🚀 go-pugleaf

Bruno Fernandes <hybrid@interlog.com> writes:
>
>
>In article <1995Nov11.050640.17187@cs.rit.edu>, bdm@cs.rit.edu (Brendan
>McKay) wrote:
>> My experience exactly.  The quality control at that company is pathetic.  
>> After playing with it for an hour or so, I have a corrupt hard disk.
>> Yeah, I can't prove that Netscape did it, but there's no way I'm going
>> to touch Netscape 2.0 again for quite a while.  Mosaic is looking better 
>> by the minute...
>
>Hope I'm not mis-quoting...  The quality control at Netscape far surpases
>that of a little ompany called Adobe.  Netscape 2.0 is BETA software.  You
>downlaod and use it at your own risk.  It's _FREE_ for evaluation.  I'll
>take anyone up on comparing Release 2.0 Beta 3 with PhotoShop 3.0 anyday (A
>close to $1000 commercial package)   

It's also far below the quality of many other freeware beta software (and
some alpha software, even!) that I've used. Have you noticed how
stability of programs seem to have nothing to do with how much you
paid for them? I thought the whole point of a beta was to shake out
bugs that wasn't found in in-house testing? I don't know about
Windows, but Netscape 2.0bx for Mac didn't feel like a beta until b3.
2.0b1 kept crashing, and 2.0b2 had some horrid UI bugs that should have
been obvious to anyone who used it for more than ten minutes.

As for Netscape corrupting the hard disk, 1.1N did that to me. The
moment 2.0 does it to me is the moment I'm relegating it to the trash
can. I'm keeping my fingers crossed....

-- 
Shimpei Yamashita, Stanford University           shimpei@leland.stanford.edu
           <http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~shimpei/index.html>
     Stanford Symphony Concert   Dec. 1  8pm   Dinkelspiel Auditorium
 Works by Debussy, Handel, Dvorak | See <http://www.stanford.edu/group/sso/>