I agree. I read the CQ article and although it appeared factual, it was
merely the gut feel of the writer as to whether the unit lived up to its
press notice and whether he had problems with it.
Not much time spent on analysis. I could as good a job just spending
20-30 minutes operating it.
>>> "Paul Christensen" <paulc@mediaone.net> 03/04/98 09:28am >>>
The trouble I have with CQ's product reviews is that they're oftentimes
nothing more than a summary of a manufacturer's product literature.
What's
missing a bona fide and comprehensive review and evaluation of the
product.
An entire "review" of only the Omni's features is worthless and
nonsensical
to me. As far as I'm concerned, they're wasting print material and my
time.
-Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Ross F. Guldenbrein NW6R <east3rd@sj.bigger.net>
To: tentec@contesting.com <tentec@contesting.com>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 04, 1998 7:01 AM
Subject: [TenTec] VI+ Reveiw
>Hey Guys,
>
>Just finished reading a review of the Omni VI+ in the newest CQ!
Those
>interested may want to check it out. 73 Ross nw6r
> ps. still looking for that 263G ..
>
>--
>FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm
>Submissions: tentec@contesting.com
>Administrative requests: tentec-REQUEST@contesting.com
>Problems: owner-tentec@contesting.com
>Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
>
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm
Submissions: tentec@contesting.com
Administrative requests: tentec-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-tentec@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm
Submissions: tentec@contesting.com
Administrative requests: tentec-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-tentec@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|