Every time that I pick up an interest in the latest hardware — mice, keyboards, motherboards, graphics cards — I always browse around the Internet and find reviews of the product. Every review I read always has the same setup: introduction, specifications, comparisons, testing, benchmarks, and conclusions. I’ve decided to stop reading any kind of review. The hardware review format has become so banal that every review (and reviewer too) loses all meaning. There is no point. If you read one, then you have read them all.

Isn’t it obvious that new hardware will always outperform other hardware? This is so commonly done with graphics cards that it’s just a waste of time to benchmark them. Of course the new hardware is going to be fantastic! Anyone with a lick of hardware sense can just pick up on it immediately. I know I’m being overly general here (not all new hardware is the greatest), but the basic idea is just too prevalent.

A new, faster processor is coming out? Wowza!

What I propose is that hardware reviewers post a review after using the hardware for an extended period of time. Nearly all reviews out there are too immediate. You could test a product in a day, write a quickie review, and then forget about it. Reviews are nothing more than advertisements to make a profit for the manufacturer. The problem with testing hardware over time is that the planned obsolescence will come in and take over.

So back in March 2006, I purchased a Razer Copperhead gaming mouse since my old Logitech MX1000 died (the battery reached the end of its charging life). I was happy for a while until my mouse died only two months after use. I’ve contacted Razer tech support three times about the issue and they have not contacted me back at all. It’s not exactly fair to say that my hardware failure is a result of bad hardware reviews, but I want something more than fanboy enthusiasm full of hypothetical claims.