From: "Steven Price" <email@example.com>|
Subject: TL Systems remains impartial
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 20:21:36 +1200
To the Editor, Aardvark
Re: the article the top 20 isn't the top 20 at all.
It should be noted that the weightings applied to
the Cheap, Fast Pentium PCs was totally different
to those applied to the Top 20 PCs.
(speed 35%, price 15%, warranty 15% features 35%)
(speed 20%, price 20%, warranty 25%, features 35%)
I offered our system for comparison in the Cheap, Fast
PC category but was told by PC World that it was
not an option since we were already in the Top 20 category.
That is, PC suppliers who did not qualify for the Top 20
because of low IDC rankings were being given an opportunity
to show off their wares... which is fair enough I suppose.
If you do the real maths on the TL Systems PC you will
find that we would have done exceedingly better than
is implied by the review.
A problem occurs in this case when people compare two
different sets of ratings which have been normalised with different
Basically you can get whatever result you want based on
how you weight speed/price/warranty/features.
So how do I think a PC should be rated...
You rate speed on a publicly available performance
test suite which utilises a cross section of the standard applications
and weights them according to the market's use of these.
the Ziff-Davis suite is probably the best but maybe the PC Worldbench
suite would be equally as good if everyone could get their hands on it.
You make sure that system vendors give the prices for all
system options so that each system can be easily price compared.
That is, what's the use of comparing the price of a 15" based PC
with a 17" based PC. So if the reviewer could stipulate the required
hardware (just like any sane customer) then a proper price comparison
could be had.
"Like other things in life", the length is very important but the quality
of service isn't to be ignored. Realistically all a customer asks for
is that if something goes wrong at sometime in the life of the PC that
someone "will be around" in good time to fix the problem. Whether it is
in the warranty period or not isn't the most important issue to the
If you had to put a number on warranty ability I would rate firstly on the
service reputation of the company in the market (survey information).
I think Graham Penn from IDC would be more than pleased to conduct
a survey (simple questions.. who's PC's do you use and do you think
that their service is better than others or worse than others in the
Then hire an insurance actuary / statistics major to work out the value
of each warranty rating taking into account the probability of the company
not being around to service the warranty. That is if a company is
new or has low market capitalisation then there would be higher risk.
Given that all options are stipulated by the reviewer this area would
come down to a matter of design. Now forgetting for a moment that
we are all technical geeks, what a user should really be
concerned about is what a PC looks and sounds like, how easy
it is to use, how up to date it is and any additional functions that
it has. So how do you put a number on features? I think the simple
answer is that you don't even try... You leave it up to the reviewer
to mention properties of the PC which he/she found good or bad.
If PC World or PC Magazine would like to follow these guidelines
and publish the scores for each category I am sure the public
would weight things according to their own criteria and come up
with an accurate outcome. Let us not forget who we are trying
Do you want to link to this page?