FragBox 2 Failure Ruffles Falcon Feathers

[Tanky]

I understand that. I still think they could perhaps bring things up a notch. I think they sometime set things for a target audience that's too low on the technological totem pole.

I understand, and want to agree with you, but not everyone, especially myself, can afford whats in your signature, let alone completely replace a new computer with mainstream parts. The game developers have to make money, or there will be no new games, so they have to code their product to function on mean hardware level.

 

[Dan_D]

I understand, and want to agree with you, but not everyone, especially myself, can afford whats in your signature, let alone completely replace a new computer with mainstream parts. The game developers have to make money, or there will be no new games, so they have to code their product to function on mean hardware level.

Again, I understand that. That doesn't mean I have to like it.

 

[magoo]

I very much agree with you also, but we gotta be careful what we ask for. I sense that some developers are getting tired of writing for so many diverse systems and always having to patch things on release......plus the support must be a nightmare. I think that if the 360 is a big success we all may be playing on consoles(the thought gives me nausea) because of the ease of development. I recall a statement by John Carmack in that regard...I hope not but if I was in their shoes.....

 

[END]

Just what we needed to here as simple as that. take it from a system builder, Gaming computer designer .

These things need to be checked before they are shipped. You get to big and things are missed. It is normal for regular low end OEM though it should not be .
And never should be on mid/high end systems
I know it cost money to do this but if this was found in a way it would have paid for itself.

People pay to have it run right out of the box. Simple as that.
I can back [H]ard|OCP on the problems with the chipset so I would have done the same.

[H]ard|OCP good job well done on all.

END

Ya I use the widescreen as well. Mine being the Samsung 23"LN-R238 HDTV custom made monitor drivers and the 7800GTX looks great. Though Samsung says PC DVI/component is not supported It does work with a little tweaking. A few games have problems with it. I hope that that changes for all later games. This pic is component
http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/1753/samsunghdtv2gc.jpg

 

[Chris_Morley]

Just what we needed to here as simple as that. take it from a system builder, Gaming computer designer .

These things need to be checked before they are shipped. You get to big and things are missed. It is normal for regular low end OEM though it should not be .
And never should be on mid/high end systems
I know it cost money to do this but if this was found in a way it would have paid for itself.

People pay to have it run right out of the box. Simple as that.
I can back [H]ard|OCP on the problems with the chipset so I would have done the same.

[H]ard|OCP good job well done on all.

END

Ya I use the widescreen as well. Mine being the Samsung 23"LN-R238 HDTV custom made monitor drivers and the 7800GTX looks great. Though Samsung says PC DVI/component is not supported It does work with a little tweaking. A few games have problems with it. I hope that that changes for all later games. This pic is component
http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/1753/samsunghdtv2gc.jpg

Falcon Northwest does extensive testing of their systems, much more than some of their contemporaries. It is likely that this issue popped up after it left their offices.

 

[Razz_mon]

Greetings,

No, there isn't a problem with the ATI chipset. It would seem that an editor at Hard OCP has had some bad experiences in the past with the Xpress 200 chipset. The system we sent for review did develop a thermal problem with video card - resulting in long term instability problems in Battlefield 2. (The system would hard lock after very long sessions of playing.) We isolated the problem to the card; however, the past "bad blood" between the editor and the chipset resulted in blame being placed on the chipset for the instability.

I would say the system performed quite well - especially when taking the small form factor into consideration . The motherboard/chipset itself was not at fault for any problems with the system. Had the video card problem not developed, it would have been interested in seeing the results of the review and what, if any, negative words were placed against the motherboard/chipset.

As a concession toward the editor, I do fully understand his viewpoint - past bad experiences with a product will strongly influence the opinion of something like this.

Take good care,

Matthew Petrie
Falcon Technical Support

Edited to clarify that OP is NOT Matthew Petrie, but is posting an email response from him. - Chris Morley

 

[RedOctober]

Falcon Northwest does extensive testing of their systems, much more than some of their contemporaries. It is likely that this issue popped up after it left their offices.

Actually, probably not. My experience at FNW has taught me that, as a general rule, if you test a game for 20 minutes, and get a sucessful overnight burn-in on a graphic-intensive application, you should be good to go.

This really would be tough to catch in burn-in, but I can say with pretty good confidence that the problem existed before the system was shipped. Sure, the system was tested with BF2, but not to the extent that someone would be playing it at home (1-3 hours).

 

[RedOctober]

Greetings,

No, there isn't a problem with the ATI chipset. It would seem that an editor at Hard OCP has had some bad experiences in the past with the Xpress 200 chipset. The system we sent for review did develop a thermal problem with video card - resulting in long term instability problems in Battlefield 2. (The system would hard lock after very long sessions of playing.) We isolated the problem to the card; however, the past "bad blood" between the editor and the chipset resulted in blame being placed on the chipset for the instability.

I would say the system performed quite well - especially when taking the small form factor into consideration . The motherboard/chipset itself was not at fault for any problems with the system. Had the video card problem not developed, it would have been interested in seeing the results of the review and what, if any, negative words were placed against the motherboard/chipset.

As a concession toward the editor, I do fully understand his viewpoint - past bad experiences with a product will strongly influence the opinion of something like this.

Take good care,

Matthew Petrie
Falcon Technical Support

I'm glad to see Matt posting here in the forums. He's a much better representative of the company than the president. I've known Matt a long time and I have a fantastic amount of respect for his knowledge, ability and skill. I can say with good confidence that no one person I've met demonstrates a greater ability to troubleshoot for PC issues than Matt. He's been doing it for over 10 years, and I had the pleasure of working with him for a few of those.

Matt *is* the technical support for FNW. It's the part of the package that, in the review, would garner an 11 rating, if they could give it.

I must reiterate how much weight his thoughts and comments should carry in this discussion.

P.S. - Matt is also the only person I've ever met that can walk a customer through editing his/her registry from memory - and be 100% spot on every time.

EDIT: Now seeing that that was not Matt's post - no matter: everything said about Matt rings true.

 

[Chris_Morley]

Razz_Mon is NOT Matthew Petrie, he merely posted a response he got from Matt.

 

[TeamStrykerCore]

Lets do more walking and less talking!!!
TEST THE DAMN MOTHERBOARD.
How about you do a [H]ard test on the motherboard and find out. You say its a low end chipset prove it.
I would like to see a ATI xpress 200(m-atx) -vs- Nvidia 4(m-atx) maybe even throw in a FULL feature Nvidia 4(atx) of your liking.
You keep saying its the chipset well prove it with some [H]ard facts.
By the way your [H]ard on for Nvidia is really showing.
I have used both Nvidia and ATI chipsets and so far i would have to say my ATI chipset system has been more stable.

Why do you even post here?
Do you work for ATI?
Sleep with your mobo at night?

That was uncalled for.

Your mossing the point of the article. System was bought and reviewed. Said system didnt work. If it was just me purchasing a system and i wrote my own "personal" review of it online on say a blog. and falcon found it. Do you think they'd be calling me and saying hey its not the chipset. Make a retraction and take your words back. I've been following this thorougly. This is what I gather...

ATI's chipset got blamed.... (ATI reads this site religiously you have to believe that)
ATI calls Falcon
Falcon says WTF? Im sorry ATI (bow down to ATI) *smooch smooch smooch* ATI
IT definatley wasnt your chipset .... we still want a good deal with you and the mobo manufacture. Lets see what esle we can come up with.

Gets computer. Oh ... instabliity. Now it has to be the vid card. Oh what company made the video card.

I dont care who's fault it was. Too much bickering if you ask me. The point of the matter is the system was bought to play games and BF2 at that. The [H] as you say it. Worked with Tech support for a long time to figure it out. Tech support couldn't figure it out. Therefore the system was in a sense DOA. and needed to be RMA'd. No error is acceptable to the end user especially when your buying a $3000 gamin gmachine. I;'ve known tons of people including myself to build a rig for much much less and have a stable machine for years. If they need to use technology that is more :sound" and been out for al ittle bit to build a Stable high end machine then do it. It's not up to us to decide wether its the mobo or Video card. Although msot of us that read this site will want to figure it out.

I do applaud Falcon for going the extra mile. They are worried about customers and sales. That shows something good. Im just upset myself that it can't come down to the simple facts. Instead of blaming someone. The company represents the hardware or PC. The company should say sorry. We'll send you a new system and we'll test it ourselves and make absolutley sure that BF2 will run flawlessly. That's $3200 dollars. A lot of people value that money very greatly. It's not like you just throw down 3 g's get a computer that doesnt perform up to your standards and be happy? Car dealers have to issue recalls for faulty parts. Pc manufacturer's. Its very rare that you hear of any recalls.

 

[END]

Falcon Northwest does extensive testing of their systems, much more than some of their contemporaries. It is likely that this issue popped up after it left their offices.

I understand that.

 

[VVEGA]

Guys and Gals of [H]ard Forum!

I have posted what will hopefully be the last word on the FragBox 2 review on my website.

Kelt Reeves of Falcon Northwest agreed to write a Fan Page exclusive response to the review and I thought all of you would be interested in reading it.

You can find it on the main page at the link below.

http://www.falconfanpage.com

Thanks Y'all!

-VVEGA

 

[Chris_Morley]

Vincent, you have posted this twice in two different threads, and you have started a new thread on the matter. That is MORE than enough.

 

[VVEGA]

Vincent, you have posted this twice in two different threads, and you have started a new thread on the matter. That is MORE than enough.

I know, I apologize. I just wanted to make sure everyone saw it.

 

[lopoetve]

Edited to clarify that OP is NOT Matthew Petrie, but is posting an email response from him. - Chris Morley

So now they're liars.

Any interest in buying a FNW is starting to drop. Rapidly.

 

[lopoetve]

Guys and Gals of [H]ard Forum!

I have posted what will hopefully be the last word on the FragBox 2 review on my website.

Kelt Reeves of Falcon Northwest agreed to write a Fan Page exclusive response to the review and I thought all of you would be interested in reading it.

You can find it on the main page at the link below.

http://www.falconfanpage.com

Thanks Y'all!

-VVEGA

I would like to say that that site is by far one of the most biased things I've ever read, especially in your reactions to his post...

 

[MEfreak]

So now they're liars.

Any interest in buying a FNW is starting to drop. Rapidly.

lopoetve, I think Chris meant to say that "Razz mon" is not Mathew Petrie, but only posting an email response from Mathew Petrie. I don't think the comment was meant to discredit the actual text of the (supposed?) email. I think the confusion arose when Razz mon simply posted the meat of the email without indicating it was a third party quote. Whew, that's a lot of "think's."

 

[Chris_Morley]

I would like to say that that site is by far one of the most biased things I've ever read, especially in your reactions to his post...

Well, it is a fan page...but the text from Kelt is what matters, if he feels uncomfortable getting involved in this forum, and believe me I'd understand, then where else is he going to post his feelings? One page is as good as another, seeing as how we're all reading it...

 

[lopoetve]

lopoetve, I think Chris meant to say that "Razz mon" is not Mathew Petrie, but only posting an email response from Mathew Petrie. I don't think the comment was meant to discredit the actual text of the (supposed?) email. I think the confusion arose when Razz mon simply posted the meat of the email without indicating it was a third party quote. Whew, that's a lot of "think's."

I was mostly talking about the text of the quote, which I think was from a falcon tech support person. They need to admit that they too thought it was the motherboard, not place that blame soley on [H]. The text from Matthew Petrie makes it sound like they take no part of the blame for the original mis-diagnose of the problem.

Well, it is a fan page...but the text from Kelt is what matters, if he feels uncomfortable getting involved in this forum, and believe me I'd understand, then where else is he going to post his feelings? One page is as good as another, seeing as how we're all reading it...

True, and I have no problem with the text of his response,but the text of the site makes it sound like their word is God, and that there is no questioning or independant thought.

 

[Chris_Morley]

I was mostly talking about the text of the quote, which I think was from a falcon tech support person. They need to admit that they too thought it was the motherboard, not place that blame soley on [H]. The text from Matthew Petrie makes it sound like they take no part of the blame for the original mis-diagnose of the problem.



True, and I have no problem with the text of his response,but the text of the site makes it sound like their word is God, and that there is no questioning or independant thought.

Like I said, it is a fanpage...I don't expect anything truly independant about it...but at least it's clearly labeled as such.

 

[zone_86]

I read the review just today. I thought it was a pretty good review overall, and i think for what the editors thought that the target crowd would be for a machine like this it was reasonable. However that does not mean i don't understand how to read between the lines myself. Kyle told me a ways back about how bad Foxconn NF4 motherboards were and that he tossed his samples into the trash (verbatim). That's all fine and dandy, but two weeks later i used two of the very same boards he was talking about in builds and had zero problems aside from the 1T- 2T default issue on certain memory that was easily corrected. Move on to the ATI chipset. I have not personally used them in builds because i sold the shop and everything in it not that long ago before they were actually out as retail boards. However - i have modified 3 eMachines for a few people that had them. I added a much better PSU and in one case a 7800 GTX. That paticular machine runs BF2 just fine. No issues besides the new X-fi i also installed in it and a few BF2 issues with the X-fi (does not have issues with onboard sound). While the system with that board does not have any of the aftermarket timing and voltage tweaks that the retail MSI express 200 has it still ran a 3500+ just fine.

 

[Dan_D]

I read the review just today. I thought it was a pretty good review overall, and i think for what the editors thought that the target crowd would be for a machine like this it was reasonable. However that does not mean i don't understand how to read between the lines myself. Kyle told me a ways back about how bad Foxconn NF4 motherboards were and that he tossed his samples into the trash (verbatim). That's all fine and dandy, but two weeks later i used two of the very same boards he was talking about in builds and had zero problems aside from the 1T- 2T default issue on certain memory that was easily corrected. Move on to the ATI chipset. I have not personally used them in builds because i sold the shop and everything in it not that long ago before they were actually out as retail boards. However - i have modified 3 eMachines for a few people that had them. I added a much better PSU and in one case a 7800 GTX. That paticular machine runs BF2 just fine. No issues besides the new X-fi i also installed in it and a few BF2 issues with the X-fi (does not have issues with onboard sound). While the system with that board does not have any of the aftermarket timing and voltage tweaks that the retail MSI express 200 has it still ran a 3500+ just fine.

As I had stated before, I had horrible experiences with that MSI board and those E-Machines that used them. I couldn't get a couple ATi cards working in them, X600's specifically. I absolutely wouldn't use that particular MSI board ever.

Now the chipset, we'll I'll have to wait and see. I can say this though, I have no intentions of using some ULi chipset, or the crappy ATi southbridge that has gone into some boards like DFI's Crossfire board. It's a poor performaning, lackluster featured chipset and I won't use it while there is better on the market.

 

[tomv]

I was mostly talking about the text of the quote, which I think was from a falcon tech support person. They need to admit that they too thought it was the motherboard, not place that blame soley on [H]. The text from Matthew Petrie makes it sound like they take no part of the blame for the original mis-diagnose of the problem.

True, and I have no problem with the text of his response, but the text of the site makes it sound like their word is God, and that there is no questioning or independant thought.

Wow, that is some reading between the lines. Seems to me like Falcon is very aware of what went right and what went wrong and is taking their fair share of the blame.

Seems to me that the major problem (aside from failing to review a representative product and failing to take down a misleading non-review) is the public pissing contest and posting of private emails. It is reasonable to expect Falcon personnel to get a bit uptight.

So of course you will see a few posts expressing some strong opinions and in the heat of the moment some poorly chosen words will surface. Just remember who started it ...

 

[Chris_Morley]

Wow, that is some reading between the lines. Seems to me like Falcon is very aware of what went right and what went wrong and is taking their fair share of the blame.

Seems to me that the major problem (aside from failing to review a representative product and failing to take down a misleading non-review) is the public pissing contest and posting of private emails. It is reasonable to expect Falcon personnel to get a bit uptight.

So of course you will see a few posts expressing some strong opinions and in the heat of the moment some poorly chosen words will surface. Just remember who started it ...

Negative. We absolutely evaluated a representative product because we received a product directly from their production queue. Because ours failed doesn't mean it wasn't a representative product.

Furthermore, where have you been? Misleading non-review? Well, I'll agree with you that it wasn't a review, I don't write reviews, please show me where in any of my articles or the editors that work for me I have EVER used the word review. We write evaluations, which are basically narratives written from the customer's point of view.

As to misleading, I have ALREADY addressed the MSI/ATI comments, and you know what? Read the article and ignore everything said about MSI or ATI. I bet you'd still come to the same conclusion we did about the system.

 

[Draax]

Negative. We absolutely evaluated a representative product because we received a product directly from their production queue. Because ours failed doesn't mean it wasn't a representative product.

It is painfully clear this is not a representative product, and I really am sorry if Hard cannot understand this. A fair representation of a product is not a defective product, plain and simple. When ever you test something in a fair and unbiased manner, for starters you test more then one of the same product, and throw out the lows and the highs, so you are left with a true average of said product. A system infected with a faulty piece of hardware is not what the average user will receive, or have to live with. That is why it was very key that the system be RMA'D and a working product tested, since this was not the case the "evaluation" is only evaluating one specific system with a faulty piece of hardware, and not representing what the system is capable of? Wasn't that the whole point of the article ? to see what the system was capable? well you cant determine this if you have a faulty system.

Furthermore, where have you been? Misleading non-review? Well, I'll agree with you that it wasn't a review, I don't write reviews, please show me where in any of my articles or the editors that work for me I have EVER used the word review. We write evaluations, which are basically narratives written from the customer's point of view.

As to misleading, I have ALREADY addressed the MSI/ATI comments, and you know what? Read the article and ignore everything said about MSI or ATI. I bet you'd still come to the same conclusion we did about the system.

When Hard|OCP does an "evalutaion", "review", "preview" or whatever you want to label it, the results and intentions are one in the same. To give users a representation of what they can expect from purchasing that piece of hardware. This is not a representation because the product was faulty.

You can argue over semantics all you want, the end results are the same.

Lets just take a look at what the evaluation accomplished ? A defective product was tested, and judgements were made about the product as a whole, based on a faulty system. So what we are left with is a tainted evaluation which really does nto give the average user and indication about how the system will perform for them.

In addition you have also managed to burn bridges with FNW, for what looks like, to the average user, grand standing to proliferate the reputation Hard has as being e-thugs of the review world.

 

[lopoetve]

Wow, that is some reading between the lines. Seems to me like Falcon is very aware of what went right and what went wrong and is taking their fair share of the blame.

Seems to me that the major problem (aside from failing to review a representative product and failing to take down a misleading non-review) is the public pissing contest and posting of private emails. It is reasonable to expect Falcon personnel to get a bit uptight.

So of course you will see a few posts expressing some strong opinions and in the heat of the moment some poorly chosen words will surface. Just remember who started it ...

Really. Where in ANY statements since the review was posted have they admitted that they too misdiagnosed the system? I've read every one, and I see them trying to shift the blame entirely onto [H]ardocp.

It is painfully clear this is not a representative product, and I really am sorry if Hard cannot understand this. A fair representation of a product is not a defective product, plain and simple. When ever you test something in a fair and unbiased manner, for starters you test more then one of the same product, and throw out the lows and the highs, so you are left with a true average of said product. A system infected with a faulty piece of hardware is not what the average user will receive, or have to live with. That is why it was very key that the system be RMA'D and a working product tested, since this was not the case the "evaluation" is only evaluating one specific system with a faulty piece of hardware, and not representing what the system is capable of? Wasn't that the whole point of the article ? to see what the system was capable? well you cant determine this if you have a faulty system.


When Hard|OCP does an "evalutaion", "review", "preview" or whatever you want to label it, the results and intentions are one in the same. To give users a representation of what they can expect from purchasing that piece of hardware. This is not a representation because the product was faulty.

You can argue over semantics all you want, the end results are the same.

Lets just take a look at what the evaluation accomplished ? A defective product was tested, and judgements were made about the product as a whole, based on a faulty system. So what we are left with is a tainted evaluation which really does nto give the average user and indication about how the system will perform for them.

In addition you have also managed to burn bridges with FNW, for what looks like, to the average user, grand standing to proliferate the reputation Hard has as being e-thugs of the review world.

What consumer goes out and buys 10 of a product to find the best one of the batch? I certainly don't have $32,000 to do so. do you? This was evaluating the consumer experience, buying one product and testing it. The product was defective, it was misdiagnosed, and that is what was reported. This outcome is something that SOME people will encounter, so it is representative of what can happen, and thus the product in question. Falcon themselves provided the commentary on the quality and problems with the board that they faced, and now seem unable to admit that they made those statements and thought themselves that the board was the problem.

 

[Draax]

What consumer goes out and buys 10 of a product to find the best one of the batch? I certainly don't have $32,000 to do so. do you? This was evaluating the consumer experience, buying one product and testing it. The product was defective, it was misdiagnosed, and that is what was reported. This outcome is something that SOME people will encounter, so it is representative of what can happen, and thus the product in question. Falcon themselves provided the commentary on the quality and problems with the board that they faced, and now seem unable to admit that they made those statements and thought themselves that the board was the problem.

Apparently you missed the point of my post. The reason you test, by your example 10 of the same product, is so you can get an ACCURATE representation of what the average user is going to experience. One faulty piece of hardware is not a fair representation of the product, come on now use some common sense.

Sure some people will encounter problems with hardware, but it is not a fair representation of what the average user will encounter. In addition the average person would RMA the product to recieve a working product. The what if scenario is useless, a lot of things "can" happen, but they will not to the average user.

The evaluation is anything but what the average user will experience;

1. The average user would RMA the product
2. The average user would recieve a working product
3. The average user would never get in contact with the president
4. The average user would not get into a war of words with the president.

What part of the review would be similiar to the average users experience ? not much.

 

[Chris_Morley]

Draax, to talk to you anymore about this subject would be an exercise in futility. But to show you just how wrong you are in one specific area, I will tell you that Kelt and I have had some very good conversations regarding this issue and NO bridges were burned.

Also, go back and read the conclusion, I have added an addendum that I think sums up the experience very well.

 

[Draax]

Draax, to talk to you anymore about this subject would be an exercise in futility. But to show you just how wrong you are in one specific area, I will tell you that Kelt and I have had some very good conversations regarding this issue and NO bridges were burned.

Also, go back and read the conclusion, I have added an addendum that I think sums up the experience very well.

The article has had so many added notes, and changes, and sidebars that it has changed dramatically since the first "evaluation". That should give a very clear indication on how well the first "evaluation" was done.

You chose to ignore key points, argue semantics, and discount very basic observations on how the evaluation does not even remotely represent the experience of the average user. If anything was an exercise in futility, it was the entire FNW review.

 

[RedOctober]

It is painfully clear this is not a representative product, and I really am sorry if Hard cannot understand this. A fair representation of a product is not a defective product, plain and simple. When ever you test something in a fair and unbiased manner, for starters you test more then one of the same product, and throw out the lows and the highs, so you are left with a true average of said product. A system infected with a faulty piece of hardware is not what the average user will receive, or have to live with. That is why it was very key that the system be RMA'D and a working product tested, since this was not the case the "evaluation" is only evaluating one specific system with a faulty piece of hardware, and not representing what the system is capable of? Wasn't that the whole point of the article ? to see what the system was capable? well you cant determine this if you have a faulty system.

Draax - It's clear that your view of all of this is more that a little distorted. It'd be nice for your viewpoint to step back a few more notches.

The review of a product includes all aspects of a product, not just the hardware components iteslf. This includes the company, the support, the pre-sales experience, etc... IT'S NOT JUST THE BOX THAT GETS REVIEWED.

In that spirit, if the one sampling that the reviewer gets has a problem, it will be considered as an example of the experience a customer could (but certainly not necessarily would) see. In this type of review, all of this information holds value. It cannot be discounted, thrown out or watered down because the hardware does not work right. If this were a pure hardware review, you might see some (but not much, giving the tenacity of the [H]ardOCP crew) consideration given to a defective sampling.

 

[lopoetve]

Apparently you missed the point of my post. The reason you test, by your example 10 of the same product, is so you can get an ACCURATE representation of what the average user is going to experience. One faulty piece of hardware is not a fair representation of the product, come on now use some common sense.

Sure some people will encounter problems with hardware, but it is not a fair representation of what the average user will encounter. In addition the average person would RMA the product to recieve a working product. The what if scenario is useless, a lot of things "can" happen, but they will not to the average user.

The evaluation is anything but what the average user will experience;

1. The average user would RMA the product
2. The average user would recieve a working product
3. The average user would never get in contact with the president
4. The average user would not get into a war of words with the president.

What part of the review would be similiar to the average users experience ? not much.

What review site can spend $32k reviewing a box? I'm pretty sure that Kyle has better things to do with his resources.

Now, if I was in their boat, after spending $3.2k on a product, you can be guaranteed that if the thing didn't work right RIGHT away, and they didn't have it diagnosed and repaired within a week in case of problems, I'd charge-back on the credit card and drop-ship it back to them.

1. Maybe. I've often just returned things at that point. It doesn't work, so forget it.
2. Maybe, maybe not. I deal in MASS quantities of high-performance computer parts. I see more CPU's in a day than Kyle sees in a year (that's what happens when one of your key systems has 2,048 of the things!), and I know very well about failure ratios and product problems. We burn through parts at a prodigious rate. Never assume a single sample will be working.
3. Probably not, I'd give up after just a little bit on the phone. It's broke, so replace it.
4. Also probably not.

What part would be the normal experience? Buying it, recievingn a product, recieving a faulty product, going through a week or more of tech support, returning said product because it's broken and you're tired of fucking with it and are not going to spend money on a broken part. For me, that last part comes REALLY fast if it doesn't work. I demand excellance, and if it's not there, I don't want to have anything to do with it.

EDIT: And no, other than a few rare instances, I avoid RMAing things. If it breaks within a month, I want my money back.

 

[Draax]

The review of a product includes all aspects of a product, not just the hardware components iteslf. This includes the company, the support, the pre-sales experience, etc... IT'S NOT JUST THE BOX THAT GETS REVIEWED.

I need only reply to this specific paragraph. So let me get this straight ... "a review of a product includes all aspects of a product" ... except for the aspect where the product is free from defects and includes working hardware ? In addition support was not followed through on.

What review site can spend $32k reviewing a box? I'm pretty sure that Kyle has better things to do with his resources.

Exactly they cant, that is why you make sure to have an average representation of the product, not a defective product that represents an anomaly.

 

[RedOctober]

I need only reply to this specific paragraph. So let me get this straight ... "a review of a product includes all aspects of a product" ... except for the aspect where the product is free from defects and includes working hardware ? In addition support was not followed through on.

Nope, you are still missing the point. When someone purchases a product, there is no guarantee that the product is "free from defects and includes working hardware". Everone here knows that, because we've all purchased something that didn't work. Every time that happens, it affects our opinion of the company that manufactured the product. It occurs in the real world, and it occurs in the review. The system was busted, and that's what the review concluded.

There are some things that I absolutely agree with you on, however. I do believe that the repair process should've concluded before Chris outed himself as an editor with [H]ardOCP. Honestly, we'd all be a lot better off.

In addition, I do agree that the public pissing contest is no good for anyone. Falcon has a lot more to lose, however. That's the reason why he chose to respond on his public mouthpiece, the "Falcon Northwest Fan Page".

 

[zone_86]

As I had stated before, I had horrible experiences with that MSI board and those E-Machines that used them. I couldn't get a couple ATi cards working in them, X600's specifically. I absolutely wouldn't use that particular MSI board ever.

Now the chipset, we'll I'll have to wait and see. I can say this though, I have no intentions of using some ULi chipset, or the crappy ATi southbridge that has gone into some boards like DFI's Crossfire board. It's a poor performaning, lackluster featured chipset and I won't use it while there is better on the market.

I might suggest that just because did install the 7800 GTX fine in an eMachine w/express 200 does not mean i might not have had troubles with the same cards you had troubles with. Though i did install 6600GT's in the other two eMachines without issue as well (used Xilco PSU's). I would agree with you about the ATI southbridge being a bit underwhelming. As far as not using an ULi product - i wouldn't go that for on my part - meaning i would use the 939 dual from what i have read thus far it seems like a fine board.

 

[lopoetve]

I need only reply to this specific paragraph. So let me get this straight ... "a review of a product includes all aspects of a product" ... except for the aspect where the product is free from defects and includes working hardware ? In addition support was not followed through on.



Exactly they cant, that is why you make sure to have an average representation of the product, not a defective product that represents an anomaly.

1. How about the aspect that the THING WAS BROKEN? That's a key aspect of the problem as well. It was a motherboard that falcon admitted to having problems with, a mis-diagnosis on their part, and a broken computer. Period. Fact.

2. And they way you pointed out to do that, I might add, isn't something they can do! How do you know that this ISN'T an average representation? How many times do you send the box back before you decide you've got an average representation? How many times do they get extra time to work on it before it's too much?

In my experience, average representation of MSI motherboards and ATi chipsets is far below par at best, I'm not going to keep buying them to get one that works. I see that they don't, so I buy something else. Informed consumerism.

 

[Jason_Wall]

I need only reply to this specific paragraph. So let me get this straight ... "a review of a product includes all aspects of a product" ... except for the aspect where the product is free from defects and includes working hardware ? In addition support was not followed through on.

Exactly they cant, that is why you make sure to have an average representation of the product, not a defective product that represents an anomaly.

I feel comfortable in saying that getting a 'defective' box from FNW is a rare event.

But what about the next guy? Let's say we get a system from Steve's Discount OEM Systems. We get a machine from them off the line that performs flawlessly in every way. We look at the market, and every other machine that they've sold has had to be repaired or refunded. Are you contending that just because this machine was functional by dumb luck, it's a fair representation of all of the machines that Steve makes?

When you select things at random, you of course run the chance of snagging the statistical outlier. However, if an OEM is able to turn out a preponderance of quality boxes, then statistically, we should receive one of those. The question is, what happened with FNW? Are all of their boxes defective? Did we just run into a freak occurrence? It's been shown it's probably the latter.

As we've said, we don't want a cherry-picked box that we 'know' works. That's the bias in the journalistic industry that we're trying to get away from. It does the consumer no good for us to evaluate a machine that you could never possibly receive. We want what comes off the line.

 

[tomv]

Really. Where in ANY statements since the review was posted have they admitted that they too misdiagnosed the system? I've read every one, and I see them trying to shift the blame entirely onto [H]ardocp.

How about this:

Since the graphics card seemed to be running fine during the review, and CPUs rarely go bad, the motherboard or its interaction with memory seemed to our technical support, and to Chris, to be the most likely culprit of the BF2 lockups. And we freely admit when this board first came out we needed to get some BIOS tweaks done to fix a memory timing issue with a specific game title.

How many times do you send the box back before you decide you've got an average representation? How many times do they get extra time to work on it before it's too much?

As many times as necessary or you don't post the review. If you are one guy telling your buddy you didn't get a working system that is one thing. For a major review site to tell all its readers that this company, the motherboard company and the chipset company are delivering faulty products is irresponsible. Because of the large readership [H] is taking an isolated problem and broadcasting it as representative leaving it to the reader to deduce that the conclusions/opinions are probably in error. Tacking on a side note post mortem is not sufficient.

I guess someone could flip a coin 3 times and get heads each time and conclude to all the world that the coin is defective. A smart person would realize that this is not representative and that the reporter did not do his research very well and ignore the report. Of course the reviewer could then say that he was evaluating the whole user experience and that was his experience and "so there". Then I guess the reporter could still feel good about his work.

 

[Chris_Morley]

Why don't you go ahead and use my name if you're going to make snide remarks about my work and my intelligence.

 

[Jason_Wall]

I guess someone could flip a coin 3 times and get heads each time and conclude to all the world that the coin is defective. A smart person would realize that this is not representative and that the reporter did not do his research very well and ignore the report. Of course the reviewer could then say that he was evaluating the whole user experience and that was his experience and "so there". Then I guess the reporter could still feel good about his work.

OK, you can't set up an anecdotal premise to your convenience. That's not how logic works. If you DON'T KNOW that the two sides of a coin are different, how are you supposed to know that the results you receive aren't representative? This is the approach we come from. If we (the public, in general) already know that FNW makes an outstanding product, why evaluate them?

When you bring in a bunch of information external to the issue at hand, thereby influencing your opinions and/or positions on the issue, there's a word for that: bias. If you're calling us unbiased, then I suppose we should thank you for the compliment.

 

[lopoetve]

How about this:

As many times as necessary or you don't post the review. If you are one guy telling your buddy you didn't get a working system that is one thing. For a major review site to tell all its readers that this company, the motherboard company and the chipset company are delivering faulty products is irresponsible. Because of the large readership [H] is taking an isolated problem and broadcasting it as representative leaving it to the reader to deduce that the conclusions/opinions are probably in error. Tacking on a side note post mortem is not sufficient.

I guess someone could flip a coin 3 times and get heads each time and conclude to all the world that the coin is defective. A smart person would realize that this is not representative and that the reporter did not do his research very well and ignore the report. Of course the reviewer could then say that he was evaluating the whole user experience and that was his experience and "so there". Then I guess the reporter could still feel good about his work.

first point noted, but they seem to be avoiding admitting that now again.

As for the second... bull. The normal consumer doesn't send it back over and over and over again. At best, we send it back once, then demand our money back. This is an evaluation of the consumer experience. What you're suggesting would be far far from what they were trying to achieve.

The fact is, they DID deliver a faulty product, and they DID misdiagnose it. Now, hardocp reported this, and stressed as hard as they could that they felt this was not representative of the overall quality of the company, but they DID report that FNW admitted to fighting with a product that the editors here feel is generally an inferior product and design. They left nothing for deduction, they reported over and over again on the quality of the company and their service.

The evaluation was done blindly, without any assumption on the quality of the product or the company in question.