No, they did not test N6.2 at all. My original feedback/complaint to them was that they tested n6.1 and published the results as such. The same day they posted their comparison Netscape released N6.2 and they just went back to their webpage, did a search and replace substituting every instance of N6.1 for 6.2. I think that is innacurate, deceptive and plain wrong thing to do. N6.2 has many bug fixes over 6.1 and few new features. How do they know they are equally good or equally bad products? My concern is not about the outcome of their tests but about their misrepresentations of what product they actually tested.
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. RV Syd Logan wrote: > 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
