A Better Ed’s Note
We’re 19 this issue. Still teenagers and all our
infractions forgiven because well, we are young. We
want to get older like all 19 year olds because the
sudden elation that was supposed to come with the
independence of being 18 just wasn’t there.
Much like learning how to tie your
own shoe laces, everybody else is
excited but you. Your four year old
mind has memorized the procedure
but the dexterity is not there just yet.
You wonder why it’s important to learn
this, because thus far your shoes have
worked just fine with a single strap.
So it is much like this Ed’s note. It’s
imperative that we or rather that I
make a real effort at it. Be it I agree
with its existence or not, it’s always
going to be there and because we are
19, it’s high time I articulated myself
appropriately.
One of the problems that came up
while putting together this issue, is
dealing with the scoring system we have
had up until now. Sure enough scoring
components out of 10 seems the most
logical thing to do, but after so many
components tested and such. I looked at
the average hardware score and realized
that short of AMD’s FX CPUs, nothing
ever scores less than a six. Further
inquiry led me to the realization that the
numbering system isn’t quite as effective
as one would initially think it is. In fact
it relays no meaningful measurement
as it is right now and real approval is
bestowed with an award. If that is the
case, then why score the hardware at
all? A stamp of approval or its absence is
all we really need it seems.
That’s great when dealing with single
products but what about when two
or more components or products are
compared? If they are both worthy of
praise and they are both rewarded,
does that mean they are equal
products? If not, then the numeric
scoring system starts to make sense
again and maybe a stamp of approval
alongside a numeric value is what
3 The OverClocker Issue 19 | 2012
we need. Oddly enough this puts us
right back where we began, an award
(if applicable) and a score. This isn’t
progressive, so it means we were not
asking the right question.
I won’t tell you that we have found a
solution to this, no not in the least, but
what we have realized is that, in order
for any scoring system to make sense,
a reference must be established.
Until then our scoring will remain
unchanged, but be aware that we
are not oblivious to the positive
weighting reviews have in almost
all publications. We just haven’t
figured out the right formula yet
but we’ll have one soon.
On to lighter things, you
have no doubt noticed
that we are using a
new service and the
magazine looks a little
different. However
you’ll now be able to
view this magazine
on your iPad as well
and downloading the
PDF version is significantly
easier. All in all we are
heading further in the right
direction and hopefully producing
a more entertaining and easily
accessible magazine.
On another side note, if you
didn’t see it on our facebook page,
legendary K|NGP|N will be a regular
contributor from our next issue. So if
you want to know what makes him tick,
stay tuned as he’s sure to have some
useful insight not only into our favourite
pastime but our industry as a whole.
Until next time, enjoy and we will see
you soon.
[ Neo Sibeko - Editor ]
The Overclocker is
published by OCL-Media
(cc) under license from
Sproog Media (Pty) Ltd
Editor
Neo Sibeko
[email protected]
Art Director
Chris Savides
Contributors
Dane Remendes
Online contributor
Jonathan Horne
For advertising sales and
marketing please contact:
Email:
[email protected]
Tel: +27723592801