[Riocaz]

Originally Posted by ali

I don't see your "factual errors". I see she used an interesting style of writing, which is, by principle, somewhat inaccurate. But she's right in all of her points.

So you don't see any errors but admit her review was somewhat innaccurate due to the style of writing. Anyone else see a contradiction.

The errors have already been pointed out, as have the omissions she made.

Originally Posted by ali

Wow. I guess a lot of people in this forum must be stupid then. Hey, I found it myself, too! Finally a proof I'm not stupid! Woo!

Again you put words in my mouth... I have never accused people on this board of being stupid and never would.

Back to the documentation: It is missing. I expected:
*Support telephone numbers (in case the device is DOA, which may happen, even if such is highly unlikely with iRex)

Yep I'll grant you that is a good point. Though I vaguely remember a telephone number being either on the back of the box or on that sheet of paper. Then again I may be wrong as I don't have either with me to check.

*A list of things supposed to be in the box (people in the UK were searching for the UK power plug that was missing in their boxes)

Why? surely it would make sense for it to be on the documemtation on the iLiad.

*How to charge, how to turn it on, how to turn it off

See now it really bugs me when companies put in patronising documentation.

* Warranty statement (which is, up to my knowledge, not legally binding in electronic format)

Again you have got me, You may well be right. If it's a legal requirement then they should provide it no question.

Note that these things must be there before you charge the Iliad, start it and read the user documentation.

Err, but the iLiad's come with enough charge to read the manual.

Uh sorry I expected that too. Before buying, I printed some example A4 content to 8" and read it. So I figured I could read it on an 8" ebook, too. Which is obviously ridiculous, for obvious reasons, as everbody (but the stupid) must clearly see.

What resolution is your printer, did you set it to match that of the iLiad, did you print on light grey paper, and stick it under a thin sheet of glass? If not then you made an assumption.

(Anybody else remembers the picture where you would click onto a column and it would zoom? Quick, quick, forget it! It never existed! Hush!)

I remember that :-)

Ah yes, about the PDF format: IIRC, most scientific papers are Postscript and/or PDF. Spiegel Online lets you download article in PDF. Commerical eBooks have a proprietary format or protocted PDF. Tech documentation you download is usually PDF. Even stolen ebooks in P2P systems are PDF. Ummm. Apparently, PDF is not the most recognized format. Let me think. Ah I know, you mean mp3, right? No wait, is it Word? Do I get three guesses? .xls?

Again you are putting words in my mouth. I was referring to html. As the current supported formats are quite limited and do not include "word" or .xls that is only a small logical leap.

Some people have jobs, or a life. Read every forum to be found on the net? If I'd do that for every device I have to buy in my job, I'd probably been fired. No, "read everything" naturally has limitations, which are different for different people.

So you have failed to convince me of your opinion and have decided to resort to insults. I have both a life and a job. Thanks.

There is only one forum I am aware of currently discussing the iLiad, and it's the one which has been at the top of google when searching for "irex iliad" since well before the iLiad became available for sale in any way.

I restate my opinion, that if she diddn't get here and notice the duscussions about the limitations of the iLiad, that she diddn't look.

Agree. Must be my "use the same language as the opponent" attitude.

Please give examples where I have told you to stop saying something. Or where I have repeatedly put words in other people mouths. You've do it constantly. You are not using my language you are just being rude.

Far away, IMO. But, naturally your view of what's needed to be "final" is the only possible one, and must be sufficient for everyone else.

Not at all it's my opinion, Ours differ. Opinions in this instance are neither right or wrong they are just... opinions.

My problem with your review isn't that it's critical, but that it's innaccurate, and fails to mention relevant information.

For example, your endless repeating of how she can't be tech-savvy would be much more accurate if you had mentioned that "tech-savvy" appears in a paragraph that begins with "Moderator’s note:" and ends with "- David Rothman".

You are quite correct, I should have stated that I was quoting David Rothman there.

Also the link to the original article was given at the beginning of the thread, I was assuming that people would read that first, and it would be obvious.