AW, you compared a perfect kernel to a brand new and i repeat, brand new kernel. Kernel 1.0 was not finished and the special mode has just been added to improve games compatibility.
Your comments were right but as i said, i found your conclusion a little harsh.
any comparisons to the acekard were made because i was asked to do so. gbatemp was originally going to do two reviews; one for the ismart and one for the ismart vs. the acekard. i refused to do this and instead settled a little by adding in the comparison paragraph. could you imagine the shit i would have to take if i had compared it (option for option, game for game, file for file) to the acekard and akaio? i was reluctant to do any comparisons because the cards are not the same (i said as much in the conclusion). the bit about the comparison in the conclusion was to show that they should not be compared, which is why i wrote “I find it very difficult to compare these Flash Kits, companies, and their firmware/software, when their current states of development exist to contrast each other. “ i thought that everyone could understand what i was writing, yet i am starting to see that many users who really enjoy the ismart premium saw any comparisons as a chance to attack the product. in the future should i dumb down my writing?
my conclusion was that the card is not yet worth owning until the software is fixed. i don't see how that is harsh? i know you think it was harsh because it was a 1st release software, so please read on…
the hardware is pretty nice and does a few nice things other cards in its class do not do on a hardware level. the card might be great for 3rd party software, and while we are all debating that fact lets remember that none of the software was ready at the time of the review. the sdk is designed for shell replacements only, so 3rd party software will be using the same loaders, correct? even if a better shell replacement existed they would have the same compatibility problems. if the sdk had been ready at the time of the review and the shell replacements had been available, i still would have come to the same conclusion. with that said please remember the review was written based on the v1.0 software that was publically offered. i was in constant contact with both teams and if they had asked me to hold off on the review until the “final” version of the software was ready i would have done so.
a flash kit should play homebrew 1st and roms 2nd. anything else is a bonus that can only be compared to other kits in its class. yet at the time of the review the card did not perform, it simply failed to offer the 1st and 2nd most important and fundamental aspects of nds slot-1 gaming.
i wrote good things about the hardware, on multiple occasions i’ve expressed my opinion that the problems are all software based. the conclusion of the review was not a reflection of george, ismartds, the ez flash team, or their business plan. it was a reflection of the software which was at fault for everything that went wrong during the review.
future teams should take note, don't send your flash kits to be reviewed by gbatemp if your software isn't ready. i was told to review the kit and the only software was the v1.0. the review was published AFTER the card was available to the public. it took me almost 4 weeks to complete the review due to personal issues in real life. at any point the team could have said "hey hold up, we have a better software with some fixes we would like used in the review" so again, i don't see how i could have come to any other conclusions. they were obviously happy with the current state of the software or they wouldn't have gone to market with it.
Mbmax, i’m more sick of arguing about my review conclusions then you are, trust me! =)