<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:go='http://ns.gigaom.com/'
xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: CNET reviews the Toshiba Tecra M4 Tablet PC</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gigaom.com/mobile/cnet_reviews_th/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gigaom.com/mobile/cnet_reviews_th/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 03:10:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daryl Herbert</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/mobile/cnet_reviews_th/#comment-40362</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daryl Herbert]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Aug 2005 16:58:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jkontherun.wordpress.com/2005/08/23/cnet_reviews_th#comment-40362</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The editors gave it a low score (at least compared to other premium laptops) of 6.6.  But they gave a much worse score to the R10/15 (4.9).  The user ratings on that are much higher (8.4).  I would expect to see the same trend with the M4&#039;s user ratings.
&lt;a href=&quot;http://reviews.cnet.com/Toshiba_Satellite_R15_S822/4852-3126_7-31272309-2.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://reviews.cnet.com/Toshiba_Satellite_R15_S822/4852-3126_7-31272309-2.html&lt;/a&gt;

There is definitely a disconnect between CNET editors&#039; views and what the user community seems to want (mostly in terms of how important low weight is, I think).

Of course, people who actually buy a product are more likely than the average person to _want_ that product (they bought it, after all). They know before they buy it how much it weighs and that the screen has very poor viewing from wide angles, so maybe those things don&#039;t mean as much to them.

So it looks like the pattern is: if you think you want a Tecra M4, you&#039;ll love it, no regrets.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The editors gave it a low score (at least compared to other premium laptops) of 6.6.  But they gave a much worse score to the R10/15 (4.9).  The user ratings on that are much higher (8.4).  I would expect to see the same trend with the M4&#8242;s user ratings.<br />
<a href="http://reviews.cnet.com/Toshiba_Satellite_R15_S822/4852-3126_7-31272309-2.html" rel="nofollow">http://reviews.cnet.com/Toshiba_Satellite_R15_S822/4852-3126_7-31272309-2.html</a></p>
<p>There is definitely a disconnect between CNET editors&#8217; views and what the user community seems to want (mostly in terms of how important low weight is, I think).</p>
<p>Of course, people who actually buy a product are more likely than the average person to _want_ that product (they bought it, after all). They know before they buy it how much it weighs and that the screen has very poor viewing from wide angles, so maybe those things don&#8217;t mean as much to them.</p>
<p>So it looks like the pattern is: if you think you want a Tecra M4, you&#8217;ll love it, no regrets.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daryl Herbert</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/mobile/cnet_reviews_th/#comment-40363</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daryl Herbert]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Aug 2005 16:56:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jkontherun.wordpress.com/2005/08/23/cnet_reviews_th#comment-40363</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
        I think the closest competitor to the M4 would be Fujitsu&#039;s LifeBook 4020.  It&#039;d be nice to see a comparison there (given that lifebook is lighter and has better battery life).  The biggest difference is that the 4020&#039;s SXGA+ screen is only 12.1&quot; to M4&#039;s 14.1&quot;
      ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the closest competitor to the M4 would be Fujitsu&#8217;s LifeBook 4020.  It&#8217;d be nice to see a comparison there (given that lifebook is lighter and has better battery life).  The biggest difference is that the 4020&#8242;s SXGA+ screen is only 12.1&#8243; to M4&#8242;s 14.1&#8243;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Tecra M4, TabletPC Disenchantment</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/mobile/cnet_reviews_th/#comment-40364</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[The Tecra M4, TabletPC Disenchantment]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Aug 2005 08:18:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jkontherun.wordpress.com/2005/08/23/cnet_reviews_th#comment-40364</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;strong&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;

]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong></strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

