> PS. Crap
> Noise Ninja. Excellent
> Bibble. Excellent
>> PS. Crap
>> Noise Ninja. Excellent
>> Bibble. Excellent
>
>Care to reveal which magazine?
If you insist.
>Any comment on their testing method?
If you'd like. The reason I mentioned it in the first place was that
I had read another source that said the PS method was excellent.
>Why didn't they include NeatImage, and or several others, or did they?
NeatImage doesn't get much press. At least I haven't seen much.
>Did they mention that Bibble uses an API from NoiseNinja?
Didn't see that.
>Did you ever stop and wonder why do your posts create more questions
>about the posts than information? Sad!
But then what are the chances that if I posted verbatim everything the
magazine said, the usual group wouldn't just scream and rant that it
was rubbish, probably because they use PS and the review hurt their
itty-bitty feelings?