Originally Posted by wizard69
It isn't a little nit pick, the garbage quoted in the article pretty much throws into question the article writers suitability as an author on technical issues. It further tarnishes the declining reputation of Appleinsider as site with an actual grasp of what is happening in the industry.
With the massive delays in the Sandy Bridge based Xeons I'm not even convinced a Ivy Bridge based Xeon will be made. At this point Intel might as well go next generation.
As far as this article goes, if you have any influence at Appleinsider please do something to get them to stop printing plain ignorance. It is one thing to speculate about the next Pro, after all that is what Future Macs is all about, but it is another thing to print obviously wrong info. Sadly the article would have been far more interesting to read if the garbage was simply edited out.
We can mention it, but we don't actually have influence. The info in this article has been taken from other sources, as is the info from a number of other articles. If the info from the source is wrong, it will be repeated elsewhere. This site being one of those elsewheres.
I'm amazed at how often all the world of computer reporting is wrong. Many errors in PcMag, for example, and they're not by any means alone. In some tech sites such as ArsTechnica and AnandTech, if the author has made a factual error, and a poster notes it, it will be corrected. But that's very unusual elsewhere, I've noticed. Once the article is posted, no one reads the posts to see if an error has been caught. That's a shame, but it's become much more common in recent years.
It's one reason why I still don't believe that much of what we read on the internet is reporting in the journalistic sense. While news papers make mistakes, it's far more common on the I telnet. One reason is that there's simply no fact checking going on. That eliminated most of the bloggers, and many of the web sites from my consideration as journalists, despite what the courts have said.
Even here, I find it annoying. I would like to see posting in an article regarding corrections of errors. But it's no better, or worse, here than most other places, I find.