rmay635703 wrote on 2026-09-10, 13:56:

He got a free portable 4k 19” LCD, very expensive piece considering most portable screens are sub $100 things. […]
Show full quote

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2026-09-09, 18:17:

Cant help but think he sold out in the later years once he got popular.
There were a few product placement videos in there.
Related products yes but product placement never the less.

He got a free portable 4k 19” LCD, very expensive piece considering most portable screens are sub $100 things.

It seems to be pretty common to product placement to make ends meet but getting free kit isn’t really selling out.

I’ve been very disappointed that small 4k screens 21-24” no longer exist but I’m not spending almost $500 for a portable or $1200 for an obsolete tech 4k standard 24”.
Even though these would actually fit my desk at home.

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2026-09-10, 13:23:

kennyPENTIUMpowers wrote on 2026-09-09, 07:59:

i wasnt around here at the time but i think he stopped posting on here about 10 years ago.. so that wouldnt have anything to do with him not posting on YT these days

Was it really that long ago?

Should invite him back now that he is retired, just remind him not to worry about us cranks as there are only 3-4 of us.

The idea of it isnt until you realise what really goes on.
A simple product review for a Tomlov microscope you would think is all well and good, nothing wrong with that in that the microscope is well known for being a quality bit of kit.
The problem comes in that the review is bias towards the fact you didnt pay for it, so it seems to have a higher value than what it does...
If you spend your own money on something and review it then its an honest review, if you get given it (even if you have to give it back to the company) then you will be giving it a 50/50 review even if it doesnt deserve it not because of that review but any future reviews companies might send you.

You see how many companies send you products to review if part of your review is its value for money. Which should be one of the top priorities of a review.
because its cost is always part of it as you have finite resources to gain items with.

Regardless of the person reviewing the product, the only trust worth review is the one done by a person who bought the item.
Otherwise the person doing the review has a vested interest in looking good to other companies. and is thinking about the next product they will review, and if a company will send them products to review.
If you see what I mean.

Trashbytes wrote on 2026-09-10, 13:33:

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2026-09-10, 13:23:

kennyPENTIUMpowers wrote on 2026-09-09, 07:59:

i wasnt around here at the time but i think he stopped posting on here about 10 years ago.. so that wouldnt have anything to do with him not posting on YT these days

Was it really that long ago?

Yes, Funnily enough a certain serpent who seems to revel in being a contrarian and generally argumentative with zero tact for it was involved there too ..and I have them blocked for similar reasons, I have little time for people who come off as being nothing but argumentative.

I could hazard a guess....

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2026-09-10, 18:12:

The idea of it isnt until you realise what really goes on. A simple product review for a Tomlov microscope you would think is al […]
Show full quote

rmay635703 wrote on 2026-09-10, 13:56:

He got a free portable 4k 19” LCD, very expensive piece considering most portable screens are sub $100 things. […]
Show full quote

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2026-09-09, 18:17:

Cant help but think he sold out in the later years once he got popular.
There were a few product placement videos in there.
Related products yes but product placement never the less.

He got a free portable 4k 19” LCD, very expensive piece considering most portable screens are sub $100 things.

It seems to be pretty common to product placement to make ends meet but getting free kit isn’t really selling out.

I’ve been very disappointed that small 4k screens 21-24” no longer exist but I’m not spending almost $500 for a portable or $1200 for an obsolete tech 4k standard 24”.
Even though these would actually fit my desk at home.

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2026-09-10, 13:23:

Was it really that long ago?

Should invite him back now that he is retired, just remind him not to worry about us cranks as there are only 3-4 of us.

The idea of it isnt until you realise what really goes on.
A simple product review for a Tomlov microscope you would think is all well and good, nothing wrong with that in that the microscope is well known for being a quality bit of kit.
The problem comes in that the review is bias towards the fact you didnt pay for it, so it seems to have a higher value than what it does...
If you spend your own money on something and review it then its an honest review, if you get given it (even if you have to give it back to the company) then you will be giving it a 50/50 review even if it doesnt deserve it not because of that review but any future reviews companies might send you.

You see how many companies send you products to review if part of your review is its value for money. Which should be one of the top priorities of a review.
because its cost is always part of it as you have finite resources to gain items with.

Regardless of the person reviewing the product, the only trust worth review is the one done by a person who bought the item.
Otherwise the person doing the review has a vested interest in looking good to other companies. and is thinking about the next product they will review, and if a company will send them products to review.
If you see what I mean.

I think you might be even more biased when you actually buy something. As you're also trying to convince yourself that you've made a great purchase.

kixs wrote on 2026-09-10, 21:14:

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2026-09-10, 18:12:

The idea of it isnt until you realise what really goes on. A simple product review for a Tomlov microscope you would think is al […]
Show full quote

rmay635703 wrote on 2026-09-10, 13:56:

He got a free portable 4k 19” LCD, very expensive piece considering most portable screens are sub $100 things. […]
Show full quote

He got a free portable 4k 19” LCD, very expensive piece considering most portable screens are sub $100 things.

It seems to be pretty common to product placement to make ends meet but getting free kit isn’t really selling out.

I’ve been very disappointed that small 4k screens 21-24” no longer exist but I’m not spending almost $500 for a portable or $1200 for an obsolete tech 4k standard 24”.
Even though these would actually fit my desk at home.

Should invite him back now that he is retired, just remind him not to worry about us cranks as there are only 3-4 of us.

The idea of it isnt until you realise what really goes on.
A simple product review for a Tomlov microscope you would think is all well and good, nothing wrong with that in that the microscope is well known for being a quality bit of kit.
The problem comes in that the review is bias towards the fact you didnt pay for it, so it seems to have a higher value than what it does...
If you spend your own money on something and review it then its an honest review, if you get given it (even if you have to give it back to the company) then you will be giving it a 50/50 review even if it doesnt deserve it not because of that review but any future reviews companies might send you.

You see how many companies send you products to review if part of your review is its value for money. Which should be one of the top priorities of a review.
because its cost is always part of it as you have finite resources to gain items with.

Regardless of the person reviewing the product, the only trust worth review is the one done by a person who bought the item.
Otherwise the person doing the review has a vested interest in looking good to other companies. and is thinking about the next product they will review, and if a company will send them products to review.
If you see what I mean.

I think you might be even more biased when you actually buy something. As you're also trying to convince yourself that you've made a great purchase.

Yep we have seen that happen,
it goes even further
the deal guy that spazzes out on everything that is 20% off or more off is also not necessarily unbiased either even though he only buys 1% of the clearance items on his show, he does state when it’s a waste because the next replacement is cheaper or the deal isn’t lower. Which is something.

Many of these shows are entertainment first, (deal guy makes the vast majority on viewership) usefulness or value for money is always a personal decision, lots of even steep clearance items are still worthless junk to me because I have little use for the majority of it but for folks who were buying it anyway
they can at least shave off a couple bucks or get a review of the features.

Lots of things I never even knew existed come up on those shows even if they cost too much to bother.

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2026-09-10, 18:12:

The idea of it isnt until you realise what really goes on. A simple product review for a Tomlov microscope you would think is al […]
Show full quote

The idea of it isnt until you realise what really goes on.
A simple product review for a Tomlov microscope you would think is all well and good, nothing wrong with that in that the microscope is well known for being a quality bit of kit.
The problem comes in that the review is bias towards the fact you didnt pay for it, so it seems to have a higher value than what it does...
If you spend your own money on something and review it then its an honest review, if you get given it (even if you have to give it back to the company) then you will be giving it a 50/50 review even if it doesnt deserve it not because of that review but any future reviews companies might send you.

You see how many companies send you products to review if part of your review is its value for money. Which should be one of the top priorities of a review.
because its cost is always part of it as you have finite resources to gain items with.

Regardless of the person reviewing the product, the only trust worth review is the one done by a person who bought the item.
Otherwise the person doing the review has a vested interest in looking good to other companies. and is thinking about the next product they will review, and if a company will send them products to review.
If you see what I mean.

One time BenQ gave me a Trevolo portable speaker to review as part of a consumer outreach program, hoping I would post a good review to a forum. I gave it back to them and said it was terrible.

kixs wrote on 2026-09-10, 21:14:

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2026-09-10, 18:12:

The idea of it isnt until you realise what really goes on. A simple product review for a Tomlov microscope you would think is al […]
Show full quote

rmay635703 wrote on 2026-09-10, 13:56:

He got a free portable 4k 19” LCD, very expensive piece considering most portable screens are sub $100 things. […]
Show full quote

He got a free portable 4k 19” LCD, very expensive piece considering most portable screens are sub $100 things.

It seems to be pretty common to product placement to make ends meet but getting free kit isn’t really selling out.

I’ve been very disappointed that small 4k screens 21-24” no longer exist but I’m not spending almost $500 for a portable or $1200 for an obsolete tech 4k standard 24”.
Even though these would actually fit my desk at home.

Should invite him back now that he is retired, just remind him not to worry about us cranks as there are only 3-4 of us.

The idea of it isnt until you realise what really goes on.
A simple product review for a Tomlov microscope you would think is all well and good, nothing wrong with that in that the microscope is well known for being a quality bit of kit.
The problem comes in that the review is bias towards the fact you didnt pay for it, so it seems to have a higher value than what it does...
If you spend your own money on something and review it then its an honest review, if you get given it (even if you have to give it back to the company) then you will be giving it a 50/50 review even if it doesnt deserve it not because of that review but any future reviews companies might send you.

You see how many companies send you products to review if part of your review is its value for money. Which should be one of the top priorities of a review.
because its cost is always part of it as you have finite resources to gain items with.

Regardless of the person reviewing the product, the only trust worth review is the one done by a person who bought the item.
Otherwise the person doing the review has a vested interest in looking good to other companies. and is thinking about the next product they will review, and if a company will send them products to review.
If you see what I mean.

I think you might be even more biased when you actually buy something. As you're also trying to convince yourself that you've made a great purchase.

Oh yeah thats for sure. I remember doing that when I bought the first iPhone, and then the second one... It just never lived up to the hype.
But thats self deception, "influencers" are paid actors which makes it worse in a dirty kind of way.
I see influencers like that as todays version of the 90s infomercial.
In 20 years thats exactly how we will look back at them, but they dont realise what they are right now.

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2026-09-11, 06:44:

I see influencers like that as todays version of the 90s infomercial.
In 20 years thats exactly how we will look back at them, but they dont realise what they are right now.

Whilst I understand your viewpoint, I think most people are intelligent enough to do their own research.

Almost all of the stuff Phil featured as a freebie, or sponsored item, I took one look at the link and decided it was over-priced. But, I am glad that Phil received it for free. Good for him.

I don't consider it a sell-out. I just consider it as a benefit he had for his hard work.

I wouldn't call him a sellout at all. I'm sure you could name a few far worse offenders out there on youtube.

Also, not that I have a problem with it, but I did notice that his videos became a bit forced and repetitive once he finally revealed his face and started uploading more regularly. But that's what happens when you play the youtube algorithm game, eh? And as it has already been noted here, you can only make so much content on retro PC stuff.

Generally, I find I personally value the opinions of people that have 'lived and worked with' something, much more than 'tried it bit' types.

Sometimes the failings with a product or service are not immediate or immediately apparent. (Anyone who's tried to cancel a gym membership, .... or a timeshare... knows all about this.)

Other times, things can be clunky, ugly, or otherwise immediately (but superficially) unpleasant in some way, but have endearing long-term qualities to them.

IBM PC-XTs come to mind.

I am leery of anyone *actively trying* to 'sell' me something. I am much more swayed by the adhoc 'sit down and talk shop about stuff' interaction. The latter only can happen when your conversation partner has had lots of interactions with all the things out there. It's also immeasurably more useful, when planning a purchase.

wierd_w wrote on 2026-09-11, 12:20:

Other times, things can be clunky, ugly, or otherwise immediately (but superficially) unpleasant in some way, but have endearing long-term qualities to them.

IBM PC-XTs come to mind.

IBM's PC and XT are certainly not attractive on the eye. But, yeah, I agree. Something endearing about them. I haven't seen one in person for 30 years. I've been tempted a number of times to get one. But, in the end, decided that I couldn't justify it. For cost, size and maintenance reasons. I compromised and got a NuXT instead.

RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2026-09-11, 08:25:

Whilst I understand your viewpoint, I think most people are intelligent enough to do their own research. […]
Show full quote

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2026-09-11, 06:44:

I see influencers like that as todays version of the 90s infomercial.
In 20 years thats exactly how we will look back at them, but they dont realise what they are right now.

Whilst I understand your viewpoint, I think most people are intelligent enough to do their own research.

Almost all of the stuff Phil featured as a freebie, or sponsored item, I took one look at the link and decided it was over-priced. But, I am glad that Phil received it for free. Good for him.

I don't consider it a sell-out. I just consider it as a benefit he had for his hard work.

Yes I mean sure you could look at him as being an untrustworthy advertiser, whos opinion needs to be double checked with more research if you want to but thats not how I saw him.

revolstar wrote on 2026-09-11, 09:56:

I wouldn't call him a sellout at all. I'm sure you could name a few far worse offenders out there on youtube.

Also, not that I have a problem with it, but I did notice that his videos became a bit forced and repetitive once he finally revealed his face and started uploading more regularly. But that's what happens when you play the youtube algorithm game, eh? And as it has already been noted here, you can only make so much content on retro PC stuff.

There are much worse offenders out there. Doesnt make the one we're talking about any better though.

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2026-09-11, 13:34:

Yes I mean sure you could look at him as being an untrustworthy advertiser, whos opinion needs to be double checked with more research if you want to but thats not how I saw him.

You are twisting my words. I didn't say he's untrustworthy. I don't for a minute believe that he lied about anything. Not sure why you have something against Phil in particular.

I was just saying, that I never go by one review. I look at multiple reviews, often going straight to the 1 star reviews on Amazon just to see what the worst that can happen is. Many reviews are done with very little usage of the item. The realistic reviews come after there's been time to detect flaws and for poorly made things to break.

With all reviews you have to learn to read between the lines.

With forum posts you have to consider whether something was genuinely meant to be annoying, or that's just how you're taking it.

And people have tendency to form mini personality cults or cliques over the silliest things that then clouds their judgement and leads to falling out or cancelling or ignoring etc.

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2026-09-11, 13:34:

Yes I mean sure you could look at him as being an untrustworthy advertiser, whos opinion needs to be double checked with more re […]
Show full quote

RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2026-09-11, 08:25:

Whilst I understand your viewpoint, I think most people are intelligent enough to do their own research. […]
Show full quote

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2026-09-11, 06:44:

I see influencers like that as todays version of the 90s infomercial.
In 20 years thats exactly how we will look back at them, but they dont realise what they are right now.

Whilst I understand your viewpoint, I think most people are intelligent enough to do their own research.

Almost all of the stuff Phil featured as a freebie, or sponsored item, I took one look at the link and decided it was over-priced. But, I am glad that Phil received it for free. Good for him.

I don't consider it a sell-out. I just consider it as a benefit he had for his hard work.

Yes I mean sure you could look at him as being an untrustworthy advertiser, whos opinion needs to be double checked with more research if you want to but thats not how I saw him.

revolstar wrote on 2026-09-11, 09:56:

I wouldn't call him a sellout at all. I'm sure you could name a few far worse offenders out there on youtube.

Also, not that I have a problem with it, but I did notice that his videos became a bit forced and repetitive once he finally revealed his face and started uploading more regularly. But that's what happens when you play the youtube algorithm game, eh? And as it has already been noted here, you can only make so much content on retro PC stuff.

There are much worse offenders out there. Doesn't make the one we're talking about any better though.

We get it ok, the guy isn't here to defend himself so I think we should just drop this, what you are doing here right now is why he and many others have left. You are entitled to have your opinions of people but opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and some are more full of shit than others.

Please stop.

Trashbytes wrote on 2026-09-11, 21:30:

We get it ok, the guy isn't here to defend himself so I think we should just drop this, what you are doing here right now is why he and many others have left. You are entitled to have your opinions of people but opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and some are more full of shit than others.

Please stop.

100% agree. We all love the same hobby. We’re supposed to be buddies on here. We can have our disagreements but it doesn’t have to become demeaning towards someone.

I was asking AI today about trying to fix the Quadro FX 1300 performance issues in 98 and you can see it crawling Phil's site. It such a great resource even AI uses it.

I will always have nothing but respect for putting himself out there like he did.

Dothan Burger wrote on 2026-09-11, 22:36:

I was asking AI today about trying to fix the Quadro FX 1300 performance issues in 98 and you can see it crawling Phil's site. It such a great resource even AI uses it.

I will always have nothing but respect for putting himself out there like he did.

I've talked with him via YouTube before and he even did a Video on one of the topics we were discussing, it was a while ago but Ill see if I can dig it up.

I like it when Phil and LGR put together their ultimate retro computers
From third party components.

Along with everyone else doing this on Youtube.

I learned allot about what works best and what doesn’t work
Because where else do you expect to learn from ?

I suppose this explains his lack of recent uploads, I kept wondering since it had been a while.

Like others I really enjoyed his enthusiasm and broad approach to using different combos of hardware putting together a retro machine. It doesn't have to be a period correct museum piece, once you sit down and start playing your game all that fades away.

I was inspired by his thin client videos and ended up buying a bunch of them for LAN parties, Windows XP has good compatibility with all the 9X and 2000s games me and my friends want to play. Not the perfect or "proper" hardware but it works.

RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2026-09-11, 16:05:

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2026-09-11, 13:34:

Yes I mean sure you could look at him as being an untrustworthy advertiser, whos opinion needs to be double checked with more research if you want to but thats not how I saw him.

You are twisting my words. I didn't say he's untrustworthy. I don't for a minute believe that he lied about anything. Not sure why you have something against Phil in particular.

I was just saying, that I never go by one review. I look at multiple reviews, often going straight to the 1 star reviews on Amazon just to see what the worst that can happen is. Many reviews are done with very little usage of the item. The realistic reviews come after there's been time to detect flaws and for poorly made things to break.

What other conclusion could I draw from what you said?
It either is or isnt a trusted source.

The problem is with what you said not the way I read it. I read what you said.

ratfink wrote on 2026-09-11, 19:04:

With all reviews you have to learn to read between the lines.

With forum posts you have to consider whether something was genuinely meant to be annoying, or that's just how you're taking it.

And people have tendency to form mini personality cults or cliques over the silliest things that then clouds their judgement and leads to falling out or cancelling or ignoring etc.

Thats true, and one of the ways you read between the lines is how trustworthy the person is who gave the review.
I mean there have been many reviews Ive completely ignored because of the person who reviewed it.
Do you think Phil was one of those whos opinion should be taken with scepticism?

Trashbytes wrote on 2026-09-11, 21:30:

We get it ok, the guy isn't here to defend himself so I think we should just drop this, what you are doing here right now is why he and many others have left. You are entitled to have your opinions of people but opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and some are more full of shit than others.

Please stop.

I didnt attack him, in fact I did the opposite.
You should read what I said in context.

Intel486dx33 wrote on 2026-09-11, 23:57:

I like it when Phil and LGR put together their ultimate retro computers From third party components. […]
Show full quote

I like it when Phil and LGR put together their ultimate retro computers
From third party components.

Along with everyone else doing this on Youtube.

I learned allot about what works best and what doesn’t work
Because where else do you expect to learn from ?

LGR is another great channel. I would say I watched more of Phils work than LGR but they both kept me happy for many a long hour.

Its a shame Phil dropped out when he did because he only really touched on Win98 and early WinXP builds. These days there is so much more work to be done on XP which ive been doing myself