Glonk said:
My respect for Tom has actually gone up in all of this. It appears he's got journalistic integrity for the most part.
(...)
How so? Because he mentioned names?
He refers to ATi Radeon 8500's drivers as "cheesy". Yet, he had no problem in putting up the Quake 3 scores knowing full well what he thought of it....He didn't even mention anything to his readers that he thought the drivers were "cheesy" (his words) until 10 months later.
That is not integrity. If he thought that there might be something "cheesy" with the scores, then he should have mentioned it rather than wait 10 months later when all the smoke has cleared.
Then there's the BAPCo mess. What was his "logic" in agreeing with the decision to remove the ACCESS2000 scores? Because the AthlonXP's scores were "overly high". Geez. What is the point of benchmarks anyway? Isn't it to see which product does it faster?
If the scores were "overly high", it is because the AthlonXP was dominate, not because there was something wrong with the testing procedure. It wasn't "overly high" when all they had were PIIIs and the older Athlons, now was it?
And what about all the other allegations (like removing those 8 tasks--filters)? Pabst didn't even mention any of the other allegations. He just downplayed it and said that the data was "inconclusive". Folks, were those 8 filters removed or not? What data was Pabst looking for? (Read
http://www.geocities.com/legion88/race.html for more discussion on it.)
The point of the BAPCo mess is that a certain organization was being quite selective on what to remove and what to leave behind in SYSMark. So again, what data was Pabst looking at? And how many months did he wait until he said anything about it?
That's not integrity.
, to say the least!