Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Etacovda
I still fail to see how the swiftech kit was performing that badly... something was wrong. I wonder what billA's take on this is
|
Swiftech hat ON
Swiftech has no objection to reviewers purchasing products where they will, buying from a distributor also ensures that nothing 'special' occurred.
- but would not a 'major' magazine be interested in knowing how 'current' was the product being tested ?
I do understand the lag between a product's introduction, and its availability; and between the gathering of parts, their testing, and the report appearing in a printed publication. Is this what occurred ?
Swiftech welcomes the independence of reviewers, and accepts that negative comments/opinions and comparisons with other products are a part of the review process itself,
and help us develop better products.
- but should not such comments relate to the product ?
Is this what happened ?
Yes with respect to the fill and bleed kit; some can follow instructions w/o problems; others cannot. (The instructions, when followed literally, work.) Some hate the kit, some like it; hey, the review process at work. No problem here.
A quick-connect fitting that leaked ? fixed with Teflon tape ? In 99.99% of the cases, a leak in a quick-connect fitting is caused by improper tube insertion. Using Teflon tape does not fix the problem, and may actually worsen it. Either the leak was part of the user installation, and an e-mail or phone call to customer support would have solved the problem, or the leak was part of the pre-installed components, in which case it would be a factory default, justifying calling the manufacturer, which by your own admission is something you do when such events do occur. Why didn’t we receive such call ?
The kit as shown on these pictures is not a 22501 Extreme. It shows the MCW5002 water-block, which was never shipped in a kit. So essentially, this article could be viewed as a misrepresentation of our product.
Notwithstanding the 'kit' components, the performance ranking is different than we would have expected. The shortfall is so great that one suspects that there was a problem. Would it have been so unreasonable to contact Swiftech to see if we had any insights into the kit's performance ? (We sell hundreds a month so we do have probably more experience than the reviewer as to potential problems.)
Or was there a desire to trash a Swiftech product ?
Bill Adams
VP Engn, Swiftech Inc.
Gabe’s comments:
It is fairly obvious that the reviewer had serious problems with this kit. Whatever these problems were, I find it objectionable that a magazine who claims to be writing for “more average end users” (or newbies, as quoted in another one of your responses) , would not include customer support in the write-up. The premise -“we buy a kit as an average consumer, and try to install it as a consumer would”, is good in itself, but when consumers have problems, they do call tech support. Why is it that your magazine did not do so ?
If there was a problem with the water-block retention mechanism for example, it could explain the low performance. And this is something that could have been instantaneously recognized –and fixed, if your reviewer had picked-up the phone or sent us an e-mail.
The reviewed kit, does not appear to be a genuine Swiftech kit, and should not have been presented as such. The reviewed “collection” of parts seems to be including obsolete parts (by close to a year or so), and is also compared to the latest offerings from other manufacturers. The fact that the H20-22600 kit (with the MCW6000 water-block) was not available in the UK, is no excuse. I would submit that it does not make much sense to include a kit in a review claiming to test the latest and greatest, if such kit is no longer made by the manufacturer.
Altogether, this article is certainly causing us undue tort, and I suppose that our next step will be to see what appropriate course of action needs to be taken to have these damages repaired.
Gabriel Rouchon
Chairman, Swiftech Inc.