... I cannot stop laughing at what they wrote
Yes, well, depressingly, they probably did not write it for peoples' amusement. The thing was apparently intended to be a technical review in what was (or what used to be) a relatively credible technical website blog.
Although they describe SC as "A superb screen grabber with a not so superb name"
they fail to substantiate why it is superb, then spend valuable column inches wasting the reader's time with vapid comments about the name, finishing up with the unsubstantiated and blatantly wrong statement that:
If you’re running Windows 10 you probably don’t need it, but on older Windows devices it’s much more useful than anything Windows itself offers.
With all that seemingly misplaced focus and superficial chitchat, the reader is probably at least left none the wiser, and at worst, misled, as to why he/she would want to download the software.
Some people (not me, you understand) might say that techradar
could have written an interesting, accurate and useful
pukka technical review and evaluation of the SC, using as much or (if done properly) more space than the facile piece that they did
write, and that it was unfortunately a lazy and moronic review with no valuable or useful technical depth to it at all, however I couldn't possibly comment.