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?
Not his words at all, you missed the point. What he said/meant was that
the decision by marketing to release 6.0 had nothing to do with Mozilla.
>
>>>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?
Typical media-monkeys
>
>>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.
yup
>
>>>>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.
Themes: thems that like 'em run 'em and those that don't don't. Neat
thing about "choice" ain't it.
>
>>--
>>jesus X [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism. ]
>> email [ jesusx @ who.net ]
>> web [ http://burntelectrons.com ] [ Updated April 29, 2001 ]
>> tag [ The Universe: It's everywhere you want to be. ]
>> warning [ All your base are belong to us. ]
>>
--
Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion
Novell MCNE-5/CNI
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Post To Group ONLY, No Email Please!!
