Not knowing any better, my read of the whole thing is that they ran 6.2 in order to generate the IE vs. 6.2 evaluation in which we "tied" IE, but they did not produce an in-depth evaluation of 6.2 to replace their earlier 6.1 in-depth evaluation (you'll notice that the link at the bottom of the head to head comparison points to a 6.1 evaluation). They felt there was little or no difference in the two products, not enough to warrant writing a in-depth analysis that says the same thing as they said for 6.1.
I don't see any explicit evidence in their reply that states they tested NS 6.1 vs IE, so maybe you should ask them point-blank "did you actually run 6.2, find the differences were slight, and based your decision not to do an in-depth analysis based on that?" syd RV wrote: > I complained to CNet about their Netscape vs IE recent comparison. > They actually tested Netscape 5.1 vs IE, reported their results and > then later changed the article to read Netscape 6.2 instead of the > tested 6.1. I got a letter from them which it it's quoted below. I am > flabergasted by the lame answer I got. At a minimum it shows > completely irresponsible and unethical "journalism". I think people > should innundate their site with complaint letter until they post a > disclaimer. > > The email follows; > > "Hi, > You are correct. We did indeed update our story from Netscape 6.1 to > Netscape 6.2. However, according to our contacts at Netscape, there > are no significant code changes to 6.2 that would affect either speed > or stability. The only major difference between the two versions is > 6.2's increased support for Windows XP and Mac OS X. You might want to > check out the actual Netscape 6.2 Web site. The vast majority of the > text is exactly the same text that was on the former 6.1 site. In > fact, Netscape deliberately didn't make a production out of the 6.2 > release because, unlike 6.1, 6.2 really is a minor point upgrade. > > Hope that explains it. Thanks for your feedback. > > Sharah" >
