bro@rice.ARPA (10/17/85)
From: Doug Monk <bro@rice.ARPA> In two recent postings to this list, a review of the Atari 520ST published in the last issue of _Creative Computing_ was excerpted. The first time, the fact that a very early developer's system came without an editor was touted as "damaging" to the case for the ST $1700 development system being worthwhile. When someone pointed out in response that this lack of an editor could now be easily corrected ( and in fact now no longer occurs at all except through clerical error ), another excerpt from the same review was posted, recounting in detail a hardware failure that occurred in the course of the reviewing process. What was left out in the excerpt, however, was the next few paragraphs, which stated that the failure was due to the fact that the reviewed system was a very early version which had a tendency to loosen some chips in shipping. The REVIEWER himself repaired the system in short order, and had an overall favorable impression of the machine. The last excerpt was accompanied by the statement: >This was from the very _latest_ issue of _Creative_. It probably was >written little more than a few weeks ago. For the record, this is not correct. Like several other major computing magazines ( _Byte_ included ), _Creative Computing_ has a lead time on the order of *months*, definitely not weeks. ***FLAME ON*** To all the people who 'compare' machines without having equal access to BOTH : STOP WASTING OUR TIME!!! I don't care if someone is prejudiced for the ST, against the ST, for the Amiga, or against the Amiga. All I care about is accuracy. If you quote a review of a machine, make sure you do it accurately. Don't quote out of context, and DON'T MAKE RIDICULOUS CLAIMS based on tangentially relevant information. Actually giving benchmarks for only one machine is a good idea, if that is the only machine to which you have access. At least it gives the 'other side' a valid target at which to shoot. DON'T QUOTE BENCHMARKS YOU CANNOT PERSONALLY VOUCH FOR. Quoting from published information about any or all machines being compared is okay, AS LONG AS IT IS DONE IN CONTEXT!!! In the abscence of better information, anything goes except dis-information. Quoting a mostly positive review to give the impression of a negative review is dis-information in my book. ***FLAME OFF*** Bear in mind that people who have made a decision one way or the other have a vested psychological interest in 'defending' that decision, even if it means going to irrational extents. Thus, the people best suited mentally to evaluate the comparative worth of machines are those who own neither. ( Unfortunately, they are also the most ill-equipped to do so :-) ) Along those lines, I am interested in actually seeing an Amiga. I am considering the purchase of either an Amiga or an Atari ST, and while I could walk into at least two stores in the Houston area and BUY an Atari, I can't even LOOK at an Amiga in the area, as far as I can tell. Since this list is the best source of information I have so far ( and I am still leaning toward an Atari, perhaps just because I have seen one and it looks and acts very nice ) I would appreciate the most unbiased and accurate information about the two machines possible. Yammering about the unfairness of ads does little good ( we all know advertising people are slime, anyway, right? :-) ). Could anyone in the know about these things tell me who in the Houston, Texas area is or will be carrying Amiga's, and how soon I might see one? I would appreciate it. Thanks for your attention. Doug Monk Dept. of Computer Science Rice University P.O. Box 1892 Houston, TX 77251 (bro@rice.edu) (The total disclaimer :) The above may or may not in fact represent my or someone else's opinions if it matters, or even if it doesn't. Of course, if it matters and someone objects, they don't. Under no circumstances do they reflect the opinions of any organization with which I am associated, unless they in fact do, unless it matters in which case they don't. (Vaguely related to Zelazny, so perhaps this is the Agnostic's Disclaimer.)