Also emphasis was placed upon the comments being made on marketing claims dated 1988, without mentioning that the criticism was written in 2000 or that many of the marketing claims are still being made (specifically, the possibility of refreshing and the desirability of recovery are still claimed in Spinrite's documentation, but mention of criticism of these points was deleted from the article). Mfields1 ( talk) 08:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Someone has changed the text in a very POV (pro-Spinrite way) to say that "It should be noted that scepticism of certain claims made by SpinRite's makers is based on opinions formed in 1988 without actually testing the program." Following the reference we find that the scepticism is from someone with much experience in the disc drive industry, who makes specific, detailed statements which can be examined and judged by anyone. I would like to see the justification for the tag as a Wikipedia editor. I state these things because I do not have anything personal gain if the tag is removed nor do I have any persoanl gain if the tag remains. I have no idea how it works (then or now). I kept no product testing records because I was only a consumer of the product, not testing it. It did marks some hard drive clusters as "bad" and moved data to unused clusters. I probably used the product on roughly a weekly basis for 2-3 years. The hard drive was not crashed, and I used it more as a preventive method.
#SPINRITE 6 MANUAL SOFTWARE#
I did use this software on a PC about 15 years ago. I state here that I am not involved in the sale, manufacturing, advertising or in any other form with Gibson Research. If there is no further discussion I may choose to remove the disputed tag. Perhaps there is a better tag (neutrality, or one involving comercialism)? I would be happy to continue this discussion as it relates to improving the article or whether the dispute tag should be included. I don't even agree with including the reference link in the article. Since Brianski is stating his thoughts on Spinrite, and the oral communications of people who know better than him, and the newsgroup posting does not show any facts I submit that all of the arguments for the disputed tag are personal opninion. I don't see any test data on the Spinrite product or on hard drives. Read his claims of facts very carefully because he does talk about personal disagreements between them and gives his own personal opinions about the durability and manufacturing of hard drives. Most of the link is the response of John Navas who wanted to give the facts (his own words) on the newsgroup. Steve Gibson was the founder of Spinrite. The link is a response to a posting on a newsgroup by Steve Gibson. Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.87.209 ( talk) 18:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC) "I've always thought (and been told by people who know better than I) that SpinRite was scamware - see the link to criticism at the bottom for more" - I have read the link twice. Otherwise you're putting up the disputed tag because "some guy doesn't like it". While it may be true that some people criticize SpinRite and refer to it as scamware, you'd need to identify exactly why it's scamware, and then either test spinrite to see if it was true, or find someone who already has and reference that material.
#SPINRITE 6 MANUAL PROFESSIONAL#
Spinrite is a professional recovery tool. Discuss! Brianski ( talk) 06:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Ĭalling a helpful and well known work of software that is sold directly at a fair price a "scam" isn't much of a "neutral point of view" either. I'm adding the disputed tag although maybe npov would be more appropriate. This article, for the most part, reads like a press release without mentioning the criticisms except in passing. I've always thought (and been told by people who know better than I) that SpinRite was scamware - see the link to criticism at the bottom for more. Maybe an older version was badly written, but not the one I read now.
#SPINRITE 6 MANUAL WINDOWS#
The ones of Windows and Something Awful are far worse and uncritical. To me, the article doesn't seem to be written like an advertisement. 17 HDD regenerator (slander / marketing scam).
0 kommentar(er)
