Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Paul Thurrott's Biased iPhone Review

nutmac

nutmac

macrumors 603
Original poster
Mar 30, 2004
6,235
7,971
Talk about a hypocrite.

Zune review
The front side features a surprisingly large widescreen display, which is vertically oriented and obviously quite a bit bigger than an iPod display.
​

iPhone first impressions
However, don't believe claims that the iPhone's screen is widescreen, as it is actually much closer to 4:3 than it is to true 16:9 or 16:10.​

FYI, Zune has 4:3 LCD (320x240) and iPhone has 15:10 LCD (480x320).

1.33:1 = 4:3 (Zune, SDTV)
1.50:1 = 15:10 (iPhone)
1.60:1 = 16:10 (widescreen computer display)
1.78:1 = 16:9 (HDTV)
 
Salty Pirate said:
ass clown
Click to expand...

That's perhaps the best term for him.

If I weren't a slacker, I'd be tempted to get a picture of him and adorn it with a red rubber nose, rainbow curly wig, and sphincter.

Cookies for anyone who does this.

Double cookies for anyone who portrays the sphincter being joyously penetrated by Steve Ballmer.
 
My wife, an infamous cheapskate, finds the iPhone interesting and attractive, but said it was worth about $200 to her.
Click to expand...

Wow , thanks for that, Paul. Very useful information.
 
nutmac said:
Talk about a hypocrite.

Zune review
The front side features a surprisingly large widescreen display, which is vertically oriented and obviously quite a bit bigger than aniPod display.
​

iPhone first impressions
However, don't believe claims that the iPhone's screen is widescreen, as it is actually much closer to 4:3 than it is to true 16:9 or 16:10.​

FYI, Zune has 4:3 LCD (320x240) and iPhone has 15:10 LCD (480x320).

1.33:1 = 4:3 (Zune, SDTV)
1.50:1 = 15:10 (iPhone)
1.60:1 = 16:10 (widescreen computer display)
1.78:1 = 16:9 (HDTV)
Click to expand...

Isn't "Paul Thurrott Biased" a double negative? They're pretty much synonyms.
 
Turkish said:
Wow , thanks for that, Paul. Very useful information.
Click to expand...

"My dog, a half-Cocker Spaniel half-Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, sniffed at it for over twenty seconds, but likely because I was eating new Blazin' Buffalo & Ranch™ Doritos."
 
"es, Apple should be applauded by bringing a real, PC-like Web experience to a mobile device as its done by providing a near-full-featured version of Safari on the iPhone. And yeah, the zooming and display stuff is top-notch, absolutely. But it's Safari, a second-rate Web experience at best,"

Is he being serious here? Safari is second-rate? Compared to what? If Safari is second-rate, what is IE?


"the iPhone is decidedly not compatible with Microsoft's Exchange Server. When you select this option, it actually tells you that Exchange must be configured for IMAP support for this feature to work. Doy."

Is he stupid?
 
GFLPraxis said:
"es, Apple should be applauded by bringing a real, PC-like Web experience to a mobile device as its done by providing a near-full-featured version of Safari on the iPhone. And yeah, the zooming and display stuff is top-notch, absolutely. But it's Safari, a second-rate Web experience at best,"

Is he being serious here? Safari is second-rate? Compared to what? If Safari is second-rate, what is IE?
Click to expand...

Safari's definitely my favorite browser right now. I got completely disgusted with Firefox...
 
nutmac said:
Talk about a hypocrite.

Zune review
The front side features a surprisingly large widescreen display, which is vertically oriented and obviously quite a bit bigger than aniPod display.
​

iPhone first impressions
However, don't believe claims that the iPhone's screen is widescreen, as it is actually much closer to 4:3 than it is to true 16:9 or 16:10.​

FYI, Zune has 4:3 LCD (320x240) and iPhone has 15:10 LCD (480x320).

1.33:1 = 4:3 (Zune, SDTV)
1.50:1 = 15:10 (iPhone)
1.60:1 = 16:10 (widescreen computer display)
1.78:1 = 16:9 (HDTV)
Click to expand...

Thurrott is the Fox News of the tech world -- he reinvents facts (or in this case, math) to serve his needs. He's such a disgrace to tech journalism.
 
In my admittedly limited testing, using the virtual keyboard was just as difficult with my gorilla fingers as is using the Lilliputian hardware keyboard on the Motorola Q. For those with more normally sized fingers, the iPhone is more difficult, especially at first, and I'll need some time with it to decide whether constant use minimizes this problem.
Click to expand...

What's he trying to say? People with normally sized fingers have a harder time with the keyboard than people like him with huge fingers? Or is he speaking for all people everywhere that the virtual keyboard is harder than using a plastic one? Is it possible he just lacks hand-eye coordination?
 
DonWilson said:
A msft fanboy who doesn't like the iphone, shocking!
Click to expand...

It's not just that. My issue -- and I suspect the same of many people who have actually followed Thurrott's work over the years -- is that he so vehemently claims to be neutral. I have less of a problem with people who just say "I don't like Apple stuff, I don't like Apple". You know exactly what to expect out of them, and that's fine with me. They have their preferences, and they make it clear.

But Thurrott constantly puts on airs about being non-biased. He occasionally will write a scathing piece on something MS has done...but it's so infrequent, you can almost hear him thinking, "Oh yeah, it's about time I write something negative about them so I can still fool some people into thinking I'm a legitimate journalist." And whenever he does write something negative, it's almost always about a beta product or something that can be equally "excused" for not being great.

When he does Apple pieces -- as an attempt to say "See, I don't just cover Microsoft!" -- what pisses me off isn't the conclusions he comes to, but how he gets there. Because of the way he tries to always compare apples to oranges (no pun intended)...for example, he bitches that every 10.x update of OS X isn't as major as a whole new Windows version, so really all you're getting with 10.x updates is coughing up $129 for a "service pack". He goes fundamentally wrong when he tries to directly compare the two. Yes, Windows versions (XP, Vista) are indeed bigger updates than an OS X 10.x update...but an OS X 10.x update is a hell of a lot bigger than a Windows service pack. He automatically tries to shoehorn everything he writes about into the "Microsoft universe", and when it doesn't fit just right, well...no wonder he comes up with screwed-up conclusions. EARTH TO PAUL: Different products, different business plans. Guess what: YOU'RE A BIASED IDIOT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back