why nobody talks a gknot

[ioman]

hey guys, I use gknot to encode my divx and I wonder why THG, ZDNet and other tech news sites don't even talk about gknot in their article about divx encoding, I think it's because of the many thing to set up before starting to encode but it's seem really strange for me. Does anyone know the truth.

ps: THG also says that XMpeg 4.2 was the best encoder for DIVX 4.02>4.11 !!!

[TheWEF]

it's because THG don't know nothing about encoding ;)

wef.

[ioman]

you really think that, they all have high level of studies in various sciences. I've send them an email, i should also send them doom9's URL, so they could have a look a test gknot.

[rmatei]

They really don't know nothing, ioman. Forget about it. Every now and then somebody'll post a link to an article of theirs here, and people laugh and emails get sent, but they still don't know nothing.

[Doom9]

you know.. the amd vs intel discussion was brought up several times from my part in the hardware forum. THG claims they listen to their readers but they really don't give a flying fuck (excuse my french)... I wrote them as Doom9 and as private person in regards to some of their flask testing in their cpu comparison articles and they never even bothered to reply to me so go figure.

[3D]

I think THG is known to be that way around the net. I am a regular reader of [H]ardocp mainly because of the variety of links and little news snipets that they have plus I think the personallity of the site is generally more down to earth. If this proggie would be advertised to other sites I think hardocp would be one that may at least consider it even though it is not hardware related. I believe that they answer most mail as I have always recieved a response from them, even when it was just a "I support what you guys do thanks..." type of email. plus they don't really like THG, some sort of internet drama/soap thing... I have read their articles on divx encoding (it is quite old) and it was not very good, sort of like the generic how to guides at cnet.com...

[dragonlz]

yeah THG knows crap when it comes down to encoding. I was kinda pissed after reading one article about DivX4.01, they were saying FlaskMPEG 4.1 + DivX4.01 is not as good as some patched version of 3.11alpha. Also, they made no mention of SBC encoding what so ever, pretending it hasn't been invented yet.
I wrote to them saying FlaskMPEG4.1 DOESN'T EXIST, it's XMPEG. But ofcourse, they would never write back or even correct the errors. :confused:

[phuntyme]

Umm I stopped reading THG years ago.... but do pop in to see what they are up to. But I have heard "these sort" of arguements all the time. What the "more informed" people forget is who they are trying to sell their products to.... Another monolithic company cop of a lot of crap, deservidly(sp?). *coughmicrosoft* sorry had to clear my throat ;)

Well.. We get a lot of newbies here. And if you look at their questions and understanding sometimes you'll see a similar point of view as to what THG presents. Though THG started out as a hard core tech site, which is still(?) is. They now have a WIDER audiance of overclockers-wannabes. The material they produce must be comprehensible to majority of their market. And by "simplify" things... (ie using flask, and calling XMPEG FlaskXMPEG) means that most people can go out there, find info on Flask and guides and try it for themselfs. This leads to credibility because most can run the tests easily on their own machines. Heck, I started to play with Divx with Flask and swore by it.... hehe it was (and still is) the simplest way of encoding divxs. Now if they are going to focus their attn to that part of their demographics, then they will have a lot less time for their well informed readers. Can you imagine the amout of email they get? I really don't think they would be able to read all emails and respond to everything.

well. thats just my 2cents worth