Kasz216 said:
Graphs are a whole different thing from simple word demonstrations, and using a graph with made up variables is inherently dishonest. The correct way to use a graph conceptually would use data from something else in the same situation or something completely unrelated so as to not create undue bias. Using a fake graph like that is basic unintended propaganda. It does little extra to explain your point and only leads to bias people towards your way of thinking via the variables you've chosen for each thing. In general people put a lot more faith in graphs even when explicitly told their fake. Which you never actually did in your post, you just kind of threw up a bar graph and let people decide whether it was real or not. You never even really hinted at it being fake. Relying on people assuming that research like that hadn't been done somewhere.
For example, a graph like that suggests gamers care far more about ram then the average consumer does. (It's actualy probably quite the opposite, since it's ease of switching is likely one of the most impressive features to casuals, and all that multimedia needs a lot of ram to be fast. Though it's beside the point.)
|
"Misuse statistic"? I'm not even using statistics. There's no actual dollar amounts, the variables are just randomly thrown in there.
Again, it'll be pretty sad if you couldn't see that I'm just illustrating the concept that Microsoft is straddling two different consumers with the gaming and non-gaming features not really overlapping with those two segments.
You could disagree with that conceptual point, but again:
1) You and other people were easily able to tell that it's not a real research
2) I never claimed it was, and didn't emphasize the numbers to support my arguments
Again, you're just creating a false issue. Nobody in this thread has believed that I somehow managed to pull off research that would cost thousands of dollar in such a short amount of time. Rather than maybe address the main meat of my post.
