Letters to the Editor
I found your product review 'Internet Explorer rules on Mac and PC' [<a href="http://www.gcn.com/vol19_no12/reviews/2008-1.html"><i>GCN</i>, May 22, Page 29</a>] flawed by many problems inherent in its evaluation.
I found your product review 'Internet Explorer rules on Mac and PC' [] flawed by many problems inherent in its evaluation.I was first concerned that of the seven browsers reviewed, six were in either preview or beta status. The one production package, Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0 for the Apple Macintosh, was listed as your Reviewer's Choice. I feel this disparity was the source of most of the problems in your review.If the reviewers had checked the Web sites for these products, they would have noticed messages on all of them stating that preview or beta versions are not production-quality, that users should consider them trial versions and that there are full versions available instead.Netscape Communications Corp. offers Version 4.73 of its current browser. It does not have the problems your reviewers noted in Version 6.0. Because Version 6.0 is still in preview, it would be expected to have problems and errors. Users should test them out and let the company know about any problems they find.Opera Software of Oslo, Norway, has a Version 4.62 that is very stable. I have used 3.62 for months, and I used 3.61 for nearly a year before that without any major problems. Most of the problems involved plug-ins that were not enabled within Opera or were only supported by one version of Internet Explorer or Navigator and not others.I would like to request that the browser case be retried, this time using only stable releases from the different companies.Orange Electronic Commerce Resource CenterOrange, TexasI enjoyed the interview with Philip N. Diehl, the former director of the Mint [], but would like to point out an error.Diehl, commenting on the Mint's implementation of an enterprise resource planning system, said, 'No one in the public sector had done it yet.'Actually, the National Credit Union Administration had already implemented the SAP R/3 system from SAP America Inc. of Wayne, Pa. We went live with R/3 on Jan. 7, 1997. Staff from the Mint subsequently contacted us to discuss our experiences and ultimately chose PeopleSoft Inc. of Pleasanton, Calif., for their ERP system.I don't mean to detract from the Mint's achievement, which was impressive. I only point out that there was at least one government agency that had successfully implemented an ERP system on time and within budget when the Mint was conducting its selection process.In fact, you quoted both me and our chief information officer, Doug Verner, in an article earlier this year on ERP in government because our system was already in production.National Credit Union AdministrationAlexandria, Va.
Hey, those browsers were beta versions
GCN, May 22, Page 29
Chris LeBlanc
Business case analyst
Mint's wasn't the first federal ERP system
GCN, May 8, Page 16
Neil R. McNamara
Deputy chief information officer
Hey, those browsers were beta versionsGCN, May 22, Page 29
Chris LeBlanc
Business case analyst
Mint's wasn't the first federal ERP system
GCN, May 8, Page 16
| Notice to our readers GCN welcomes letters to the editor. Writers must identify themselves by name and address. We are more likely to publish your letter if you provide your agency, company or organization and title. Please include a phone number for verification and sign letters sent by mail or fax. Letters are subject to editing for clarity and length. Send your letter by: Mail: Letters to the Editor, Government Computer News, 8601 Georgia Ave., Suite 300, Silver Spring, Md. 20910 Fax: 301-650-2111 E-mail: editor@gcn.com |
Neil R. McNamara
Deputy chief information officer
NEXT STORY: EDITORIAL