Fwd: Battling Windmills
kee at kagi.com
Fri Jun 14 14:50:01 CDT 2002
>>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
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
I too ask myself about my macWorld subscription each year for exactly
the same reasons.
>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
>CCW, Serendipity Software Company
>"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
More information about the use-livecode