Why c/net score low for HL 80

hi mates i need your opinion about this score which given to HL 80 by c/net
i had a new black HL80 with windows vista ultimate it is working smoothly and very nicely
Intel core duo 2.0
ram 2 mega 667
hard disk sata 120
video n Vidia Geforce Go 256
display resolution 1280x800
http://reviews.cnet.com/Micro_Express_EL80/4505-3121_7-31974745.html

 

Well, look at the good vs. the bad. They obviously don't like the glossy screen (which I love), and the keyboard flex (somewhat annoying, but nothing major to me, and easily fixable). It looks like the VBI EL80 isn't as well put-together as the HEL80, given their flimsy comment. The EL80 also only has 1280x800 available, whereas the HEL80 has a 1680x1050 option, which is very nice.

Their machine only had a 1.66GHz Core Duo, 512MB of RAM, and a 60GB hard drive, which could really hamper the performance. I have been nothing but pleased with my machine, which was pretty much in line with the price of their review machine, but see the specs below to compare what I got for my money vs. what they got. I highly recommend you look for an HEL80 or HGL30, rather than the VBI versions, the EL80/GL30. You get more features and build quality for a very similar price. They also didn't note that the EL80 had a much faster video card than the Lenovo, but the Lenovo had a faster CPU. That is almost certainly part of the performance differential they were alluding to. Either way, they got ripped off on their EL80. With those specs, it shouldn't cost anywhere near that.

 

take cnet reviews with a grain of salt. they are too nit picky on the details that don't matter for many of the tech they review. it is more important to find out what consumers think about the product as we are the ones who use them for extended periods of time and can give you a true idea of the ownership experience. based on the user reviews on this website and the user feedback on these forums, the Hel80 is a great bang for the buck mid-end gaming laptop with plenty of battery life. check out some reviews and commments here before you make your final decision.

 

They obviously didn't see it as a mobile gaming notebook, but as a business line notebook, and they were comparing it to an acer which was speced at $2500 an d a Lenovo with a 7300, a much worse graphics card... those numbers they posted about performance are pretty much meaningless.

They have it speced at 100 gb 7200 rpm HDD, 2 gb ram, 7600, and 2.13 ghz processor... and they also said they got 6 hours and 30 minutes of battery life. First of all, a laptop with that much power getting that long of battery life is astounding, but it is impossible. They must of had it at lowest screen brightness, no sound, no wifi and with the highest power saving measures, which probably creates the "low scores" it received in comparison to other notebooks.

And about the unsturdy build quality.. they pointed this out as a con, although it is quite sturdy, when they didn't note that on an E1505 or a cheap HP notebook? I think CNET is certainly biased towards more popular notebook companies... and that just makes me distrust the site.

 

Yeah I'm pretty sure they score reviews based on how much the company pays them.

 

Some great points have been raised about CNET's reviews. I agree. From what I've seen of them--they don't always get which category a notebook is supposed to be in. As a result--they pit the review system against absurdly mismatched "competition".

They have countless reviews to do, and I think time constraints come into play when it comes to their reviews. They are, however, still a point of view on a system you may be considered and are still one more source of input. So definitely read up on them--but also read up on them in forums like this one--where you can get input from those who have used the system for more than a day or two.