> But, please judge InfoWorld's track record of coverage, not just this poll.
The most notable thing about Infoworld's coverage is the constant little digs against anything and anybody not Microsoft.
Apple is never just Apple, its always "troubled Apple"; Borland is never just Borland, it's either "beleaguered Borland" or "battered Borland".
Yes, we know about their financial difficulties, but why bring them up in *every* damn article?
Why do these cheap shots belong in a product review?
On the other hand, Microsoft has spent all winter and spring desperately plugging security holes and swatting other bugs in Windows 95, Windows NT, Internet Explorer -- and quite a few bugs in the bug-"fixes". So when are you going to start to routinely refer to it as "bumbling Microsoft" or "inept Microsoft"?
Sauce, geese and ganders come to mind.
And your product reviews never fail to mention what the competition is up to -- _if_ that competition is Microsoft. Novell's "Green Bay" coming up -- sure as death and taxes there's a sidebar or a paragraph or two in the main article about the promised features of NT Server 5. IBM's DB/2 vastly improved -- I'd be surprised if SQL Server or Back Office isn't mentioned.
But reports on the deficiencies, or even just the general features, of Microsoft products do _not_ routinely include these offhand references to the competition.
So . . .
> Can we do better? Absolutely.
Amen to that!
> Help us keep trying.
Heh? What do you mean, _keep_ trying?!?
Since y'all either hadn't noticed these inconsistencies,
or are consciously keeping them up, I wonder if you really _are_ trying to be impartial. You can't be trying very hard.
Christian R. Conrad
For questions or comments, email the Forums Editor