I bet if I ask for a name at Netscape they will say that it was an "unidentified" source from Netscape. They way I see it is, if they deceived by publishing results and stating they tested a product when they had really tested a previous version, what would stop them from making up the story about talking to someone at Netscape. I think more people should complain until they are forced either to retract, correct or add a disclaimer to their article. Netscape 6.1 was based on 0.92+ addtional Netscape fixes, while N6.2 is based on 0.94+ additional netscape fixes, I am sure at least 1000 bugs were fixed (an others added). They cannot claim the two products are essentially the same.
Hall Stevenson wrote: > * RV ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [011103 10:40]: > > >>No, they did not test N6.2 at all... >> >>One more time CNet has shown their irresponsible and inaccurate form >>of journalism. They could have addded a line at the end or at the >>start of their article stating they tested N6.1 but that N6.2 was >>released too late to be considered in their testing period. >> > > I think everyone should have an issue with whoever they spoke to at > Netscape, if they really did, who told them there's little difference > between 6.1 and 6.2 that would affect performance. Don't you agree ?? > > Hall > >
