In the USA, the term "tabloid" has an overtly negative meaning.

Jesse
Click to expand...
 
The sad part is, aside from all that, their facts were wrong. Granted I haven't read the Original THG article since it first came out, but I seem to remember that not only did they not say that it an Intel only issue, but the mentioned a pretty good case for it being an M$ Issue.

Now this article completely disregars that, and claims whatever it wants. Makes you wonder about what you are getting on the tech side.
 
For the record I did ask Anand why he tested the intel platform the way he did when the article was first published.

I didn't receive a response.

I was nice about it too! 🙂
 
I don't really want to take sides, because both THG and AnandTech are respected groups. There are individual exceptions of course, but I've generally found both sites to be informative and reliable.

I think what Anand may have taken issue with was the following lines:

Most reviewers probably thought to themselves "Stick in the benchmarks, make sure you have a clean install of Window's for each one but let's not do more than we bloody well have to..."
Click to expand...
and the insinuation that most reviewers have a mentality "to avoid doing more than you really have to".

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/01/29/opinion_core_duo_microsoft_power_drain/page2.html

I know THG specifically put forth:

This is not a "We're Holier-Than-Thou" rant, and we're not looking to laud our victory and keep score. Indeed, far from it. I don't want Tom's Hardware Guide to be in any way, shape or form "Holier-Than-Thou" with regards to its competition.
Click to expand...
But, I guess veiled insults, no matter how good natured, educational or for encouragement, can be disregarded. I just hope this doesn't turn into some type of mud-slinging match. At least this will bring forth aggressive investigative reporting on both sides.
 
Most reviewers probably thought to themselves "Stick in the benchmarks, make sure you have a clean install of Window's for each one but let's not do more than we bloody well have to...
Click to expand...

To be honest, those were exactly my thoughts when I intially read the article. I found the battery life part a mere curiosity. I was more concerned about Core Duo performance than battery life. Why? I don't give a rats ass about battery life. I'm almost always connected to an outlet in an airport, hotel, meeting, etc. The only time I use my battery is in an airplane... and even then my flights are relatively short (1-2hrs). Additionally, the nature of my work requires full use of the processor and video card- so battery life is already a joke in my arena.

That said, I'm sure there are plenty of others who do care about battery life.

🙂

-mpjesse
 
This stuff has been going on behind the scenes for years. Now, it seems they have elevated it to editorial policy. I can only imagine that they are desperate for attention.

Having had a few hours to stew over it, I don't think it is anything more than the tired ramblings of has-beens and wannabes trying to bolster their egos.

The fact that they have distorted the facts to suit their own audience pandering is, well, is them.

Let's all go quail hunting and hurt a friend and be done with all of this nonsense. Who wants to be gopher?
 
Ahh, so there may be truth to it that Dick was just fulfilling his obligation signed with satan, and as time draws nearer the disturbances in the cosmos fan the flames of old .... :twisted:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom