William Campbell (wcampbell@realworldtech.com) on 11/29/05 wrote:
---------------------------
>... but when I directly
>asked what Dean was saying was not asked by "AMD boosters"--his implication I believe,
>I may be mistaken--I still did not get the answer to the question.
>

That is because I don't know the answer. I have not received a review processor or system for quite some time.

My only objection is in the way questions are asked, which imply some kind of 'pressure' from Intel, but are not asked in this manner about AMD (or anyone else). It is amazing how many people try to proclaim themselves objective, but the wording used in even the most 'innocent' of questions almost always carries some sort of implication. I am somewhat sensitive to this, as I have had some recent run-ins with lawyers and psychiatrists recently. The deck can easily be stacked simply by posing the question or statement 'correctly'. And it is interesting how even very intelligent people can be swayed by this tactic.

FWIW, I have previously received a number of processors from both companies, and *never* was I pressured by either one to use any particular benchmark. Both did, however, suggest not only specific benchmarks but the methodology to use as well. And recommended hardware (video cards, motherboards, etc.) that would be 'best' to use with them. There was never any implication that if the suggestions were not followed that there would be any punitive actions or refusal to supply future review parts.

Regards,
Dean