30 ms·

The Last of the Old-School Tech Reviewers

87 points by LaSombra 9y ago

Daneel_ 9y ago
I'd say Anandtech is the closest we come to this level of detail today, and we just have to hope they'll keep going long term.
- haikuginger 9y ago
  Anandtech was lost years ago. It's been a ghost of itself since Anand and Brian went to work for Apple. Ian Cutress still writes good desktop CPU/architecture reviews, but editorial quality and consistency have gone way down, and most of the content that comes out of there just isn't up to par with the publication's formerly high standards.
  - bluedino 9y ago
    I really miss their Mac reviews, which they don't do any longer. Quality photography, heat and screen measurements as well as benchmarks, and some real, technical insights. Even if they were slightly biased towards the Mac. Compare the 2013 Retina article - https://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review https://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-pro-... All the attention they gave the 2016 was basically a presser with stock photos from Apple - https://www.anandtech.com/show/10799/apple-announces-4th-generation-macbook-pro-family-thinner-lighter-with-thunderbolt-3-touch-bar https://www.anandtech.com/show/10799/apple-announces-4th-gen...
- annimorpheus 9y ago
  HardOCP still does good in depth, hasn't changed in 15 years.
- Jonnax 9y ago
  Notebookcheck are a German outlet that do high quality reviews of laptops. Things like using a thermal camera to show hot spots, measuring display response rates, display calibrations, noise levels plus the standard performance tests. Tft Central is another one for monitor reviews though they only review the most popular since I think they're understaffed.
  - Brakenshire 9y ago
    Yeah, Notebookcheck were the first equivalent that came to mind.
  - detaro 9y ago
    prad.de is another good one for monitor reviews.
  - mrybczyn 9y ago
    yup, notebookcheck is the only place I read for good reviews.
klondike_ 9y ago
I think there's a fundamental difference in how technology is sold nowadays versus how it was sold a decade ago. Technology used to be sold as a solution to a problem. Want to record TV? Buy a VCR. Tech specs are important because you want to find the best solution to the problem. Nowadays, for better or for worse, technology is sold as an "experience." A modern phone doesn't really do much a phone from 5 years ago can't do, so phones are sold based on how they look and the smoothness of operation. Will anyone really notice 2gb of RAM vs 3gb of RAM? Because of this, modern reviewers will emphasize first impressions and general "feeling" of the device.
- watwut 9y ago
  That is more of a difference between general device and specific one-use device. "A modern phone doesn't really do much a phone from 5 years ago can't do" It can run a game old one could not run. It shows more text on the screen, so reading is easier and faster. It does make difference between "I will rather open a laptop" and "reading on the phone is just fine". "Will anyone really notice 2gb of RAM vs 3gb of RAM?" Yes. The result speed improvements and the smoothness of operation are direct result of that.
- subwayclub 9y ago
  I don't exactly agree. While the internal hardware does tend to receive less emphasis now, the physical build quality has increasingly been given a scientific treatment, and for good reason: it's the part that matters the most! A phone with an inferior camera, screen, and battery life is a worse phone for most people. So there are lots of reviews that subject these elements to tests with measurable results. That really wasn't the case years and years ago: the fact that the features of a device actually worked was often novelty enough.
  - JetSetWilly 9y ago
    I don't think the "physical build quality" is treated objectively at all. Instead it is all subjective. Take the material of the phone - "glass/aluminium is expensive to build this precisely, therefore it is a luxury experience". But on any actual objective measurements of physical properties - scratch resistance, weight, toughness - these materials are pretty poor compared to some alternatives. However, the alternatives like eg. polycarbonate plastic are perceived as "cheap" even though they may be better from a specifications point of view.
rospaya 9y ago
I'm not as old school as Braithwaite but I used to do the same types of reviews for more modern equipment. I remember being half blind after measuring the lightning levels for 8 hours on plasma TV's, losing my mind after finishing a 40 laptop test and sleeping beneath my desk in the magazine's office. We used to do detailed tests with dozens of measurable points, making objective features 90% of the final grade with huge spreadsheets counting every specific feature of a laptop, TV, phone, MP3 player, later tablet or netbook. Back then I knew every review in my magazine was made with precision and care, I knew they could be trusted and reading two thick pages about a device made sense. Today it rarely does.
nnfy 9y ago
I remember when CNET was trustworthy, and not a giant, malware ridden advertisement...
- bluedino 9y ago
  CNET was always the 'PC World' magazine level of reviews for the masses. Lacking in detail/substance
michaelbuckbee 9y ago
This seems kind of weird to say, but I wonder how much of the demise of the "old school tech reviewers" is the massive quality improvement in many/most categories coupled with a massive decrease in price as well. A "good" 1991 TV was a 27" that cost about $1400 (in 2017 dollars) Today $1,400 will get you a 65" 4k Curved TV that weighs less, consumes less energy and (to someone from 1991) would have what appears to have a sci-fi level of image quality. The fact that it also has apparently nearly everything on demand for the price of a single movie rental is likely also astonishing. I just feel like it's hard to walk into a BestBuy and get what you could call a "bad" TV for $500.

87 points by LaSombra 9y ago

I'd say Anandtech is the closest we come to this level of detail today, and we just have to hope they'll keep going long term.

haikuginger 9y ago
Anandtech was lost years ago. It's been a ghost of itself since Anand and Brian went to work for Apple. Ian Cutress still writes good desktop CPU/architecture reviews, but editorial quality and consistency have gone way down, and most of the content that comes out of there just isn't up to par with the publication's formerly high standards.
- bluedino 9y ago
  I really miss their Mac reviews, which they don't do any longer. Quality photography, heat and screen measurements as well as benchmarks, and some real, technical insights. Even if they were slightly biased towards the Mac. Compare the 2013 Retina article - https://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review https://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-pro-... All the attention they gave the 2016 was basically a presser with stock photos from Apple - https://www.anandtech.com/show/10799/apple-announces-4th-generation-macbook-pro-family-thinner-lighter-with-thunderbolt-3-touch-bar https://www.anandtech.com/show/10799/apple-announces-4th-gen...
annimorpheus 9y ago
HardOCP still does good in depth, hasn't changed in 15 years.
Jonnax 9y ago
Notebookcheck are a German outlet that do high quality reviews of laptops. Things like using a thermal camera to show hot spots, measuring display response rates, display calibrations, noise levels plus the standard performance tests. Tft Central is another one for monitor reviews though they only review the most popular since I think they're understaffed.
- Brakenshire 9y ago
  Yeah, Notebookcheck were the first equivalent that came to mind.
- detaro 9y ago
  prad.de is another good one for monitor reviews.
- mrybczyn 9y ago
  yup, notebookcheck is the only place I read for good reviews.

klondike_ 9y ago

I think there's a fundamental difference in how technology is sold nowadays versus how it was sold a decade ago. Technology used to be sold as a solution to a problem. Want to record TV? Buy a VCR. Tech specs are important because you want to find the best solution to the problem. Nowadays, for better or for worse, technology is sold as an "experience." A modern phone doesn't really do much a phone from 5 years ago can't do, so phones are sold based on how they look and the smoothness of operation. Will anyone really notice 2gb of RAM vs 3gb of RAM? Because of this, modern reviewers will emphasize first impressions and general "feeling" of the device.

watwut 9y ago
That is more of a difference between general device and specific one-use device. "A modern phone doesn't really do much a phone from 5 years ago can't do" It can run a game old one could not run. It shows more text on the screen, so reading is easier and faster. It does make difference between "I will rather open a laptop" and "reading on the phone is just fine". "Will anyone really notice 2gb of RAM vs 3gb of RAM?" Yes. The result speed improvements and the smoothness of operation are direct result of that.
subwayclub 9y ago
I don't exactly agree. While the internal hardware does tend to receive less emphasis now, the physical build quality has increasingly been given a scientific treatment, and for good reason: it's the part that matters the most! A phone with an inferior camera, screen, and battery life is a worse phone for most people. So there are lots of reviews that subject these elements to tests with measurable results. That really wasn't the case years and years ago: the fact that the features of a device actually worked was often novelty enough.
- JetSetWilly 9y ago
  I don't think the "physical build quality" is treated objectively at all. Instead it is all subjective. Take the material of the phone - "glass/aluminium is expensive to build this precisely, therefore it is a luxury experience". But on any actual objective measurements of physical properties - scratch resistance, weight, toughness - these materials are pretty poor compared to some alternatives. However, the alternatives like eg. polycarbonate plastic are perceived as "cheap" even though they may be better from a specifications point of view.

rospaya 9y ago

I'm not as old school as Braithwaite but I used to do the same types of reviews for more modern equipment. I remember being half blind after measuring the lightning levels for 8 hours on plasma TV's, losing my mind after finishing a 40 laptop test and sleeping beneath my desk in the magazine's office. We used to do detailed tests with dozens of measurable points, making objective features 90% of the final grade with huge spreadsheets counting every specific feature of a laptop, TV, phone, MP3 player, later tablet or netbook. Back then I knew every review in my magazine was made with precision and care, I knew they could be trusted and reading two thick pages about a device made sense. Today it rarely does.

nnfy 9y ago

I remember when CNET was trustworthy, and not a giant, malware ridden advertisement...

bluedino 9y ago
CNET was always the 'PC World' magazine level of reviews for the masses. Lacking in detail/substance

michaelbuckbee 9y ago

This seems kind of weird to say, but I wonder how much of the demise of the "old school tech reviewers" is the massive quality improvement in many/most categories coupled with a massive decrease in price as well. A "good" 1991 TV was a 27" that cost about $1400 (in 2017 dollars) Today $1,400 will get you a 65" 4k Curved TV that weighs less, consumes less energy and (to someone from 1991) would have what appears to have a sci-fi level of image quality. The fact that it also has apparently nearly everything on demand for the price of a single movie rental is likely also astonishing. I just feel like it's hard to walk into a BestBuy and get what you could call a "bad" TV for $500.