3 ms·

First time I hear such negativity about tomshardware but the only time I actually looked at one of their tests in detail was with their series that tests for bu

by ffsm8 1y ago

First time I hear such negativity about tomshardware but the only time I actually looked at one of their tests in detail was with their series that tests for burn-in for consumer OLED TVs and displays. But the other reviews I glances at in that contexts looked pretty solid from a casual glance Can you elaborate wrt the reason for your critique considering they're pretty much just testing from the perspective of the consumer? I thought their explicit goal is not to provide highly technical analysis and niche preferences but instead look at it for John Doe that's thinking about buying X, and what it would mean for his usecases. From my mental model of that perspective, they're reporting was pretty spot on and not shoddy, but I'm not an expert on the topic

AdrianB1 1y ago
As someone that I read Tom's since it was ran by Thomas, I found the quality of the articles a lot lower than almost 30 years ago. I don't remember when I stopped checking it daily, but I guess it is over 15 years ago. Maybe the quality looks good to you, but maybe you don't know what it used to be 25 years ago to compare to. Maybe it is a problem of wrong baseline.
magicalhippo 1y ago
The article I linked to is basically just a very basic retelling of the video by some YouTuber. I decided to link to it as I prefer linking to text sources rather than videos. The video isn't perfect, but I thought it had some interesting data points regardless.
0manrho 1y ago
> they're pretty much just testing from the perspective of the consumer Yes. that's their schtick. Do just enough so that the average non-tech literate user doesn't know any better. And if you're just a casual consumer/reader, It's fine. Not great, not even necessarily accurate, but most of their readership don't know enough to know any better (and that's on purpose). I don't believe their intentionally misleading people. Rather - simply put - It's evident the amount of fucks they give regarding accuracy, veracity, depth, and journalism in general is decidedly less than their competition. If you're trying to gain an actual technical insight with any real depth or technical merit, toms is absolutely not the place to go. Compare to ServeTheHome (servers, networking, storage, and other homelab and enterprise space related stuff), GN (gaming focused), RTings.com (Displays and peripherals), to name a few to see the night and difference between people that know what they're talking about and strive to be accurate and frame things in the right context, and compare that with what Toms does. Again, depends on what the user is looking for, but Toms is catering to the casual crowd, aka people who don't know any better and aren't gonna look any deeper. Which is totally fine, but it's absolutely not a source for nuance, insight, depth, rigor, or anything like that. The article in question[0] is actually a great example of this. They found a youtube video of someone buying white-label drives, with no control to compare it to, nor further analysis to confirm that the 4 drives in question actually all had the same design, firmware, controller, and/or NAND flash underneath (absolutely not a given with bargain bin white label flash, which these were, and it can make a big difference). I'm not trying to hate on the youtuber, there's nothing wrong with their content, but rather with how Toms presents it as an investigation into unpowered SSD endurance while in the same article they themselves admit: "We also want to say this is a very small test sample, highlighted out of our interest in the topic rather than for its hard empirical data." This is also why I say I don't believe their trying to be disingenuous. Hell, I give them credit for admitting that. But it is not a quality or reliable source that informs us of anything at all about the nature of flash at large, or even the specific flash in question, because we don't know what the specific flash in question is Again, just because they're the same brand, model and capacity does not mean they're all the same, even for name brand devices. Crucial's MX500 SSD's for example have been around for nearly a decade now, and the drives you buy today are VERY MUCH different from the ones you could buy of the same capacities in 2017 for example. Don't even get me started on their comments/forums. 0: https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/storage/unpowered-ssd-endurance-investigation-finds-severe-data-loss-and-performance-issues-reminds-us-of-the-importance-of-refreshing-backups https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/storage/unpowered...

by ffsm8 1y ago

AdrianB1 1y ago

As someone that I read Tom's since it was ran by Thomas, I found the quality of the articles a lot lower than almost 30 years ago. I don't remember when I stopped checking it daily, but I guess it is over 15 years ago. Maybe the quality looks good to you, but maybe you don't know what it used to be 25 years ago to compare to. Maybe it is a problem of wrong baseline.

magicalhippo 1y ago

The article I linked to is basically just a very basic retelling of the video by some YouTuber. I decided to link to it as I prefer linking to text sources rather than videos. The video isn't perfect, but I thought it had some interesting data points regardless.

0manrho 1y ago

> they're pretty much just testing from the perspective of the consumer Yes. that's their schtick. Do just enough so that the average non-tech literate user doesn't know any better. And if you're just a casual consumer/reader, It's fine. Not great, not even necessarily accurate, but most of their readership don't know enough to know any better (and that's on purpose). I don't believe their intentionally misleading people. Rather - simply put - It's evident the amount of fucks they give regarding accuracy, veracity, depth, and journalism in general is decidedly less than their competition. If you're trying to gain an actual technical insight with any real depth or technical merit, toms is absolutely not the place to go. Compare to ServeTheHome (servers, networking, storage, and other homelab and enterprise space related stuff), GN (gaming focused), RTings.com (Displays and peripherals), to name a few to see the night and difference between people that know what they're talking about and strive to be accurate and frame things in the right context, and compare that with what Toms does. Again, depends on what the user is looking for, but Toms is catering to the casual crowd, aka people who don't know any better and aren't gonna look any deeper. Which is totally fine, but it's absolutely not a source for nuance, insight, depth, rigor, or anything like that. The article in question[0] is actually a great example of this. They found a youtube video of someone buying white-label drives, with no control to compare it to, nor further analysis to confirm that the 4 drives in question actually all had the same design, firmware, controller, and/or NAND flash underneath (absolutely not a given with bargain bin white label flash, which these were, and it can make a big difference). I'm not trying to hate on the youtuber, there's nothing wrong with their content, but rather with how Toms presents it as an investigation into unpowered SSD endurance while in the same article they themselves admit: "We also want to say this is a very small test sample, highlighted out of our interest in the topic rather than for its hard empirical data." This is also why I say I don't believe their trying to be disingenuous. Hell, I give them credit for admitting that. But it is not a quality or reliable source that informs us of anything at all about the nature of flash at large, or even the specific flash in question, because we don't know what the specific flash in question is Again, just because they're the same brand, model and capacity does not mean they're all the same, even for name brand devices. Crucial's MX500 SSD's for example have been around for nearly a decade now, and the drives you buy today are VERY MUCH different from the ones you could buy of the same capacities in 2017 for example. Don't even get me started on their comments/forums. 0: https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/storage/unpowered-ssd-endurance-investigation-finds-severe-data-loss-and-performance-issues-reminds-us-of-the-importance-of-refreshing-backups https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/storage/unpowered...