I took a look at the new issue of Laptop Magazine at the bookstore over the weekend. They review the 8882, and also the Prostar model that's identical to the 8882. I searched through the threads and didn't see anyone talking about it so I thought I'd start up a discussion..
First off, I know that magazines have to go to print months before they're on the stands, yadda yadda, but what's the point of having an 8882 review right now? Sager's ads in the same issue are for the 8886 and 5660 so an uninformed reader will probably be confused.
Second, I dont like the fact that they review the 8882 and the Prostar that's the exact same model (I forget their model number) in two seperate reviews, with no mention that they're really the same pc.
Its obvious that they were reviewed by different writers and I dont think they compared notes. The Prostar was a 2.5 ghz (I believe) and the 8882 was a 2.8. The Prostar scored about a 4900 in their 3DMark2001 test but they had N/A for the 8882's score. In the scoring legend it said that N/A meant that the video chipset has under 32 megs of memory and cannot run the 3DMark2001 test. There was no mention in the article of why there was no 3D score. Of course these were on the Radeon 7500 chipset. Also, they have some kind of 'Mobile Mark' test (I've probably got that name way wrong) that tests several different factors, and a reaction time test, the Prostar scored the highest on those, and a couple of other laptops reviewed scored higher then the Sager.
Reading the two reviews one after the other was a little odd because according to them you would think that the Prostar was faster, even though it was a slower model. My guess is that the tests were run by two different reviewers under different circumstances and can't really be compared. One of them might have had more services or background programs running, etc. Neither of the notebooks got an Editors Choice, mainly because of their size and weight, but they were very impressed with their power and features. Then again, who wouldn't be?
First off, I know that magazines have to go to print months before they're on the stands, yadda yadda, but what's the point of having an 8882 review right now? Sager's ads in the same issue are for the 8886 and 5660 so an uninformed reader will probably be confused.
Second, I dont like the fact that they review the 8882 and the Prostar that's the exact same model (I forget their model number) in two seperate reviews, with no mention that they're really the same pc.
Its obvious that they were reviewed by different writers and I dont think they compared notes. The Prostar was a 2.5 ghz (I believe) and the 8882 was a 2.8. The Prostar scored about a 4900 in their 3DMark2001 test but they had N/A for the 8882's score. In the scoring legend it said that N/A meant that the video chipset has under 32 megs of memory and cannot run the 3DMark2001 test. There was no mention in the article of why there was no 3D score. Of course these were on the Radeon 7500 chipset. Also, they have some kind of 'Mobile Mark' test (I've probably got that name way wrong) that tests several different factors, and a reaction time test, the Prostar scored the highest on those, and a couple of other laptops reviewed scored higher then the Sager.
Reading the two reviews one after the other was a little odd because according to them you would think that the Prostar was faster, even though it was a slower model. My guess is that the tests were run by two different reviewers under different circumstances and can't really be compared. One of them might have had more services or background programs running, etc. Neither of the notebooks got an Editors Choice, mainly because of their size and weight, but they were very impressed with their power and features. Then again, who wouldn't be?
