On Mon, 01 May 2017 18:40:17 +0100, Scott wrote:

On Mon, 01 May 2017 11:16:32 -0500, Mark Allread wrote:

On Mon, 01 May 2017 11:54:02 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Which bashing has always been a popular sport. I haven't subscribed
for ages, but when I did usually found their best buy just fine for
what I wanted.

Don't make the mistake I made by following their 'best buy' for landline
phones (Gigaset). They are still on sale and still in the shops as a
Which best buy.

Poor speakers and very poor life expectancy for both the handsets IME.
They were cheap and we need them quickly but have now replaced them.

As a matter of interest, what life would you expect for a cordless
phone? I assume you considered replacing the batteries?

Somewhat longer than 2 years. The Panasonic sets I had before (and which
make I've gone back to) lasted 10 years.

Batteries? They have batteries - that can be replaced?? Wow, who'd a
thought it.

How do you know the speaker is bad and not the microphone on the
caller's equipment or the landline?

Hmm, so everybody who called me had poor equipmnet and both my handsets
had the same fault? Landline and calls were just fine with hardwired
phone connection and also a borrowed cordless set.

The replacements also have none of the problems I had before.

On 02/05/17 00:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
The problem with Which is that their reports are also taken out of
context, not read, and applied to people where the items are really not
suited - third hand like "advice" from a well meaning uncle.

If ye read the articles, take on the advice learnt and then discover
further to make up ya own mind. Which doesn't cover everything relevant
for everyone.

Their reviews are rubbish for the most part.

Why did you subscribe to a very expensive magazine when you knew the
reports were rubbish?


I don't know about Tim, but over the years Which? has done sample trials
and several other sales promotion gimmicks ("free quide for the
confused", free prize draw, scratchcards?) just to hook in subscribers.

For a laugh I did such a trial about five years ago, and found it
stuffed with technical flaws and self promotional congratulation for no
real reason except to convince subscribers to stay subscribing.

The chances are that here, a few of us here have taken a peek at Which?
at some moment of lunacy, and then decided their purchasing matters
should be taken into their own d-i-y hands, outside of Which? (and BBC
Watchdog) while folks still have their own faculties.

I pity a new amazing device manufacturer that makes a valiant attempt to
sell into the UK market, going up against product pre-selection tactics
(margins) of the main store multiples, then the high costs of
advertising (football) and then lastly these "consumer" organisations
filtering with their prejudices (journalism).

We don't get to see on store shelves the more technical and exciting
products from a new producer. That choice is taken out of our hands -
the shop display space has been paid for by an incumbent manufacturer
(Sony, Panasonic, Sky) to sell an inferior "value for money" product.

Which? doesn't educate choice. They seek with the rest of the cosy sales
industry to reduce it.

Thank electrons for the internet!

--
Adrian C

On Mon, 1 May 2017 13:00:37 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, 1 May 2017 20:17:05 UTC+1, mechanic wrote:
On Mon, 1 May 2017 09:28:46 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote:

I don't see that context really makes much difference to a big fat
warning that the sharp carousel was not safe to use. For the
benefit of Sharp, it was never true.

But how would you know?

I did answer that of course. Keep up.

The fact that you're still here to tell the tail doesn't convince as
a test of safety for the product, sorry.

In article ,
Adrian Caspersz wrote:
The chances are that here, a few of us here have taken a peek at Which?
at some moment of lunacy, and then decided their purchasing matters
should be taken into their own d-i-y hands, outside of Which? (and BBC
Watchdog) while folks still have their own faculties.

As I said it's many years since I subscribed to Which. But I'd like to
know just how you test all the various brands of anything before buying?

--
*If a thing is worth doing, wouldn't it have been done already?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
On 02/05/17 00:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
The problem with Which is that their reports are also taken out of
context, not read, and applied to people where the items are really
not suited - third hand like "advice" from a well meaning uncle.

If ye read the articles, take on the advice learnt and then
discover further to make up ya own mind. Which doesn't cover
everything relevant for everyone.

Their reviews are rubbish for the most part.

Why did you subscribe to a very expensive magazine when you knew the
reports were rubbish?

You are a silly fool, eh? What makes you think I've subscribed to it?

So you've made a point of visiting your library or whatever to read a big
variety of reports fully and thoroughly before pronouncing them rubbish,
then?

--
*If tennis elbow is painful, imagine suffering with tennis balls *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
The BiL bought, perhaps still does, appliances based on Which
recommendations. So 15 years or so ago he buys a new Sony telly, and
thinks it's wonderful, even though at a cursory glance one could see
that the colour registration in the whole of the upper left screen
quadrant was completely off.

Why didn't he get it replaced? Or do you think since Which recommended it,
they're all like that?

I take it no product you buy is ever other than perfect, and works
perfectly over a long long life?

--
*Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Adrian Caspersz wrote:
The chances are that here, a few of us here have taken a peek at Which?
at some moment of lunacy, and then decided their purchasing matters
should be taken into their own d-i-y hands, outside of Which? (and BBC
Watchdog) while folks still have their own faculties.

As I said it's many years since I subscribed to Which. But I'd like to
know just how you test all the various brands of anything before buying?

a poll of colleagues at work used to be quite a good way of doing it.
nowadays the Internet is a useful source.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Adrian Caspersz wrote:
The chances are that here, a few of us here have taken a peek at
Which? at some moment of lunacy, and then decided their purchasing
matters should be taken into their own d-i-y hands, outside of
Which? (and BBC Watchdog) while folks still have their own
faculties.

As I said it's many years since I subscribed to Which. But I'd like to
know just how you test all the various brands of anything before
buying?

a poll of colleagues at work used to be quite a good way of doing it.
nowadays the Internet is a useful source.

It can be - but you still get lots of contradicting advice. People are
more likely to complain than praise - so any market leader in terms of
sales is going to have more failures or problems.

--
*When you've seen one shopping centre you've seen a mall*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
The BiL bought, perhaps still does, appliances based on Which
recommendations. So 15 years or so ago he buys a new Sony telly, and
thinks it's wonderful, even though at a cursory glance one could see
that the colour registration in the whole of the upper left screen
quadrant was completely off.

Why didn't he get it replaced? Or do you think since Which recommended
it, they're all like that?

I didn't bother mentioning it, although it could probably have been
adjusted. They seemed happy enough.

I don't think there is any convergence adjustment on an LCD - unlike with
older CRT sets.

I take it no product you buy is ever other than perfect, and works
perfectly over a long long life?

Continuing your policy of jumping to conclusions and making it up as
you go along, eh?

You have jumped to your conclusion about a 'best buy' TV based on a sample
of one? Unless I'm missing something...

I see that's what Dianne Abbott did this morning on LBC - putting
random figures together about extra police numbers and the cost. With
pay for these extra police ranging variously from £30/year to
£2000/year. On *her* figures.

Very true. That's more the sort of gaff one would expect from Boris.

--
*My luck is so bad that if I bought a cemetery, people would stop dying.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 02/05/17 13:00, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Adrian Caspersz wrote:
The chances are that here, a few of us here have taken a peek at Which?
at some moment of lunacy, and then decided their purchasing matters
should be taken into their own d-i-y hands, outside of Which? (and BBC
Watchdog) while folks still have their own faculties.

As I said it's many years since I subscribed to Which. But I'd like to
know just how you test all the various brands of anything before buying?

My opinion on Italian electrics and vehicles is 'avoid'. So I don't need
to test those.

Nah, if you are at least half technically minded, the function, the
specifications, advertised attributes of most gadgets and appliance is
plain obvious, and ye will reach a handful choice of items with a little
bit of effort. Then find internet reviews, and sift out dumb users (and
dumb websites) to get the functional lowdown - and see if ye can work
around or ignore any shortcomings others have.

No actual need to pay to test anything, if you get the above right.

I generally do.

--
Adrian C

In article ,
Adrian Caspersz wrote:
As I said it's many years since I subscribed to Which. But I'd like to
know just how you test all the various brands of anything before
buying?

My opinion on Italian electrics and vehicles is 'avoid'. So I don't need
to test those.

That could be difficult with some white goods. ;-)

Cars tend to be a different matter. Not everyone thinks ultimate
reliability or running costs the most important thing. Otherwise we'd all
be driving the same car. In other words if you fancy the looks and driving
experience of an Alfa, you'll likely end up buying one regardless.

As I've said, I've not even looked at Which for about 20 years or so.
Before that, reader's surveys were of interest, since a larger proportion
of owners were likely to reply than anywhere else. And given they were
paying good money for such a service, not in their interests to be
dishonest.

--
*Santa Claus has the right idea. Visit people only once a year.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
The BiL bought, perhaps still does, appliances based on Which
recommendations. So 15 years or so ago he buys a new Sony telly, and
thinks it's wonderful, even though at a cursory glance one could see
that the colour registration in the whole of the upper left screen
quadrant was completely off.

Why didn't he get it replaced? Or do you think since Which recommended
it, they're all like that?

I didn't bother mentioning it, although it could probably have been
adjusted. They seemed happy enough.

I don't think there is any convergence adjustment on an LCD - unlike with
older CRT sets.

It *was* an older CRT set. I said "15 years ago" - see above.

LCDs were around 15 years ago.

I take it no product you buy is ever other than perfect, and works
perfectly over a long long life?

Continuing your policy of jumping to conclusions and making it up as
you go along, eh?

You have jumped to your conclusion about a 'best buy' TV based on a
sample of one? Unless I'm missing something...

You did. I didn't say it was a Best Buy, although it might have been.
What I was actually commenting on was that people slavishly following
what Which has to say, even though a cursory examination of their
reviews shows them to be poor.

So the example you give to prove this hypothesis turns out not to have
been a Which recommendation? Merely a product bought by someone who also
subscribes to Which?

Typical logic of a Brexiteer, I'd say.

--
*Don't worry; it only seems kinky the first time.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 02/05/17 11:07, Tim Streater wrote:

The BiL bought, perhaps still does, appliances based on Which
recommendations. So 15 years or so ago he buys a new Sony telly, and
thinks it's wonderful, even though at a cursory glance one could see
that the colour registration in the whole of the upper left screen
quadrant was completely off.

Casting emperors new shoes effects aside, Sony certainly had picture
issues back then with some of the high end 36" widescreen CRT WEGA monsters.

Was it one of them? Should it been sent back for sorting?

I have friends that went through that hassle.

--
Adrian C

In article ,
Adrian Caspersz wrote:
Casting emperors new shoes effects aside, Sony certainly had picture
issues back then with some of the high end 36" widescreen CRT WEGA
monsters.

Pretty well all widescreen CRT sets had convergence issues. Which is why
you never saw one used in a critical application in broadcast. Always a
4:3 scanned to 16:9.

--
*The older you get, the better you realize you were.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
So the example you give to prove this hypothesis turns out not to have
been a Which recommendation? Merely a product bought by someone who also
subscribes to Which?

Did I say it wasn't a Best Buy? You'll really have to see someone about
this bad habit you've got of jumping to conclusions. It renders your
arguments, such as they are, worthless.

Excuse me for assuming you were following and replying to the thread.
Should have realised you'd just jumped off in an arbitrary direction.

The BiL in question "bought, perhaps still does, appliances based on
Which recommendations." as I said earlier. I've no idea whether he
picks Best Buys or not or whether Which has some other category.

I'm sure that all makes sense to you.

--
*Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 02/05/2017 11:07, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Adrian Caspersz
wrote:

[snip Plowman twaddle]

I don't know about Tim, but over the years Which? has done sample
trials and several other sales promotion gimmicks ("free quide for the
confused", free prize draw, scratchcards?) just to hook in subscribers.

For a laugh I did such a trial about five years ago, and found it
stuffed with technical flaws and self promotional congratulation for
no real reason except to convince subscribers to stay subscribing.

The chances are that here, a few of us here have taken a peek at
Which? at some moment of lunacy, and then decided their purchasing
matters should be taken into their own d-i-y hands, outside of Which?
(and BBC Watchdog) while folks still have their own faculties.

FiL takes Which, which is how I happen to see it. Their reviews are
largely content-free and are obviously aimed at dumb-clucks. So
f'rinstance for cameras, it's rare that they explain that more
mega-pixels does not necessarily equate to better pictures. It'll be
"Takes great pictures" or similar banality.


"Megapixels
A megapixel (Mp) equals one million pixels. The term is used in
reference to the resolution of the digital camera. More megapixels mean
more detail, so you can create bigger prints without noticing blockiness
on the picture. Megapixels aren't the be-all and end-all though €“ the
digital camera's lens quality, sensor quality and sensor size play a big
role in how sharp and colour-accurate your pictures are".
(Which? 2017)

The BiL bought, perhaps still does, appliances based on Which
recommendations. So 15 years or so ago he buys a new Sony telly, and
thinks it's wonderful, even though at a cursory glance one could see
that the colour registration in the whole of the upper left screen
quadrant was completely off.


I'd suggest it was faulty.

--
Cheers, Rob

Scott wrote
Mark Allread wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

Which bashing has always been a popular sport. I
haven't subscribed for ages, but when I did usually
found their best buy just fine for what I wanted.

Don't make the mistake I made by following their
'best buy' for landline phones (Gigaset). They are still
on sale and still in the shops as a Which best buy.

Poor speakers and very poor life expectancy for both the handsets IME.
They were cheap and we need them quickly but have now replaced them.

As a matter of interest, what life would you expect for a cordless phone?

Decades.

I assume you considered replacing the batteries?

I havent needed to with my Panasonic KX-TCD735ALMs,
in decades. They do have replicable AA NiMH batterys and
I bought them because they have those, but havent needed
to replace them. The charger is very smart and I have actually
charged some hard to charge AAs in the phones at times.

How do you know the speaker is bad and not the
microphone on the caller's equipment or the landline?

By getting the same result with all callers presumably.

It seems to me most poor quality calls are the fault
of the other person's equipment - either not holding
the mouthpiece close to the mouth or walking about.

But you are unlikely to have all callers doing that.

PS Psychologically, does speaking deliberately quietly
cause the other person to speak louder and vice versa?

I'm not convinced that with most modern cordless
phones that you can actually do that successfully. Most
will automatically attempt to adjust the mic gain.

mechanic wrote
wrote

I don't see that context really makes much difference
to a big fat warning that the sharp carousel was not
safe to use. For the benefit of Sharp, it was never true.

But how would you know?

By using one and finding that it does heat evenly.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , RJH wrote:

"Megapixels A megapixel (Mp) equals one million pixels. The term is
used in reference to the resolution of the digital camera. More
megapixels mean more detail, so you can create bigger prints without
noticing blockiness on the picture. Megapixels aren't the be-all and
end-all though — the digital camera's lens quality, sensor quality and
sensor size play a big role in how sharp and colour-accurate your
pictures are". (Which? 2017)

Notice they don't bother to tell you why though, or the extent to which
these factors interact or matter.

They don't tell you how fuel injection works on a car report either.

It was designed as a consumer guide to buying a product. Not a magazine
for enthusiasts or hobbies. If you want the ins and outs of a camera,
there are plenty of specialist mags that will give you that information.

--

--
*My designated driver drove me to drink

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Adrian Caspersz" wrote in message
...
On 02/05/17 00:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
The problem with Which is that their reports are also taken out of
context, not read, and applied to people where the items are really not
suited - third hand like "advice" from a well meaning uncle.

If ye read the articles, take on the advice learnt and then discover
further to make up ya own mind. Which doesn't cover everything relevant
for everyone.

Their reviews are rubbish for the most part.

Why did you subscribe to a very expensive magazine when you knew the
reports were rubbish?


I don't know about Tim, but over the years Which? has done sample trials
and several other sales promotion gimmicks ("free quide for the confused",
free prize draw, scratchcards?) just to hook in subscribers.

For a laugh I did such a trial about five years ago, and found it stuffed
with technical flaws and self promotional congratulation for no real
reason except to convince subscribers to stay subscribing.

The chances are that here, a few of us here have taken a peek at Which? at
some moment of lunacy, and then decided their purchasing matters should be
taken into their own d-i-y hands, outside of Which? (and BBC Watchdog)
while folks still have their own faculties.

I pity a new amazing device manufacturer that makes a valiant attempt to
sell into the UK market, going up against product pre-selection tactics
(margins) of the main store multiples, then the high costs of advertising
(football) and then lastly these "consumer" organisations filtering with
their prejudices (journalism).

We don't get to see on store shelves the more technical and exciting
products from a new producer.

But those are available on the net.

That choice is taken out of our hands - the shop display space has been
paid for by an incumbent manufacturer (Sony, Panasonic, Sky) to sell an
inferior "value for money" product.

Only a fool buys what is on some shelf in a store anymore.

Which? doesn't educate choice.

Corse they do with some of the more
general considerations with some products.

They seek with the rest of the cosy sales industry to reduce it.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Thank electrons for the internet!

On 02/05/2017 23:01, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , RJH wrote:

"Megapixels
A megapixel (Mp) equals one million pixels. The term is used in
reference to the resolution of the digital camera. More megapixels
mean more detail, so you can create bigger prints without noticing
blockiness on the picture. Megapixels aren't the be-all and end-all
though €“ the digital camera's lens quality, sensor quality and sensor
size play a big role in how sharp and colour-accurate your pictures are".
(Which? 2017)

Notice they don't bother to tell you why though, or the extent to which
these factors interact or matter.


Why have you snipped out the context?

I'm afraid you're going to have to look it up for yourself - my point
was that you hadn't taken the time to read what you were attempting to
criticise. Or lying for some reason. Or you are simply trolling.

--
Cheers, Rob

On 01/05/2017 13:14, ARW wrote:
On 01/05/2017 11:54, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
ARW wrote:
On 30/04/2017 16:18, alan_m wrote:
On 30/04/2017 13:05, dennis@home wrote:



Blame customers.
GEC and Hitachi TVs used to come off the same production line in
wales,
the only thing different was the badge.
GEC couldn't sell them and they sold their share of the plant and then
it got closed down.

I remember that 3 decades ago when a 2 models of a VHS video recorder
came off the same production line and were identical apart from the
case
cosmetics the badge. Which? tested them both and gave one with the JCV
badge a best buy recommendation and slated the other as rubbish.


Which? should change it's name to Witch?

Depends. It's quite possible two samples of basically the same model
performed differently. You'd need to read the article to know how they
tested them. And if they were doing proper lab tests (as they once did)
they'd have known the guts were the same.

The reaction here seems to blame Which. When it's possible the blame lies
with the maker for poor quality control.

Which bashing has always been a popular sport. I haven't subscribed for
ages, but when I did usually found their best buy just fine for what I
wanted. Too many treat it like some specialist review mag when it
comes to
hobby things like cameras etc. I always regarded it as a way of finding a
best buy for something that didn't matter that much to me. Just
wanting it
to perform and last well. When it comes down to cameras, Hi-Fi, cars,
etc,
many will want more than that.


They do make some mistakes, or cut corners, or don't know what they're
doing on occasion. Their site hosts comments on reviews, and shows
things up.

I was looking at electric toothbrushes the other day (I get online
access through work) and the comments suggest that their review got many
things wrong - objective stuff like battery life for example. Could be
sample variation but I didn't get that impression. And Which? staff do
comment on comments - it's usually 'we'll bear that in mind next time',
but at least they do seem to take a passing interest.

I asked them about some loudspeaker tests a while back - they carried
out blind, but not double blind.

All of that said, if time is taken to read the reviews and comments,
I've always found their reports get me in the ballpark of something decent.


So the lab testing is based on a sample of one and the customer reviews
are based on Which readers that can be bothered to make a report (and
you can bet that they are boring complaining ****s with nothing better
to do in their life).


Erm, I agree I think - their methods aren't that rigorous by what would
be considered a decent scientific test (replicable etc).


--
Cheers, Rob

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Adrian Caspersz wrote:
Casting emperors new shoes effects aside, Sony certainly had picture
issues back then with some of the high end 36" widescreen CRT WEGA
monsters.

Pretty well all widescreen CRT sets had convergence issues. Which is why
you never saw one used in a critical application in broadcast. Always a
4:3 scanned to 16:9.


Sony were using the Trinitron system and made their own tubes.
Widescreen always has more problems with spot size and registration, One
of the reasons people went away from 110 degree tubes.

On Tue, 02 May 2017 23:01:22 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , RJH wrote:

"Megapixels A megapixel (Mp) equals one million pixels. The term
is used in reference to the resolution of the digital camera.
More megapixels mean more detail, so you can create bigger
prints without noticing blockiness on the picture. Megapixels
aren't the be-all and end-all though ¡V the digital camera's lens
quality, sensor quality and sensor size play a big role in how
sharp and colour-accurate your pictures are". (Which? 2017)

Notice they don't bother to tell you why though, or the extent to
which these factors interact or matter.

Most consumers don't care, Which? tends to simplfy things to a
single score (used to be blobs) if you need more detail look
elsewhere.

On Wed, 3 May 2017 08:33:03 +0100, RJH wrote:

Why have you snipped out the context?

I'm afraid you're going to have to look it up for yourself - my point
was that you hadn't taken the time to read what you were attempting to
criticise. Or lying for some reason. Or you are simply trolling.

This is why killfiles were invented.

In article ,
RJH wrote:
All of that said, if time is taken to read the reviews and comments,
I've always found their reports get me in the ballpark of something
decent.

That's what I found when I subscribed many years ago. I was always
satisfied when I bought one of their recommendations. For things like
household appliances, etc. Which all I wanted from was adequate
performance and life.

For things I cared about - like cars or say AV equipment - I'd still read
their comments, but at the end of the day make up my own mind.

Of course I'm sure some on here would go and look at every washing machine
on the market and research it thoroughly on the net (which was in its
infancy when I took Which) Good luck to them.

--
* I like you. You remind me of when I was young and stupid

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 02/05/2017 11:07, Tim Streater wrote:

So 15 years or so ago he buys a new Sony telly, and
thinks it's wonderful, even though at a cursory glance one could see
that the colour registration in the whole of the upper left screen
quadrant was completely off.


Probably a CRT and has used the vacuum cleaner close by hence the need
to degauss.

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 03/05/2017 10:03, mechanic wrote:


Most consumers don't care, Which? tends to simplfy things to a
single score (used to be blobs) if you need more detail look
elsewhere.


In my very limited experience with Which? on subjects/products that I do
know something about and have independently researched I've found that
they get some of the basics wrong and their best buys are based on
erroneous pricing.

I also got the impression that they rate a product with, say, 100 widget
functions more highly than a product with only 50 widget functions
irrespective if the widgets are actually useful.


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In article ,
alan_m writes:
On 03/05/2017 10:03, mechanic wrote:


Most consumers don't care, Which? tends to simplfy things to a
single score (used to be blobs) if you need more detail look
elsewhere.


In my very limited experience with Which? on subjects/products that I do
know something about and have independently researched I've found that
they get some of the basics wrong

+1

I remember looking through a survey of printers, and they
completely missed any kind of "total cost of ownership"
comparison, which should have been one of their top selection
criteria, particularly in this area.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Sun, 7 May 2017 09:01:13 -0000 (UTC), Andrew Gabriel wrote:

I remember looking through a survey of printers, and they
completely missed any kind of "total cost of ownership"
comparison, which should have been one of their top selection
criteria, particularly in this area.

You usually get the printer price and the cost per page - how hard
is it then to work out the cost of ownership?

On Tuesday, 2 May 2017 11:15:32 UTC+1, mechanic wrote:
On Mon, 1 May 2017 13:00:37 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 1 May 2017 20:17:05 UTC+1, mechanic wrote:
On Mon, 1 May 2017 09:28:46 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote:

I don't see that context really makes much difference to a big fat
warning that the sharp carousel was not safe to use. For the
benefit of Sharp, it was never true.

But how would you know?

I did answer that of course. Keep up.

The fact that you're still here to tell the tail doesn't convince as
a test of safety for the product, sorry.

Lol. Only a complete wally would think that's how safety is established.


NT

On Tuesday, 2 May 2017 21:43:57 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
mechanic wrote
tabbypurr wrote

I don't see that context really makes much difference
to a big fat warning that the sharp carousel was not
safe to use. For the benefit of Sharp, it was never true.

But how would you know?

By using one and finding that it does heat evenly.

No microwave heats evenly, but the Carousels were no worse than any other. And I've used them for decades.

Only 'Mechanic' needs telling this stuff. Even Rod could work it out, almost.


NT

On 08/05/2017 09:45, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 7 May 2017 09:01:13 -0000 (UTC), Andrew Gabriel wrote:

I remember looking through a survey of printers, and they
completely missed any kind of "total cost of ownership"
comparison, which should have been one of their top selection
criteria, particularly in this area.

You usually get the printer price and the cost per page - how hard
is it then to work out the cost of ownership?


Yes all you need to know is what consumables it will use, add them up.
But does the printer need toners, waste bottles, transfer belts, drums,
etc. do you want to find out for every printer to see which is cheapest
or do you expect the expert reviewer to do it.

BTW I do not consider which to be experts, if you see a which review
about anything you are knowledgeable in you will soon see how cr@p they are.

On Mon, 8 May 2017 03:50:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

No microwave heats evenly, but the Carousels were no worse than
any other. And I've used them for decades.

How many, two, three?

Only 'Mechanic' needs telling this stuff. Even Rod could work it
out, almost.

I know bull**** when I smell it.

wrote
Rod Speed wrote
mechanic wrote
tabbypurr wrote

I don't see that context really makes much difference
to a big fat warning that the sharp carousel was not
safe to use. For the benefit of Sharp, it was never true.

But how would you know?

By using one and finding that it does heat evenly.

No microwave heats evenly,

Thats why the bulk of them have rotating turntables.

but the Carousels were no worse than any other.

Indeed.

And I've used them for decades.

Only 'Mechanic' needs telling this stuff.

reams of your **** any 2 year old could
leave for dead flushed where it belongs

On Monday, 8 May 2017 18:51:33 UTC+1, mechanic wrote:
On Mon, 8 May 2017 03:50:47 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote:

No microwave heats evenly, but the Carousels were no worse than
any other. And I've used them for decades.

How many, two, three?

Only 'Mechanic' needs telling this stuff. Even Rod could work it
out, almost.

I know bull**** when I smell it.

I'm not convinced you know anything. Good bye.