The whole idea -- as mentioned elsewhere -- was to keep the advertisers happy; As with any other form of "junk science", one needs only enough "statistics" to support one's presupposed conclusion.
And, before anyone jumps up my mousetrap, I used to be an columnist: I got out of writing for magazines when I saw three successive columns altered by the Editor In Chief because *my* test-results didn't match what the magazine's advertisers wanted to see.
What this industry really needs is a 100% subscription-supported (thus: no ads) magazine like *Consumer Reports*; now, for those of us who don't want to pay $145 for an InfoWorld subscription, where do we think we're going to find such a crusader?
Mr. Challeron
Rauland-Borg Corp.
Note: My company requires the statement that any opinions expressed above are my own, and *rarely* coincide with Corporate Policy; please treat them as such.
For questions or comments, email the Forums Editor