JTK wrote:
> jesus X wrote:
>
>>JTK wrote:
>>
>>>>Or maybe it's opinion. Ever think of that?
>>>>
>>>No.
>>>
>>Time you did then.
>>
>>
>>>Huh? "To show the progress that has been made"?!? I thought that was
>>>why 6.0 was released.
>>>
>>No, Netscape released 6.0 because they NEEDED to get a new version out before
>>the year ended. Their choice was rushed by their marketing department, and had
>>nothing to do with Mozilla.
>>
>>
>
> Right there: Netscape has nothing to do with Mozilla. Your words, not
> mine. I suppose you believe Netscape 6.0 just packaged itself up and
> shipped?
>
>
>>>About two years too late, even if true. Who's reviewed NS6.1? I've not
>>>read a single review yet (other than from the Faithful). The world has
>>>forgotten about Netscape, rabbi.
>>>
>>While I don't really care about Netscape PRs, I know CNet reviewed it. Their
>>reviewers were guarded but optimistic for the final 6.1. We all know that 6.0
>>final sucked, and that the PRs, while beta, were high for beta quality, while
>>6.0 final was crap for final quality, so CNet is taking it a bit more carefully
>>with 6.1, but are optimistic that 6.1 final will be everything 6.0 should and
>>could have been. The average user rating is 4 stars, which is damn good for a
>>beta. 69% of the users gave it a "thumbs up".
>>
>>
>
> Yep, read the CNet review. Also read the one praising 6.0, you
> remember, the one they had to later retract since they obviously had
> never even run the program?
>
>
>>ZD Net mentioned it, but I can't locate a review in a few moments of searching.
>>It's users also gave it an average of 4 out of 5 stars.
>>
>>
>
> Pfhht, yeah, but everyone knows ZDNet is just a Micro$oft mouthpiece.
>
>
>>>>Yes, NS6 sucked, we all know that. But I think you need to
>>>>take a fresh look at where things are.
>>>>
>>>I do that pretty much every day. And when I do so, I'm loudly accused
>>>of being a "hypocrite" by certain religious factions of the Body.
>>>
>>I know for a fact you do not look at it every day as in another group you admit
>>to not having seen the new Modern theme, which is a couple months old. Now's
>>who's lying?
>>
>>
>
> Um, Jesus... I use the Communicator-looking theme exclusively. I have
> never had reason to look at the "Modern" one (that's the horrid blue
> one, right?) because the last time I looked it was a complete freakshow,
> switching skins has been one of the most buggy aspects of Maozilla as
> far as I can tell, and at any rate I hate the whole skinning concept.
>
> You're not doing too good for an omnipotent being, my friend.
Yup, you've never even double clicked that little icon before, have you? The Moden
theme is no longer blue.
It hasn't been blue for a very, very long time. It's a white/grey
color. Hell, this is even mentioned and has a screen shot in the CNet
review you "read". I use the term loosely, because you obviously didn't
read the review or else you would know what the new skin looks like.
BTW, skinning is quite painless, IE supports it too (though very hard,
must be done manually)
