Talk:Tom's Hardware/Archive 1

Archive 1

Uberscore

As part of the site history on this page, it states that Tom's Hardware or its group started the website Uberscore.com. Its citation simply links to Uberscore. Now, that website does not seem to me to be something designed by a professional group like Tom's Hardware. While it does link back to TH, it's hosted on a whole other server in France. I do not believe it to be true that the two are connected. I think it should be removed until independent verification. It seems very dubious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.223.243 (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Role of Thomas Pabst today?

it's a bit strange to see him listed as a founder, etc., but now he's not the CEO, he's not listed amongst the staff - is he busy focussing on medicine (I assume that's the kind of doctor he is?) or did he sell the company and just that nobody is talking about it?

Why would anyone assume "Doctor" Pabst ever actually was a medical Doctor? Has anyone ever seen his license to practice any type of medicine? It should be of interest to know whether "Doctor" Pabst was actually discharged during his residency at hospital in the UK prior to receiving a license to practice medicine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.140.31.101 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 2 July 2007

"doctor" is a term given to denote that someone has a mastery in a specific field. Dr. is what you would call someone who has a Ph.D or Doctorate. Another professional, the lawyer, receives a JD, or Juris Doctorate. The guy is probably a doctor of technology or something.24.12.97.192 04:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"Doctor" Pabst always promoted himself as a "medical" doctor, not as a "doctor" of technology or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.140.31.101 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 11 August 2007

Yeah my impression is the same. In any case, the ref which I've updated with an archive URL clearly states he was a medical doctor. I don't know what he's doing now, but even if he is a computer scientist now it doesn't seem to be what he was when he founded the website. So I've reverted an IP who changed doctor into computer scientist. (The article wasn't totally clear at the time it medical doctor and the ref wasn't working so perhaps the IP didn't know although it's generally a bad idea to try and intepret stuff without checking out refs for clarification when something is ambigious. Nil Einne (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Article Tone

I removed some of the more egregious non-NPOV and advertorial elements of this article - particularly the really gushing sales-brochure bits. I think what remains is ok relative to the prior rev (ie, it would be nice to see a bit more for this article, as it is quite a major player in the hardware news/review world). Dxco 03:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know much about how things work out with the tag this article has - leaving it for my betters ;) Dxco 03:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources?

I remember reading about THG review bias in the past, but I was wondering if anyone has found any source links describing the questionable behavior from a neutral POV? Whitesanjuro 21:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Whitesanjuro

Removed "As of Jan 2006..."

Anandtech news article is citing very old news. Omid R. has been the CEO of TGP for a very long time beyond Jan 2006, and David Strom left the company in early December 2005.

• Welcome to Wikipedia. It's usually bad taste to remove links to articles you don't agree with. Particularly if they are topical. Feel free to get an account and contribute before you expect to delete stuff without reversion. HackJandy 19:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section removed

The following section was removed from the article, with the justification being that it was "vandalism". I do not agree with that assertion, although I do think it is POV. I mention it because the user who made the edit has removed anti-Creative/anti-Tomshardware content from several articles with the same "vandalism" excuse:

Tom's articles have frequently been criticised by the hardware community and online forums for being biased and one-sided (in exchange for payouts). A good example is the favouritism he bestows on Asus products - especially motherboards - often giving them high scores.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

--HunterZ 15:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

But it is a fact, that Tom's Hardware was well known to be biased towards one side with POV issues. Example as using Intel compiler for CPU tests and largely favourable to the Intel side. And the website is also known to have a large base of Intel supporters (or somebody may call them fanboys) which is highly critical to the other companies such as VIA or AMD often irrationally. --202.40.137.202 04:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, don't think the site is biased towards Intel based on the fact that Intel unsuccessfully sued the company in 1997. IMHOFornoman 23:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at some of the latest Intel reviews (such as the one dealing with the Core 2 Extreme QX9770, it's recieved rather coldly, while they're giving AMDs Phenom quite some praise. Also keep in mind that Tom was one of the few going all out to discredit Intels 1.13 GHz Pentium III product, citing it ran hot and was unstable. (which another site also confirmed). As for them favouring Asus, I've never noticed it, so I'm not going to dispute that. 193.69.146.66 (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this section should be re-added, older reader will remember the many bullying tactic used in the past by THG such as the incident between THG and Ryan Shrout [Ryan Shrout discuss the incident] [HardOCP discuss the incident]

This is about documenting the past and such things did happen. There is no reason why history should be erased. There is definitively enough evidence to have a criticism section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.166.19.253 (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete

Nominate for this article to be deleted. This is a simple marketing ploy with no useful information—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kashk5 (talk • contribs).

What's your evidence for it being a marketing ploy? I vote that it should stay: it's one of the most well-known, tech-related sites on the Internet so it's notable enough on that basis, imo. -- Hux 15:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It could do with a rewrite, but deletion? No. Tom's is among the best-known sites in their field. Shall we delete AnandTech as well? — Aluvus t/c 01:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't Delete. Toms Hardware is a classic, many other PC related hardware review sites have now sprung up but this was one of the first. Tom's Hardware is as relevant to the online computer journalism industry as the WSJ is to US financial news. WillSmith (London) 22:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, no to the delete. Improvement required/desired, but it's a notable website and guide. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I came to the wiki entry with no illusions about Toms' biases but wanted examples of alternative PC related hardware review sites. THIS is the main absence on this (more or less pointless page). Mr [User:Willsmith|WillSmith (London)]] above, pleasse TELL me about your many other PC related hardware review sites that have now sprung up! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.108.172.84 (talk • contribs) 16:08, July 11, 2007 (UTC)

There is a link at the bottom of the page to Category:Technology websites, which serves that purpose. — Aluvus t/c 22:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Has been nominated for Speedy Deletion by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Doncerdo&action=edit. I added a hangon, because Tom's is certainly notable and a major source in its field. The article as is needs a major re-write and some work, but shouldn't be deleted. Falard 20:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that deletion is entirely necessary for this article. It is a reasonably well known group and it tends to pop up fairly high on google search results. Rather than speedy deletion I think this article is in greater need of speedy editing. 68.97.63.57 16:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey all, I agree that we should keep Tom's Hardware entry because it is well-known and really the first site to do what it does. Anandtech and CNet's entries are full of problems and advertising stuff. Suggestion--the site is called Tom's Hardware without the word 'Guide'...can someone make a fix? This entry should be under Tom's Hardware with a redirect from the old name, Tom's Hardware Guide. IMO

Fornoman 17:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

See thread below. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 17:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If the article cannot have "Criticism" and "Competitors" sections then it should be deleted promptly. The same applies for the Anandtech page. If the missing sections can be added/restored then the page would IMO still require a major edit to turn it from a blatant advertisement into a succinct wikipedia article. Manfred Bartz (talk) 09:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes

I have edited several aspects of the beginning paragraph so that it seems more like an encyclopedia. All of the information cited on the page I think came from their press kit and thus was badly worded. I tried to make it a bit more neutral and I deleted some of the dumb links along with unimportant information about the publishing company. I know it looks more sparse but a lot of the information seemed to be filler or advertising. I hope it looks better now. 68.97.63.57 16:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Senior Staff Section

I'm not familiar with the preferred format for web pages is but I'm unsure if its necessary to keep the senior staff section. Any thoughts? Agaib 23:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, ditch that section. Fornoman 17:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Page name change

I'll request a move to Tom's Hardware, as the site is no longer called Tom's Hardware Guide. It was done by cut-and-paste earlier today, which I reverted. If there are no objections by tomorrow, I'll post to Wikipedia:Requested moves. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 17:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Go for it...It's the right thing to do. Thanks Flyguy! 75.5.101.41 17:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• I requested the page move. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 05:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation and dubious content

The History of Tom's Hardware section has been copied verbatim from [1] which is copyrighted content ("Copyright © Bestofmedia.com - 2007"). Should be either deleted or rewritten. It contains too much marketing talk anyway, "After negative test results at THG Intel withdraws its 1,13 GHz processor from the market" alleges that Intel solely withdrew the processor because of THG, which can not plausibly verified. —Agentbla ^(talk) 16:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Major site change?

TG Daily and Gear Digest are linked to at the bottom of the page but have apparently been subsumed into some hideous "Tom's Guide" behemoth. Perhaps someone better informed can update or delete this article (the latter course because "Tom's Hardware" is effectively no longer the name of the site/network). Or, you know, just delete those links, which must violate some Wikipedia policy. 66.71.90.75 (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... is Toms hardware down? Toms hardware--141.225.23.125 (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Tom's Guide

I restored this article, which had been redirected to Tom's Guide. That seemed inappropriate, since the article is about Tom's Hardware. Currently Tom's Guide is a redirect here, but there's maybe a good case for making it a page about the Tom's Guide site. --David Edgar (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I have really restored Tom's Guide as a section, as in a merge should really merge. WurmWoode^T 05:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with this change. Tom's Guide really ought to be a separate entry on Wikipedia. It is a massive brand, with a much larger staff than Tom's Hardware, and has been run independently for years. Sure, the sites have similar names and are owned by the same parent company, but they are very different. 63.125.140.62 (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)