Fwd: Battling Windmills

[Kee Nethery]

>>Reviews have limited word counts. They cannot go into great detail. 
>>The writer has almost zero control over what ends up in print.
>>
>>Reviews have to appear balanced. Unless the product is universally 
>>revered by everyone in the computing community, they have to point 
>>out at least one flaw.
>
>Kee, et al:
>
>So when I asked, "...is this garbage just one more example of the 
>focus on form instead of substance (read that lack of depth of 
>research) that is typical of software reviewers?", the answer is 
>"yes".

I would agree with you. My reaction was to blaming Stephan and I 
think he did a great job within the confines he was given.

If they did indepth reviews, the question to be asked is which 
reviews would have been cut, a programming environment used by a 
small percentage of macworld readers or some graphic tool used by a 
large percentage.

I too ask myself about my macWorld subscription each year for exactly 
the same reasons.

Kee

>
>I'm not upset because the article exposed Revolution's "Achilles' 
>heel".  I agree the overall tone of the article is positive.
>
>But each year as I see the size of Macworld get smaller, the 
>percentage of the pages devoted to advertising get larger, and the 
>software reviews get shallower, I have to ask myself why I still 
>subscribe.
>--
>
>Rob Cozens
>CCW, Serendipity Software Company
>http://www.oenolog.com/who.htm
>
>"And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three;
>Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee."
>
>from "The Triple Foole" by John Donne (1572-1631)
>_______________________________________________
>use-revolution mailing list
>use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
>http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution