Sorry but that alone makes the whole review senseless. It never makes sense to compare defaults.
I'd be interested in hearing what you feel makes sense, then. I feel like I've discussed our strategy pretty thoroughly above, in response to Mark's comments, and although I certainly feel that more can (and will) be done in comparing these processors more completely, the "defaults" review is at the very least a good starting point to comparing the two packages. Far from "senseless"... and very much appreciated by many people who have contacted me directly.
Considering the number of controls, and thus variables, in any processing system I could see doing a complete Head-2-Head on every feature- say, sharpening, color controls, scaling, speed, "Iron Chef" IQ, and on and on... Then there would be the assorted combinations of the controls- let's compare scaling plus sharpening too... and don't forget that every camera's files are handled slightly differently.
Then, of course, if anyone actually reads
the entire thing (I figure it's about a year's worth of work...), there'd be the inevitable questions... "why didn't you do the whole series of tests at ISO 400? Why didn't you compare my
camera?" And after a year, I'd have to hear Jeff say that the software was old...
...sorry, without any additional contribution, your comment is just is sounding a little silly to me at this point.