




One of the monitors I reviewed for the June issue of Windows Magazine was
the Mitsubishi.  I also reviewed a new Nanao, the F550iW, which has just
been released.  Last year for the May '92 issue of Windows, I reviewed
several monitors, including the Nanao T560i.  There's no question that the
Nanao monitors are the best available this year, just as they were last
year.  The difference between my ranking of the best in Windows and the
ranking in Windows Sources is due mainly to a difference in the testing
criteria and the scoring.  I used different tests than they did, and I
scored differently.  There's nothing wrong with the Mitsubishi, and it
scored very highly in my tests, but it was a few points shy of perfect.

Incidentally, one of the things everyone should do when they're reading
reviews of any product, whether it's monitors or mice, is to read the
criteria and methodology carefully.  Unless you know how the product
testing was done, and on what the scores are based, you can't possibly
know what they really mean.  Just seeing that I rank a monitor differently
from Windows Sources is meaningless without knowing how we did the
ranking.  Likewise, it's impossible to tell whether a monitor will meet
your needs unless you know how we did the testing.  After all, some of
what we do may not apply to you.  Likewise, some of what we do may apply
more closely in one review than in another.  You can't always tell
anything from reading the 300 or so words of commentary we write if you
don't also understand the scoring.