Problem: Agilent Technologies U1173A Compatibility with Windows 10

For Christmas in 2014, I decided to get myself a decent multimeter which could do data logging. This turned out to be the Agilent U1241B, along with a U1173A for USB to IR connectivity.

At the time, the cable was already “discontinued” but it was cheaper than the U1173B which changed the colour to bright orange. Little did I know that the colour was not the only change – it now says Support [for] Windows 10.

Having run my main workstation on Windows 7 until my recent upgrade, I was unaware that the U1173A would come to cause trouble.

The Problem

I plugged the U1173A cable into my new Windows 10 box, expecting it to just “work” as it used to. Alas, I was wrong.

Instead, it decided to throw up a Code 10 error. Normally that would appear for counterfeit Prolific chips, but this was an Agilent Technologies product, so I was sure it was fine. I downloaded the latest driver (v1.19.0) and installed it, to no avail. Thinking the cable may be suspect, I grabbed the U1173B which came with the U1461A kit, and that worked just fine.

After a closer look at Prolific’s site, I came across this EOL Notification which includes the following text:

Due to EOL (End-of-Life) policy, please note that PL-2303HX (Chip Rev A) and PL-2303X (Chip Rev A) will not have compulsory driver support for the coming Windows 8 operating system as it is not a supported OS mentioned in the chip datasheet. So it is advisable to switch to the new PL2303TA chip which will include support for Windows 8.

The notification was not that strongly worded, so I got the impression that while they won’t be assured driver support, they wouldn’t be doing anything deliberate to stop it from working on Windows 8 (and presumably, Windows 10).

However, this proved to be an incorrect interpretation, as reading the Release Notes in the latest driver package, it says:

PL2303HXA/XA EOL chip versions (discontinued) will NOT be supported in Windows 8/8.1/Server2012/Server2012R2 and Windows 10 onwards.
– Download latest PL2303 CheckChipVersion tool program to check chip version in Windows 7. (Or contact your cable vendor)
– Prolific recommends cables with PL2303HXD or PL2303TA chip.


Counterfeit Warning!!!
Please be warned that counterfeit/fake PL-2303HX Chip Rev A (or PL-2303HXA) USB to Serial Controller ICs using Prolific’s trademark logo, brandname, and device drivers, are being sold in the China market. Counterfeit IC products show exactly the same outside chip markings but generally are of poor quality and causes Windows driver compatibility issues (Yellow Mark Error Code 10 in Windows 7 Device Manager). We issue this warning to all our customers and consumers to avoid confusion and false purchase. Only purchase branded cables that provide technical support and warranty service. Prolific does not manufacture nor sell end-product cables.

Based on this information, the driver will not support PL2303HXA or PL2303XA chips under Windows 8 and above. Coincidentally, the warning placed later in the document identifies these chips as the target of counterfeiting. This is true, as I had been a victim of this in the past. However, the warning about the Error Code 10 is deliberately worded to shift the blame away from Prolific. Those who have had fake chips in their hands know that there is absolutely no problem when running them using much older drivers which do not check for it and do not cause BSODs. Thus, it’s likely that this is caused by their deliberate choice to code the driver to only work with their own devices. I think that locking out counterfeits is fair in some sense due to their R&D investment and the need to maintain their competitive advantage. However, causing problems for those with older genuine chips is inexcusable. Maybe they found some clones they couldn’t disable/detect, and thus rendering all chips of that type unusable in Windows 8 and above was their solution.

The same cable had absolutely no issues with the latest drivers under Windows 7, so at least it was surely not a counterfeit.

It identified with VID 067B and PID 2303.

Unfortunately, as the chip check tool only works up to COM15, I had to reallocate the COM port number. Ultimately, it delivered me the bad news – this was one of the chips affected by the discontinuation.

The Solution

I’m pretty late to the party when it comes to this issue, since it was already around when Windows 8 started going mainstream. As a result, I could count on others having met the same issue and finding some solutions.

A quick search online seems to show that an older version of the driver is necessary. Removing the driver and replacing the ser2pl.sys or ser2pl64.sys files from an older driver would do the trick, although, sometimes files would be replaced automatically by Windows. There were a few sites offering older drivers for download, although I’m not sure how reliable they are. As for how old the driver has to be, it seems that there are differing opinions – some say any 3.3.x.x series driver should work, however it is known that and work. All reports seem to state that 3.4.x.x series drivers fail.

As a result, I wanted to know how far forward I could go before things would break, and I wanted to grab the drivers from a trustworthy source. As a result, I visited the Internet Archive’s trove of (more trustworthy) archived data from Prolific’s own site:

From what I can see, it seems that v1417 is the most preferable package to install, as it has the last v3.3.x.x series driver. After installing the package, manually updating the drivers allows the choice of driver version.

Once the older version is installed …

… the port becomes workable. Unfortunately, it seems that Windows likes to try and update the drivers to the latest version at any unplug/reboot opportunity. One way around it is to use a registry file/group policy entry to prevent installation for that particular type of device, but then, you can only use the adapter on whichever port you have already installed it on. Plugging it into another USB port will result in a new device for which you are disallowed to install drivers for due to the group policy entry. To undo, you will need to remove the device IDs from HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\DeviceInstall\Restrictions\DenyDeviceIDs.


It’s amazing how competition in the USB to Serial bridge chip market has resulted in a number of stupid shenanigans. When FTDI started to brick counterfeit chips, I was concerned. The main alternative, Prolific, were not guilt free either as their drivers would frequently BSOD when encountering counterfeit chips, potentially causing data loss and more panic than absolutely necessary. Over time, this mellowed to a more “gentle” Code 10 error, but now, the code is being invoked to cause their older chips to be unusable under the latest OS. This is a form of forced obsolescence which is wasteful, and forcefully encourages consumers to fork out money to buy a new device. I suppose this may be a way of limiting any “undetectable” fakes.

Of course, this is merely a software restriction, as it can be bypassed by running older drivers. Unfortunately, this also causes problems – older drivers like to be automatically replaced with newer ones, meaning manual intervention may be necessary to keep things working through a reboot or unplug/replug cycle. But worse still, older drivers can contain bugs and lack support for some baud rates and newer chips (in case there is a mixed environment of new and old chips). Such restrictions are not an issue for Linux, and running an older OS inside a VM.

I’m disappointed. I own a number of older Prolific devices, all of which are genuine. They’re still perfectly physically functional. To leave me out in the cold for your own commercial interests wastes my time and effort to work-around. Your excuse that Windows 10 compatibility was not promised does not hold water when an older version of your own driver works absolutely fine for the most part, and under Linux, there has never been an issue per-se. The hardware didn’t suddenly become impossible to work under Windows 10 – you just chose to make the latest drivers “fail” to work with it.

But I suppose we aren’t left with many options. Winchiphead CH341-type chips are fairly cheap, but they’re not that reliable. The Silicon Labs CP210x is another alternative, but I haven’t had much experience with them. One that I haven’t seen is the Moschip MCS7720, although these are probably hit and miss too. There were formerly other alternatives, but I suppose they’re too expensive for the “cheap-as-chips” market of today.

Posted in Computing | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments

Quick Review: IKEA Lunnom 600lm 5.5W 2200K LED Filament Globe

In the last few years, it seemed that carbon-filament style globes grew drastically in popularity for mood lighting in many commercial and home settings. Their warm orange glow is distinctive, and nostalgic. While the government in Australia had done a lot to ensure the timely death of incandescent globes, it seemed that this may have been a reversal in an otherwise positive trend.

Many buyers of carbon-filament style lamps may not be aware that, despite their seemingly low 25W rating, they actually have a lower luminous efficacy than even old fashioned regular light globes. As a result, these decorative lamps rarely even state their lumen output – my best estimates put the luminous efficacy at just 6.67lm/W for filament types with a 25W globe only putting out 167 lumens. This compares very poorly to the traditional globe which easily achieves 15lm/W, and LEDs which routinely achieve 100-120lm/W. As a result, when decorative filament globes are used for whole-area lighting, an ecological disaster is on the cards.

To capitalize on this growing market, specialty LED globes have been designed. IKEA’s earlier attempt (Nittio) used a spiral light-pipe to channel warm white light from LEDs mounted in a base to create the visual effect. Initially, it was quite expensive and its limited light output was a limitation.

However, since then, LED-filament style globes have appeared on the market using chip-on-glass and remote-phosphor technology. This allows many smaller discrete LED chips to produce a nearly uniform “line” of light, in a warm glow similar to incandescent globes. Initially confined to Chinese manufacturers, it seems that IKEA have embraced this trend with their Lunnom series.

Visiting my local IKEA, I found that the large E27 version of the globe (LED1637G6/403.765.29/19972) was marked down to AU$9.99, so I decided to give it a shot and see what it was like. Note that there is a smaller E27 version of the globe, which would be preferable for luminaire compatibility reasons, but was out of stock at the time I visited. While I suspect it is similar, I cannot confirm this as I have not tested it.


If you’re in the shop, you definitely won’t miss the Lunnom. It comes packaged in a clear plastic box, showing off the globe’s design in its entirety. In traditional IKEA minimalism, the minimal amount of text is placed on each panel. This particular Lunnom is a 5.5W model offering a 600lm output, which is roughly the same as a 40W incandescent globe. Other specifications include a power-on time of <1 second, 15,000 switching cycles, 220-240v 50/60Hz supply compatibility, >80 CRI and 109lm/W luminous efficacy. Even compared with non-decorative LED globes, its luminous efficacy is impressive.

Other key specifications include a 2200K CRI, making it a very warm white. It is not compatible with dimmers. It claims a 15,000h lifetime, which is about five times longer than traditional filament decorative globes which top-out at 3,000h. Its dimensions are 175mm length and 125mm diameter with an E27 base, making this a large globe that is not compatible with many luminaires. It’s probably best used with a pendant. It achieves an A++ EU Energy rating, and is from the Week 27 of 2017 batch. It is marked with the appropriate RCM for Australia. There is a warning not to use the globe if the outer envelope is damaged or broken due to risk of electric shock – this suggests a non-isolated driver may be involved, but also high voltages.

The bulb is made of glass, and is large and bulbous. Unlike filament globes, the glass envelope is (probably) not evacuated, but instead is used for its decorative effect and as electrical insulation from the parts inside. Due to the decorative nature of the design, the driver has been hidden away into a PCB in the end-cap. Four LED filament sections can be seen, supported by a central glass stem.

The globe information is printed on the short neck area, so as not to detract from the aesthetics.

The LED arrangement does not seem obvious at first, but it appears to be two filaments in series by two strings with (possibly) a separate current regulation channel. Note the diagram below is based on the wiring visible through the glass alone, and the actual diode direction (i.e. high side/low side regulation) was not determined.


Powering up the globe revealed a brighter-than-expected warm white glow very much reminiscent of incandescent globes. It was probably not quite as warm as a filament globe, close to that of an incandescent globe, but definitely warmer than my “new” halogen-substitute globe.

Note that both images are corrected to a 6500k white point with no tint. Based on the white balance tool in Lightroom, the IKEA globe was spot-on at 2200K. While the quality of the light was good, the filament-aesthetics were still obviously an emulation. Given the present LED technology, this is probably the best we can achieve.

Running at 230V for 20 minutes from cold, the power was about 5.45W, which is pretty much spot-on. The steps in the graph are due to the power supply regulation (i.e. as the inverter heats up, the duty-cycle steps cause the output voltage to jump 1-2V at a time).

Performing a voltage-sweep on the globe shows that it survived running at 277V. However, it also showed the globe is unlike many LED globes on the market in that its best operating point actually lies within the operating voltage range. Being sensitive to voltage, the globe flickers below 200V. The globe only reaches full brightness around 227V, but then from then on, the brightness remains relatively constant. The increase in power consumption from there may be related to power dissipation in the regulation circuit. As a result, if your mains voltage is a little weak, the globe may not deliver its full rated output – falling to half its output at about 202V. The power factor is also not impressive, ranging from 0.55 to 0.58, suggesting possible corner-cutting to save money. However, it could be a form-factor restriction of fitting the driver in the cap of globe, but it doesn’t really matter as it won’t change a residential household power bill.

Being a little curious about what sort of driver might be used, I decided to try and see if any flicker was detectable. Using an LED as a sensor, the output seemed to be quite stable (for the most part) suggesting a capacitor may be present in the circuit to maintain a flicker-free output. The same LED sensor easily detected the 100Hz flicker in a fluorescent desk lamp, as a cross-check of its sensitivity.


As it turns out, decorative lighting doesn’t have to kill the planet or your wallet. The IKEA Lunnom comes from a trustworthy source, at a price that makes traditional filament versions of the globe uneconomical from purchase price alone based on the lifetime differences. With a very impressive 109lm/W luminous efficacy and a 600lm output which is about 40W-incandescent-equivalent, it’s a very compelling package. When you add up savings in electricity, it seems a no-brainer to opt for LED filament globes over traditional filament globes where a decorative effect is desired. The one thing you might miss is the actual shape of the filament – while this globe does “try” with angular straight sections, a hanging filament does have the subtle curves between supports which such straight-LED-filaments can’t emulate.

While I’m not able to assess the actual lifetime of the globe, nor its driver design, considering its inexpensive nature, I think it’s an easy choice for those looking for this type of lighting. The one thing I would be careful of is the (likely) non-isolated and high voltage nature of the current driver’s output, so I would definitely advise heeding the advice not to contact any parts if the outer glass envelope is broken.

Another downside of this particular globe is the lack of dimmer compatibility – however, there are other products (more expensive) that feature dimming compatibility. Finally, it seems the power factor is fairly low at 0.56, although this doesn’t directly matter for home consumers, it isn’t “utility friendly” and suggests some corners being cut to save on manufacturing cost.

Posted in Lighting | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Opinion: The Difficulty Behind a “Simple” Recommendation

I suppose now that I do have my PhD, it’s time for me to wax lyrical about some of my thoughts and opinions. In this posting, I’ll be addressing the difficulty behind a “simple” recommendation – because everyone has time to answer a random question from a random stranger, right? Incidentally, while I was on holidays, most of the messages I received were requests to recommend products or services or to discuss about them at length. Rather unsurprisingly, I left most of them unanswered.

The “Simple” Request

“Hi there. I see you’ve written about X, so you must know. I was wondering, what product would you recommend I buy? How about Y? Thanks.”

“What’s the best Z on the market at the moment?”

Congratulations. As a consumer spoilt by choice, you have a dilemma (or more) on your hands. You want a particular product, but you don’t know which one is best for you. Maybe you’ve done some searches online and things seem confusing. The specs look the same, but the prices are different. Maybe the reviews also look good, but maybe they’re not even real. In your desperation, you’ve found someone who looks like he/she might know something about it and decide to ask.

After all, it’s a simple question. I can even fit it into a paragraph. It shouldn’t take them a minute to answer it, right?

Problem 1: The (Incomplete) Question

You might think I’m exaggerating when I say that I have received a good number of e-mails with questions formatted like the ones above, but I’m not. As any engineer knows, if you can’t precisely delineate the problem you are trying to solve, you will end up with solutions that won’t meet your needs. It’s like asking someone for “something to cut hair with”, they tell you to go buy a pair of scissors, but really, you’re trying to shear a whole flock of sheep. Not very good advice, right?

As a result, it’s very frustrating to be asked general overarching questions where the requester has obviously not given their problem any thought. This is the easiest way to get ignored, or to get the same advice over and over, or even just plain wrong advice.

Instead, one should probably be more specific – things to think about might be:

  • What sort of product are you looking for?
  • What are you going to do with the product?
  • How is the product going to be used? Is there any specific unusual application involved?
  • What qualities do you demand above that of the “average” product?
  • How much are you willing to spend?
  • Where are you willing to shop or what alternatives do you have to choose from?
  • Are there any that you have already considered and ruled out? Why? Why not?
  • What sort of information are you really after – do you want a recommendation between a few limited choices of products, do you want alternatives or anecdotal experiences, or do you want something else entirely?

So maybe a much more useful question would be:

“I’m looking for a hard drive, no smaller than 8Tb, that I can use in a RAID5 or RAID6 array of at least 10 drives. It must have 7200RPM spindle speed because I need high throughput, and also needs to have a 5-year warranty for reliability reasons. It will be put into an industrial environment, but we’ve got a pretty tight budget of no more than AU$500 per drive. I’ve considered the WD Red Pro and the Seagate Ironwolf Pro, but I’m wondering if there’s any reason to prefer one over the other, whether there’s any reason to step up to enterprise grade drives or whether there are any cheaper alternatives which might meet my needs?”

Isn’t it much clearer now, what the requester wants? With this information, you’re helping your advisers get you the information you want without wasting their time on things that aren’t important. For example – nobody’s going to recommend a WD Green or a Seagate Archive drive on the basis you want it to be in a RAID array. Likewise, with a firm budget, nobody’s going to be recommending a WD Gold or a Seagate Exos either, unless they’ve got a good bargain for you. It’s also much clearer that you’ve put the thought into your problem and that you’re motivated to find a solution.

Problem 2: The Motivation

Whenever I get a question in my inbox, just before I breathe out a big sigh and delete it, there is a brief moment where I feel flattered. After all, if someone’s decided to send me a question, they have placed their trust in me to help solve their problem in their best interests.

But things are not that simple, because a request for recommendation isn’t as simple as it seems. I have met a number of requesters of different types (not all mutually exclusive), which all have their own agenda:

  • The Genuine – these people really want to solve a problem and have done their homework. They’re just making sure they haven’t overlooked anything major, or made a rookie mistake, and they take your advice on board bearing full responsibility for any decisions they make.
  • The Market Researcher – these people might have a problem, but they also have an insane fear of making the wrong decision and regretting it, so they ask as many people as they can by bombing them with the same question to harvest as many answers as possible. But in their haste, they also like to pit recommendations against each other, resulting in a bit of a war of finer points which wears everyone down in the end. They’re just too afraid to make the decision on their own.
  • The Blame Sharer – these people might start off with a genuine problem, but in the end, they’re incapable of taking any responsibility for any purchasing decisions. Instead, they will seek your recommendation and approval to buy a product, and from then on, any issues which arise will suddenly become yours to solve.
  • The Debater – these people have absolutely nothing to do but to start an argument with you because they can’t understand why you think highly of “Product O”. They spend all day refuting your arguments and instead trying to convince themselves that their choice of “Product N” is the only logical choice and that all “Product O” owners are nuts.
  • The Time-Wasting Self-Reinforcer – these people have very general overarching requests, but they don’t detail their needs. You go back and forth recommending products, and they will come up with “new” constraints to exclude them. Similar to “The Debater”, they seem to know the answer before they even started and just want to hear it from someone else.
  • The Doesn’t Want to Know at All – these seem to have absolutely zero knowledge on the area, and just want a quick answer to their question with no thought whatsoever. As a result, they write vague questions (sometimes technically non-sensical ones) and expect a straightforward non-technical answer when none exists. Then, they get frustrated and take it out on you.
  • The “Askhole” – these people ask just for the sake of asking, but never take anything you say on-board. In fact, sometimes they even go to the lengths of just doing the exact opposite of what you advise, just to see what happens. Kind of a “troll” requester.

There are probably more types, although they evade my mind at this exact instant. Regardless, it’s clear that no matter what the type of requester, a request for advice almost always favours the requester. There’s often very little to nothing in the way of a reward for the adviser – and worse still, often there is a lack of respect for an adviser. There really isn’t much motivation for an adviser to give a recommendation, but there are some exceptions.

In what seems to be a growing trend, “social influencers” and “trend leaders” seem to be overly happy to dole out free advice. These have even become roles within companies, with names such as “Brand Ambassador” or sponsorships given to individuals to promote given products. There are also cases where people are given free products in exchange for positive reviews on major shopping sites, and other cases where astroturfing campaigns both inflate good reviews for a given product with fake praise and sabotage competitors with false criticisms. In light of this, the disrespect for advisers may be understandable – free advice may need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Things get worse when money gets involved. In another growing trend of affiliate link spam (which I am also a victim of, and take steps to remove), products are recommended only because the adviser gets a commission when products are purchased through their link.

As a result, because of this, it can be difficult for laymen to separate fake reviews from real reviews, and unbiased advice from self-serving drivel. However, if people do not learn to cultivate their own “critical” senses, they will continue to be deceived and reliant on others to do the “filtering” for them.

Problem 3: Practical Knowledge Limits of an Individual

If a request has passed the barriers above, it’s not doing too bad. But unfortunately, advisers are not without their faults too. No one individual is able to know everything, and thus, the advice they can give is necessarily limited.

For example, as a hobbyist with a “student-sized” budget and limited needs, it would not be possible to buy every single item on the market for a given type and test it. Believe me, I’ve tried. But even then, if you’re in another market, the choices you have are entirely different. How can I recommend a product that I haven’t touched, tested or even seen?

There is the other issue that the markets continually evolve as new products and revisions are released to market. What may have been trustworthy at release may develop issues as they age, and recommendations may have to be withdrawn on such basis. Honestly speaking, unless I just so happen to be interested in buying a product from a given market at around the same time, I probably have absolutely no idea what the latest models are like (even on paper) and how they compare. After all, it’s not my job to know about everything!

Too many people seem not to recognize their limits in terms of their experiences, and blindly give recommendations without doing the necessary confirmatory research to ensure their views are valid. As a result, in some cases, genuine requests for advice turn into a “voting” match with advisers giving a recommendation with absolutely zero reasoning, and requesters going with the consensus.

Problem 4: At What Cost?

Then we come to the whole problem of costs. Most of the time, the requester thinks they have a simple question that would take about five minutes to answer. But they don’t realize that things are a little more complex than that.

As an adviser, I would feel very bad if I gave out the wrong advice. This is, as I’m led to understand, a conscience (I hope you have one too). As a result of this, I have to make sure that the advice I give is sound, reasonable, technically supported, well-reasoned, and defensible. Part of doing that is spending time researching someone else’s problem. That takes more than five minutes, I can assure you, but it’s also what I need to do to ensure I keep the trust between me and the requester, and my reputation, both of which are priceless. It can also result in times where problems stay in the back of my mind, nagging me, making me worried. The anxiety is, in itself, intolerable when multiplied by the tens or more e-mails I might be receiving on a weekly basis. After all, there is a bit of power asymmetry here – there are seemingly more requesters than advisers.

Most of the time, the result is that I might give a piece of advice, but in doing so, it has consumed a disproportionately large part of my resources to deliver. It’s not personally worth fielding these questions on a personal level, as I have a life to live as well. The worst part is when a recommendation comes back to bite me in the behind, as when things go wrong and I get blamed, but ultimately, the recommendation was sound given the information given to me at the time.

Further to that, some people have offered enticements in the form of a “paid” advisory role. However, I’m not sure how serious they are, as often many of these requests are not genuine and entail undertaking liability. It’s better not to open myself up to being sued …

I suppose this is why I recommend people with genuine issues post comments on relevant pages or (better yet) frequently visited forums that centre on the topic. That has the advantage of allowing the requester to gain multiple responses to their problems from different perspectives, and saves one person from having to do all the work. The downside is that you will get answers from a larger and more varied audience with different levels of experience and expertise.

Problem 5: Will They Even Care?

The biggest annoyance happens when you’ve fired off a well-reasoned recommendation and immediately get refuted by the requester thinking that they know better. Sometimes this is because they have an over-reliance of on-paper specifications, some of which are entirely meaningless, or they have someone else’s advice they respect more than yours and wish to provoke a response or an admission of sorts. Others never really intended for advice, and wanted their own preferences validated.

When met with this sort of futility, it’s hard to justify even putting the effort in to personalize a reply to those who request a recommendation. Unfortunately, this leads to “bad advice” in the form of a “generic” recommendation. For example – if someone wants to ask me about which power bank to buy, I could easily send back a one liner saying “Xiaomi products are great.” But if they’re away from a physical store, they could end up with a counterfeit or maybe they’re intending it for low-current usage where the auto-shut-off might make it completely unusable for them. As a result, I won’t send out generic recommendations, even if they might seem to be an obvious low-cost response.

Problem 6: Encouraging Bad Habits

I suppose the bigger issue at hand is that providing recommendations helps form bad habits. I like to compare it with feeding pigeons – once you’ve done it once or twice, they keep coming back since they know there’s food. They then grow a dependency on you to provide the food, and an expectation that you will continue to do so. The day you choose not to share the chips is the day you’ll get pecked on the ear.

In the modern era that we live in, the term “information overload” gets thrown around as a “magical” excuse for ignorance. From my perspective, it’s hard to see this as a problem in light of all the advantages it brings. A large pool of freely available information with relatively liberal rules about what is allowed to be posted is a large resource of (potentially) honest feedback and insight into the thoughts of others. It takes some time to develop the critical thinking to rapidly filter incoming information for relevance and pick up on hints as to its reliability, but if you don’t start somewhere, you’re missing out and are just relying on someone else to do the thinking for you. That’s laziness in another word.

Take the time to clarify all constraints, requirements and foreseeable issues; to understand the changes in product design, important comparison points and design issues involved. Learn to filter information and get a sense of how detailed and reputable it is, and how likely you might encounter any issues. There is no perfect product, just as there is no perfect review.

It’s one of the reasons why I choose to write reviews where I pass some of my judgement about a product. But more than that, I provide some tests which provide data which may be of interest in comparisons, and to back up my claims. The data itself has the power to answer many questions, but also allows you to compare with other results to determine reliability and compare with other products I haven’t had a chance to test. Then you can arrive at the decision yourself for your particular circumstances.

If all else fails, understand that all products exist to target a market and sometimes buying it and trying it is the only way to know if it will really meet your needs (especially for strange applications). Someone’s got to be the guinea pig! Some products will have problems, that might cost you time and energy, but bugging someone else in the hope that they too won’t make a similar mistake isn’t a particularly good strategy in the long run.

After you gain the knowledge, maybe it’s time to give back by writing a detailed review and posting it where others can decide for themselves whether the information is useful to them or not in their decision-making process.


Providing advice, such as a recommendation, is more than just a few hollow words. There is an element of trust involved from the side of the requester that you will deliver advice which is well-reasoned, well-researched, well-supported and appropriately considers the needs of the requester. To do this without falling into “generic” poorly-considered recommendations, or into self-interests where there is some sort of “advantage” for the adviser is an expectation. There is also an assumed risk, as now, the adviser is involved in the decision-making process of the requester and ultimately (whether they like to or not) shares the burden of any decisions made.

The job of the adviser is difficult. It is complicated by being made involved in a problem where all the information may not be apparent, where the questions may be incomplete, where the constraints may not be well detailed and where the adviser may not be confident that they are in the right position to give the advice being requested. It’s very easy for a well-meaning adviser to provide advice that ultimately would be considered by others to be inappropriate, with consequences for everyone. It’s also easy for an adviser to overestimate their knowledge in a given area, or dismiss valid alternatives based on a lack of experience. Regardless of this, if an adviser is kind enough to consider your problem, they have spent time and energy researching something which they might have better spent on something else!

If you’re a clueless person looking for a simple answer, I have some sympathy for you. After all, the world (as a whole) is getting less and less transparent, and thus it is easy to come across fake recommendations (e.g. reviews commissioned by companies, affiliate links that earn the adviser some money) which are sometimes in quite large numbers. To have found someone you respect to provide advice seems a logical person to consult.

However, it’s also important to realize that giving out advice isn’t free – it costs my time, energy and reputation to provide. As a result, I’ll have to apologize – I won’t generally offer any recommendations on specific products for your specific problem. Please do not contact me via any means asking for such recommendations as they will go unanswered. I simply do not have the time to dole out advice.

That is why I provide the reviews about products I have owned, used, torn-apart, repaired, etc. online, free of charge. These reviews document the aspects of the products I have tested and the conditions they were tested under. This is the raw underlying information you can use to compare with information you obtain elsewhere or information about other options to arrive at a decision. In this way, if I don’t cover something relevant to you, you can go and find someone that does. If I do, then you can compare it with someone else. At the end of the day, it is immaterial to me whether you use the information or not, but I hope that the information proves useful.

The bigger overarching message is that if you’re looking for advice, it’s probably best you take some time to educate yourself and do the research yourself. The internet is vast and filled with resources – don’t be so lazy as to expect someone else to do the work for you and deprive you of the reward of learning something. If you do, that’s great – then it may be time to share that with the rest of the internet.

Posted in Opinion | Tagged , , | Leave a comment