giguere@csg.waterloo.edu (Eric Giguere) (12/13/90)
Someday I should really read the Mac or PC groups to see if they generate
the same kind of frenzy this group does...
Various posters have asserted their offence at the lack of Amiga coverage
in industry publications. First of all, freedom of expression does not
mean that you can DEMAND someone to publish something, only that that person
is free to do so if they wish. Only the publishers can decide what they
want to publish.
Now freedom of expression means that you can express your displeasure
(yes, freedom to whine is just as important as freedom to protest) and I'm
not denying anyone's right to do so. You can be offended, but I really
don't see why you should be if you use common sense.
Publishing is a strange area, and computer magazines tend to be run in
strange ways, but there are some constants:
1. Magazines are published by companies that want a return on
their money (profit). Even if they're non-profit, they have
to have money flowing in to pay staff salaries, printing costs, etc.
2. Companies advertise in a magazine because they are looking to
target their products at the magazine's readership, or a portion
of that readership.
3. Readers buy/subscribe to a magazine because the magazine's articles
are of interest to them and/or they want to see product advertisements.
4. Articles are written either by staff members or freelancers. Some
magazines (especially the technically-oriented) will depend almost
entirely on freelance submissions.
5. A magazine's main source of income is either its advertisers or
its subscribers, but not both.
6. The editor of a magazine is not the boss, but will have day-to-day
control over editorial content.
Magazine publishing works like this: the publisher of a magazine will
set its eye on a certain type of reader and aim for a certain circulation.
If there is no advertising, then the publisher must get subscriptions and
charge large fees for those subscriptions. Otherwise the publisher phones
up potential advertisers and says "Geez, my magazine sells XXX copies per
month, the typical reader is male, age 25-40, etc. etc." Based on this
information, the advertisers pay for ads. If the publisher has done its
figures correctly, enough ads/subscriptions are sold to pay for printing
costs, overhead, salaries, etc. and still return some kind of a profit.
What about the editors? They're tools the publisher uses to create a
magazine that attracts the readers it wants. The publisher reserves
a certain amount of space in each issue for editorial content and sets
the general editorial direction of the magazine. The editors must then
find articles that fulfill that mandate and attract the desired readers.
The advertisers are then happy and keep placing more ads, and so the
cycle continues.
Finding the articles can be a challenge. If the magazine is news-oriented,
it will often use its own writing staff and a stable of regulars to
get those articles. Other magazines tend to depend on what freelancers
can offer, with perhaps some columnists and/or contributing editors to
offer some stability. Once the articles are found, of course, they then
have to be edited, typeset, etc. The mechanics are quite involved, but
they're really a separate process from the sourcing process.
Now before people flame me, I've presented a very general overview and
there are always exceptions and differences. The large corporate publishers
tend to do their magazines like I've described. A mom-and-pop operation
will probably have different motivations, but most of us only get exposed
to "professional" publications.
So, how does this all relate to the Amiga? Simple: if there are more people
using PCs, Macs and Unix, then there are going to be more articles (and
publications) devoted to those systems. A larger market means more
advertisers trying to reach the market. This makes magazines target to
that market. The writers then find themselves writing for these magazines
because there are more of them (and they probably pay better) and they
want to eat. And so the cycle continues.
The point is, there is no "anti-Amiga conspiracy". It's all a matter
of supply and demand. And it's certainly NOT censorship! Censorship is
when someone steps in and stops you from publishing what you want to
publish. You decide what you want to publish AND what you DON'T want
to publish. Freedom of expression is also freedom of omission.
News organizations do it all the time, magazines are no
different. They have to choose among articles and news items the ones
that best fit their targeted readership, otherwise they'll lose that
readership.
More Amiga coverage will happen only when the market is big enough.
Writing insulting letters to the editor won't help your case a bit.
Buying Amiga software will, as will using your Amiga for productive work
and telling others about it.
--
Eric Giguere giguere@csg.UWaterloo.CA
Quoth the raven: "Eat my shorts!" --- Poe & GroeningU3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo) (12/13/90)
G'day, Eric Giguere (giguere@csg.waterloo.edu ) writes: > [..a very good discussion about the business side of who gets what..] > [..coverage in magazines (esp. PC industry). A little too lengthy..] > [..to include here however. ..] I am not disputing what you've said about why magazines will not cover the Amiga in their magazines. I agree with your observations. As someone mentioned earlier, the Mac enthusiasts had to yell to have their voice heard and they too were not a commercially significant lot in the beginning (compared to the Big Blue crowd). The magazine coverage thread, crude as it was { <-- we hope :-) } is a Battle Cry. :-) > Eric Giguere giguere@csg.UWaterloo.CA yours truly, Lou Cavallo. PS: how many of us have read statements similar to "you don't need any multi tasking", or "multimedia has yet not arrived" in PC magazines? I realise I'm only scratching the tip of a volcano here but ...
giguere@csg.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Giguere) (12/13/90)
In article <1395@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo) writes: >PS: how many of us have read statements similar to "you don't need any >multi tasking", or "multimedia has yet not arrived" in PC magazines? I >realise I'm only scratching the tip of a volcano here but ... Don't flame me for this, but.... most people DON'T need multitasking on their computer. What they do need is a way to switch rapidly between applications and/or share data. Very few people are TRULY doing two concurrent things. (Print spooling is about the only thing I can think of that the average user will want to do.) This is why MultiFinder on the Mac, the ultimate kludge, is successful. It works! (Well, usually.) It's why Windows could get away with "co-operative multitasking". It's why the IBM world proliferates with TSRs. BUT even so, the Amiga can offer all these capabilities BECAUSE it offers "true" multitasking, doing so much more cleanly and efficiently. Applications don't have to do anything special. Of course, hacker-types love it even more because they can do other things while compiling or downloading... As for multimedia, I think the word is overused. I gave a couple of presentations a few weeks ago that were done with AmigaVision and shown on a video projector. All I used were still images and those neat fades, and it was effective enough. I could have gone for animation, sound, etc. but it wasn't worth the extra time to do it. When people say "multimedia" these days, they usually mean "video". Obviously the Amiga is a good choice for this... -- Eric Giguere giguere@csg.UWaterloo.CA Quoth the raven: "Eat my shorts!" --- Poe & Groening
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (12/14/90)
In article <1990Dec13.155848.8152@maytag.waterloo.edu> giguere@csg.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Giguere) writes: >Don't flame me for this, but.... most people DON'T need multitasking on >their computer. What they do need is a way to switch rapidly between >applications and/or share data. Very few people are TRULY doing two >concurrent things. (Print spooling is about the only thing I can think of >that the average user will want to do.) This is why MultiFinder on the >Mac, the ultimate kludge, is successful. It works! (Well, usually.) It's >why Windows could get away with "co-operative multitasking". It's why >the IBM world proliferates with TSRs. Well, not a flame, just a wakeup call. My experience comes mainly from working with traders at Citicorp in New York. These people's lives could've been much better with multitasking. MUCH! Two sets of examples: FoxBase. They would regularly run the SwapMIS report. Their computer would proceed to be out of use for the next 40 minutes. A total waste of time, it could've been used for other things. FutureSource. This is a program which keeps track via a modem of LOTS of market information. Basically the modem is continuously receiving data which must be analyzed. They have a 386 machine dedicated to only using this program. Although it does allow you to run other programs by some miracle multitasking attempt, you have DOS's 640K memory limit in the way and very sluggish response (computer taken away at regular intervals). And of course there is general print spooling. But then again, these are the people who buy Sun workstations to run Lotus! (not kidding!) -- Ethan Woody Allen on Los Angeles: "I mean, who would want to live in a place where the only cultural advantage is that you can turn right on a red light?"
cleland@sdbio2.ucsd.edu (Thomas Cleland) (12/14/90)
In article <1990Dec13.061622.13992@maytag.waterloo.edu> giguere@csg.waterloo.edu (Eric Giguere) writes: >The point is, there is no "anti-Amiga conspiracy". It's all a matter >of supply and demand. And it's certainly NOT censorship! Censorship is >when someone steps in and stops you from publishing what you want to >publish. You decide what you want to publish AND what you DON'T want >to publish. Freedom of expression is also freedom of omission. > I agree, of course, in principle. However, it has certainly not escaped IBM and Apple (presumably separately) that the best public relations defense against competition from Commodore-Amiga is to actively contribute to public perception of the Amiga as "not a serious machine". Obviously they believe differently--Apple uses Amigas in house, and both were falling over themselves trying to get NewTek to do a DOS-Toaster or MacToaster. I certainly don't see it as beyond those companies to put pressure on respected magazines to limit competitors' coverage (vast advertising budgets are pretty convincing). >More Amiga coverage will happen only when the market is big enough. >Writing insulting letters to the editor won't help your case a bit. >Buying Amiga software will, as will using your Amiga for productive work >and telling others about it. > Absolutely correct. That's how the Mac got accepted by the mainstream as a serious machine. Just overpower the pressure of money with the irrefutability of your presence and the value of what you have to offer. I don't condone the "rude" part of it. But keep the letters flowing to editors. That's how they know there's an Amiga market out here. >-- >Eric Giguere giguere@csg.UWaterloo.CA -- // / Thom Cleland / It is easier / // / tcleland@ucsd.edu / to get forgiveness / \X/ / ASOCC * Amiga Users' Group at UCSD / than permission... / \____________________________________\____________________/
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (12/14/90)
In <1990Dec13.155848.8152@maytag.waterloo.edu>, giguere@csg.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Giguere) writes: >In article <1395@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo) writes: >>PS: how many of us have read statements similar to "you don't need any >>multi tasking", or "multimedia has yet not arrived" in PC magazines? I >>realise I'm only scratching the tip of a volcano here but ... > >Don't flame me for this, but.... most people DON'T need multitasking on >their computer. What they do need is a way to switch rapidly between >applications and/or share data. Very few people are TRULY doing two >concurrent things. (Print spooling is about the only thing I can think of >that the average user will want to do.) This is why MultiFinder on the >Mac, the ultimate kludge, is successful. It works! (Well, usually.) It's >why Windows could get away with "co-operative multitasking". It's why >the IBM world proliferates with TSRs. Shame on you Eric. You've had your Amiga for long enough to know the benefits of multitasking. Hmm.. perhaps you've had it long enough to have become innured to the benefits, and tend to forget all those times when multitasking is a benefit to you. While it is true that the Mac folks are happy with Multifinder (well, most of them are, I guess), it's only because they have come a long way from the days of their previous primitive state, and let's face it, Multifinder is at least cooperative multitasking, and things running in background _do_ get cycles in most circumstances. TSRs are more like what you are speaking of, the ability to switch betewwn tasks and share data, and it is plain to see that they are a pathetic attempt to squeeze a little more functionality out of an already strained OS that was obsolete when it was introduced. If you can't think of anything other than print spooling as a benefit of multitasking, you are just not thinking. Telecomm is a classic example that benefits immensely from the ability to multitask. Down/uploading is not exactly my idea of the most fun thing to do, and unless you actually like watching a transfer counter, you will likely be doing something else worthwhile with the machine while it happens, but only if you can multitask. Prretty average use, I'd say, considering the number of folks out there with modems. More to the point, and especially germaine to discussions involving the Amiga, are the various rendering programs that an average user might want to run. These, in order to be fast and efficient, should not be programmed with a lot of calls to the OS in the innermost loops, as you would when writing one for a cooperative multitasking machine. On a single tasking machine, you have little choice; run the render and go do something else, or stop the render and do something else. Don't forget the advantages that come with multitasking, that are not conciously noticed by most people. Programs can (and often do) start multiple processes, each doing some modular task, and many of the things you take for granted are accomplished by tasks just waiting for a message, doing their thing, and waiting again. The name of the game is not just to be able to conciously do multiple things at once, but to make the most efficient use of the machine's resources; to waste as few cycles as possible. The average user does not think of it in this way, but benefits from it nonetheless because of it. You are right though, in one way. Nobody NEEDS multitasking, but then nobody needs a windowing interface, or a mouse, or a CLI, or speed, or a lot of memory, or for that matter, a computer. They are all things that are optional, but like all optional things, having them can be fun, or productive, or profitable, and so on. >BUT even so, the Amiga can offer all these capabilities BECAUSE it offers >"true" multitasking, doing so much more cleanly and efficiently. Applications >don't have to do anything special. Of course, hacker-types love it even >more because they can do other things while compiling or downloading... I am amazed that you put 'downloading' into the category of things done by 'hacker types'. Boggles the mind, it does. -larry -- The best way to accelerate an MsDos machine is at 32 ft/sec/sec. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
specter@disk.UUCP (Byron Max Guernsey) (12/15/90)
giguere@csg.waterloo.edu (Eric Giguere) writes: >Someday I should really read the Mac or PC groups to see if they generate >the same kind of frenzy this group does... >Various posters have asserted their offence at the lack of Amiga coverage >in industry publications. First of all, freedom of expression does not >mean that you can DEMAND someone to publish something, only that that person >is free to do so if they wish. Only the publishers can decide what they >want to publish. [-- Various things cut out --] The problem, as I see it, is not that the mags such as byte don't want to commit full articles to amiga, but it is that they will not even mention amiga in related articles about general things. It would not take alot of space to put the amiga on one of their little charts in an article (hypothetically) for unix running machines. Indeed it is their perogitive, but it is an insult to publications of all kinds for a journalist to just disregard information because it is not popular. An informative magazine should provide EVERY reasonable alternative when investigating. For example, you would not want to get a magazine that has an article on Televisions (and has a comparison chart) that does not mention a brand that is not as popular, but well suited and probably less expensive than magnavox. It is no wonder the amiga isn't accepted widely as a business machine. Until business magazines start reviewing features of amiga, possible buyers will not even have the chance to compare its options to other systems. Byron Guernsey
giguere@csg.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Giguere) (12/15/90)
In article <2408@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes: >Shame on you Eric. You've had your Amiga for long enough to know the benefits >of multitasking. Hmm.. perhaps you've had it long enough to have become innured >to the benefits, and tend to forget all those times when multitasking is a >benefit to you. Note that I didn't put down the benefits of multitasking. One of the reasons I like the Amiga is its very clean implementation of multitasking... Exec is a very strong operating system. I'm not inured... but I see a lot of people around me doing a lot of useful work without multitasking... >If you can't think of anything other than print spooling as a benefit of >multitasking, you are just not thinking. Telecomm is a classic example that >benefits immensely from the ability to multitask. Down/uploading is not exactly >my idea of the most fun thing to do, and unless you actually like watching a >transfer counter, you will likely be doing something else worthwhile with the >machine while it happens, but only if you can multitask. Prretty average use, >I'd say, considering the number of folks out there with modems. Actually, I don't know many people who have modems, nor do many modem transfers. Those that do have modems use it mainly for interactive use. As for rendering... I don't think that the average person runs those type of programs either! (Average != Usenet readers) >You are right though, in one way. Nobody NEEDS multitasking, but then nobody >needs a windowing interface, or a mouse, or a CLI, or speed, or a lot of >memory, or for that matter, a computer. They are all things that are optional, >but like all optional things, having them can be fun, or productive, or >profitable, and so on. True. But when you're working with something as brain-damaged as MS-DOS, multitasking can have serious limitations. I mean, with only a 640K limit it's hard to find two programs that are small enough to reside in memory at the same time... there are ways to get around this (use those weird memory expansion schemes, page to disk, etc.) but they're all kludges. "So get a 386"... well, we have to deal with schools and such that still have 512K original PCs! 'Tain't so easy, I'm afraid... >I am amazed that you put 'downloading' into the category of things done by >'hacker types'. Boggles the mind, it does. Well, different environments... -- Eric Giguere giguere@csg.UWaterloo.CA Quoth the raven: "Eat my shorts!" --- Poe & Groening
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (12/15/90)
In <1990Dec15.013810.18546@maytag.waterloo.edu>, giguere@csg.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Giguere) writes: >In article <2408@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes: > >I'm not inured... but I see a lot of people around me doing a lot of useful >work without multitasking... I am always amused when I set up a workstation for a customer who is used to the 'IBM Way Of Doing Things'. It's a real pleasure to watch as they slowly catch on to the different mindset inherent in a multitasking environent. "You mean I can do this while the other one is still running?" The usual reaction initially is to look for things to do that _will_ take some time; that will use the ability. Later, it becomes a matter of habit. They develop a completely different outlook toward work to be performed, and think nothing of juggling 4, 5, 6, or more windows, some involving simple task switching, some involving simultaneous running. I know few who can stomach going back to a machine that will only switch focus and not run more than one thing at a time. >Actually, I don't know many people who have modems, nor do many modem >transfers. Those that do have modems use it mainly for interactive use. The proliferation of BBSes and the plummeting prices of modems, are making the modem a lot more common. An informal survey of the audience at a Panorama meeting a couple of years ago showed about 80% had modems. I don't know how many people I have talked into buying a modem, simply by pointing out that it is the simplest and least time consuming way of obtaining the software the hear about. >As for rendering... I don't think that the average person runs those type >of programs either! (Average != Usenet readers) We have a graphics SIG in Panorama that is easily the most attended SIG. Graphics questions abound. Perhaps it isn't something the average user does, but consider that the Amiga is noted as an excellent low cost graphics platform, so the percentage will be higher than on many other platforms (how many PET owners did raytracing?). Additionally, the multitasking ability of the Amiga is conducive to CPU intensive graphics work. People who would otherwise not bother, will do a raytrace or create a scene or generate a Mandelbrot picture in the background, simply because it does not detract from the use of the machine for other, more interactive operations. >>You are right though, in one way. Nobody NEEDS multitasking, but then nobody >>needs a windowing interface, or a mouse, or a CLI, or speed, or a lot of >>memory, or for that matter, a computer. They are all things that are optional, >>but like all optional things, having them can be fun, or productive, or >>profitable, and so on. > >True. But when you're working with something as brain-damaged as MS-DOS, >multitasking can have serious limitations. I mean, with only a 640K limit >it's hard to find two programs that are small enough to reside in memory >at the same time... there are ways to get around this (use those weird >memory expansion schemes, page to disk, etc.) but they're all kludges. >"So get a 386"... well, we have to deal with schools and such that still >have 512K original PCs! 'Tain't so easy, I'm afraid... Well, I'm not working with the braindamaged machines, and for precisely the reasons you mentioned. As with any advancement in computing, multitasking and graphic user interfaces take more resources and horsepower to implement in a usable way. Sure, there are a lot of machines out there that bog down when you try to use them in the new ways, but you and I know that they are on the way out. Hardware becomes cheaper and better. People Like Us need to show People Like Them what multitasking is all about. Eventually, they'll catch on. -larry -- The best way to accelerate an MsDos machine is at 32 ft/sec/sec. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
hastoerm@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Moriland) (12/16/90)
I don't know about all this banter on multi-tasking. Almost every IBM person I have shown my Amiga to and have shown how well it multitasks has admitted they would love to have the same abilities on their machines. Even for something as mundane as Virus Checking, being able to have VirusX run all the time in the background was something a lot of them thought was VERY VERY nice. Those that weren't immediately convinced to buy an Amiga have tried using Windows et al on their machines in order to have thier own version of multitasking. Few have ever looked at me and said: "Eh, I don't need it." I, personally, multitask all the time. It never really occurs to me until I sit down at someone's IBM PC or the MS-DOS clone at work and suddenly realize I don't HAVE a spare screen I can jump to to format a disk when I forgot to do so before starting the terminal program. Or whatever it is I am trying to do. I usually sit there grumbling at the machine. Grrrr. Perhaps everyone doesn't need it, but I do.... -Moriland -- /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ "As if things weren't bad enough already...."| Founder of: "Evil Young Please excuse my ramblings as they come from | Mutants For A Better Tommorow. a diseased mind. -Moriland | hastoerm@vela.acs.oakland.edu
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (12/16/90)
In article <4762@disk.UUCP> specter@disk.UUCP (Byron Max Guernsey) writes: >giguere@csg.waterloo.edu (Eric Giguere) writes: > >>Various posters have asserted their offence at the lack of Amiga coverage >>in industry publications. First of all, freedom of expression does not >>mean that you can DEMAND someone to publish something, only that that person >>is free to do so if they wish. Only the publishers can decide what they >>want to publish. > >[-- Various things cut out --] > >The problem, as I see it, is not that the mags such as byte don't want to >commit full articles to amiga, but it is that they will not even mention >amiga in related articles about general things. It would not take alot of >space to put the amiga on one of their little charts in an article >(hypothetically) for unix running machines. > Of course, we have no right to tell a magazine what to do. But there has been, in U.S. magazines at least, a purposeful exclusion of mention of the Amiga. They have decided, along with, unfortunately, most of the business community in this country, that the Amiga is a) made by a game company b) is a game computer c) made by a company going bankrupt d) will never compete. They have these opinions and refuse to look at the situation. Now, we can't tell them what to do, but they have a RESPONSIBILITY to their readers. Byte claims to cover the computer industry as a whole. They are, admittedly, the best of the non-Amiga magazines. But then there is Personal Workstation which has been following the only four operating systems which have true multitasking, IPC, and a built-in complete GUI. Somehow the Amiga didn't qualify. In fact, the Amiga wasn't even in the list (which they gave in the first issue of the series) of OS's that were excluded. It was simply ignored. The 4 OS's chosen had a total of 50 pieces of software between them. It was pathetic. They may not care, but their readers should care that they aren't getting the whole truth. -- Ethan Woody Allen on Los Angeles: "I mean, who would want to live in a place where the only cultural advantage is that you can turn right on a red light?"
giguere@csg.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Giguere) (12/17/90)
Well, I'll tell you something: a lot of writers know about the Amiga, but
a lot of them avoid the machine because of the users they encounter. Until
Amiga owners stop whining and threatening them, you won't see much more
coverage. No writers, no coverage. Simple as that.
--
Eric Giguere giguere@csg.UWaterloo.CA
Quoth the raven: "Eat my shorts!" --- Poe & Groeningmd41@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Marcus Dolengo) (12/17/90)
I read the article on the A3000UX in Byte and noticed the authors 1st paragraph said something to the effect "old beliefs die hard" and his were "the amiga isnt a serious machine" etc. Who was he, how many articles has he written for any mag and usually about what? anyone have an idea? The reason why I ask is that perhaps he does NOT know about the amiga as much as he thinks, or as someone suggested "writers know about the amiga but exclude them because of threats from users" <parafrased from another post> Magazines that pretend to be a magazine of "the industry" such as Compute or Byte <or perhaps PC World/week, assuming they do cover non ms-dos machines> have no excuse for not covering all the machines in that market. If they do not, they should be reminded that they have: 1: ignored a large user base 2: possibly lied to their readers by stating things that "cant be done" but are being done by amigas.... etc. etc. etc. 3: little journalistic integrity for doing the above, and its readership should know this. One was to do this is to write them letters. Not threatening, not condecending <this isnt RUN magazine you know :D> but intellegent, non flame like letters. Id think this would be more effeective than merely saying "they can write what they want" because while it is true, they shouldbe accurate. and by ignoring the amiga or glossing over it, they are not being accurate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- o o | This Space For Rent // << md41@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu >> | Amerikkka's Most Wanted \X/ /> <\ | I made up my own mind, now I want a Tshirt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chi Omega Rho Fraternity. Because Co-Ed is better.
kdarling@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (12/17/90)
In article <1990Dec17.034643.7021@maytag.waterloo.edu> giguere@csg.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Giguere) writes: > Well, I'll tell you something: a lot of writers know about the Amiga, but > a lot of them avoid the machine because of the users they encounter. Until > Amiga owners stop whining and threatening them, you won't see much more > coverage. No writers, no coverage. Simple as that. Truth. Editors of two major non-IBM-specific magazines have told me that they cringe whenever they print *anything* on the Amiga, because they know that they'll get tons of nasty letters telling them their "mistakes". So it's simply much easier for them to NOT print anything on the Amiga. No, let me rephrase that: They cease to have any desire to do so...exactly as people here hate to read lots of flame wars. Editors are people, too. (Especially if the letter starts: "I don't buy your stupid mag, but...":) And in <1990Dec17.055249.7684@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> md41@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Marcus Dolengo) writes: > I read the article on the A3000UX in Byte and noticed the authors 1st > paragraph said something to the effect "old beliefs die hard" and his > were "the amiga isnt a serious machine" etc. [...] I'm sure he echoed the thoughts of his readers about the name "Commodore". By admitting his previous beliefs, he lent much more credence to his new. > Magazines that pretend to be a magazine of "the industry" [.... have] > 1: ignored a large user base But not a large subscriber set. Most Amigans tend to not subscribe to BYTE. In a Catch-22 way, this means it won't get covered as much. > 2: possibly lied to their readers by stating things that "cant be done" but > are being done by amigas.... etc. etc. etc. > 3: little journalistic integrity for doing the above, and its readership > should know this. Agreed! But you'd be surprised that most of those same magazines are always looking for articles by those who _do_ know. Yet they get no submissions. Another point: remember the BYTE article last year (or so) which had that awful Amiga picture? Funny thing is, the Mac and PC people also complained about the photos of THEIR screens, also. People need to take one giant step back, and view articles with blinders off. > One way to do this is to write them letters. Exactly. Praise them for covering things that you like. Factually and calmly correct misinformation (you'll notice that those letters get printed quite often). Write an article if you can (if you can't, then perhaps you know less than you thought? ;-). <generic "you", of course> Magazines go with what's easiest to cover... and that means topics with lots of submissions, review hardware, and easy-to-please readership. The real world is not automagically fair. It takes work and help. best - kev <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (12/18/90)
In article <1990Dec17.095310.8040@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> kdarling@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes: > Truth. Editors of two major non-IBM-specific magazines have told me that > they cringe whenever they print *anything* on the Amiga, because they > know that they'll get tons of nasty letters telling them their "mistakes". What sort of "mistakes" are we talking about here? Are we talking about people like Jerry Pournelle? If that's the case we're better off without the coverage: no, "any coverage is better than no coverage" is not true. The best thing Jerry has ever said about the Amiga is that a 2000 is a tolerable video game machine. > But not a large subscriber set. Most Amigans tend to not subscribe to BYTE. Many of us used to. I did. I've dropped several magazines (Byte, Dr. Dobbs Journal, etc) because they're turned into IBM-PC only rags with maybe a little Mac coverage. But when you like an article in a magazine, TELL THEM. I haven't read this particular Byte, but I'll probably buy the magazine just for the article. Something I think more to the point: Editor are just ordinary people. When you buy stuff for the Amiga and it doesn't work on Amiga 3000s, or on 512K Amigas, or with 68030 cards, or multitask, you're going to get a negative opinion of the machine. AUTHORS, please do something about this. Commodore: AmigaVision is a cute program, but how about a runtime that'll let AmigaVision scripts run on stock 500s? "You mean I need to buy ANOTHER 512K just to use this?" I mean, really. You can't expect Xenon 7 (or whatever) to multitask on a 500, but surely my 3000 can pump bits fast enough so I shouldn't have to reboot just to play a stupid game! -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) (12/18/90)
In article <14937@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>, cleland@sdbio2.ucsd.edu (Thomas Cleland) says: > >In article <1990Dec13.061622.13992@maytag.waterloo.edu> u >giguere@csg.waterloo.ed (Eric Giguere) writes: > >>The point is, there is no "anti-Amiga conspiracy". It's all a matter >>of supply and demand. And it's certainly NOT censorship! ... > >>More Amiga coverage will happen only when the market is big enough. >> >Absolutely correct. Absolutely incorrect. There were a lot more Mac magazines and Mac coverage in the "generic" magazines when there were two million Macs than there is Amiga coverage now when there are two million Amigas. The market is big enough. And because there is STILL not enough coverage out there, the logical conclusion is there must be other forces at work than simple supply and demand. Supply and demand is a simple, but unfortunately in this day and age, quaint idea. It worked for a long time until some smart cookies figured out how to beat it. Example: Apple has been repeatedly known to threaten to pull a dealer's Apple license if that dealer started selling Amigas. This is but one example of defeating supply and demand. And you don't think Apple wouldn't do this in the publishing world? Even if threats were ineffective against publishers, under the table dollars speak loudly. And personally, I wouldn't trust Bill Gates and Microsoft any farther than Apple. So who here REALLY think the Amiga has gotten a fair shake in the magazine/publishing industry? How many magazines have added Amiga sections on a trial basis to see if the readers wanted it? Heck, how many supposedly "unbisased" and "industry-wide" coverage magazines regularly report on new Amiga developments? Or even outstanding Amiga developments? I sure never saw AmigaVision or Disney Animation Studio in Byte... No this is not censorship. It is public misinformation though. These publications claim to be unbiased, fair, almost newspaper-like reservoirs of computer industry information. As far as I'm concerned, if the Amiga is left out of that pool of information, thereby keeping the reader in the dark (and thereby, misleading the reader into thinking the Mac and IBM (and NeXT) are the only computers to buy), then that publication is doing something wrong. It may not be doing something illegal, but it is doing something wrong and immoral. All in my opinion, of course. :-) Kurt -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- || Kurt Tappe (215) 363-9485 || With. Without. And who'll || || 184 W. Valley Hill Rd. || deny it's what the fighting's || || Malvern, PA 19355-2214 || all about? - Pink Floyd || || jkt100@psuvm.psu.edu --------------------------------------|| || jkt100@psuvm.bitnet jkt100%psuvm.bitnet@psuvax1 QLink: KurtTappe || -----------------------------------------------------------------------
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (12/18/90)
In article <90351.233854JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu> JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) writes: >Supply and demand is >a simple, but unfortunately in this day and age, quaint idea. It >worked for a long time until some smart cookies figured out how to >beat it. > (for those who remember their economics classes) The Mac is the only known example of a Giffen good! (for those who don't remember their economics classes) The Mac is the only good which sells more when they raise the price! >Example: Apple has been repeatedly known to threaten to pull a >dealer's Apple license if that dealer started selling Amigas. >This is but one example of defeating supply and demand. And you >don't think Apple wouldn't do this in the publishing world? Even >if threats were ineffective against publishers, under the table >dollars speak loudly. And personally, I wouldn't trust Bill Gates >and Microsoft any farther than Apple. > If any of that could be proven by Commodore, not only could they get a lot of money from Apple in a court for restraint of trade but they would also get TONS of publicity in the process. If they won it would be an enormous leap for them. The fact that they aren't in court tends to lead me to believe that the examples of this aren't being done openly. As to Bill Gates, he isn't necessarily a competitor. That depends on what he and Microsoft decide. They aren't making a computer you realize. If they decide to jump on the Amiga bandwagon, which rumor makes things sound like it is possible, then he will no longer care WHICH machine sells well. He has it covered from all ends. -- Ethan Woody Allen on Los Angeles: "I mean, who would want to live in a place where the only cultural advantage is that you can turn right on a red light?"
kdarling@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (12/18/90)
[sorry, missing attributions] >>>More Amiga coverage will happen only when the market is big enough. >>Absolutely correct. >Absolutely incorrect. There were a lot more Mac magazines and Mac >coverage in the "generic" magazines when there were two million Macs >than there is Amiga coverage now when there are two million Amigas. This is _not_ a flame. We just need more info: * How many of those 2 million Macs were in the US (assuming we're talking US magazine coverage?), versus of the 2 million Amigas? * How many of the Macs were owned by people/companies with jobs/$$$ (read: more ad potential = more coverage) versus the Amigas? >The market is big enough. And because there is STILL not enough >coverage out there, the logical conclusion is there must be other >forces at work than simple supply and demand. Umm. IF the market is big enough, then why don't all the _current_ Amiga magazines have circulations in the hundreds of thousands? Or do they? Would someone look up the circulation numbers? thx - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
rwm@atronx.OCUnix.On.Ca (Russell McOrmond) (12/18/90)
In a message posted on 18 Dec 90 04:38:54 GMT,
JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) wrote:
J>coverage out there, the logical conclusion is there must be other
J>forces at work than simple supply and demand. Supply and demand is
Want a paranoia story to liven things up? I got about 2 months ago, in the mail,
one of those Byte magazine Adverts. Basically they were going to send me :
A free issue of Byte Magazine, and if I responded before November 15, they would
send me the anual "IBM PC Special Issue" (Which would have been interesting reading
as they mentioned that SCSI specs were discussed).
Now, I sent off my reply, with a small note basically saying that If I saw a good
representation of Amiga and Unix applications along with the rest of the articles,
that I would likely take a subscription.
I have not heard from them since. I did not receive my Free issue, I did not
receive a Bill for the Next 11 months, I did not receive my Anual. I did not pass
go, and I definetely did not collect $200.
So, if you want something free from Byte, don't mention the word Amiga.
J> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
J>|| Kurt Tappe (215) 363-9485 || With. Without. And who'll ||
J>|| 184 W. Valley Hill Rd. || deny it's what the fighting's ||
J>|| Malvern, PA 19355-2214 || all about? - Pink Floyd ||
J>|| jkt100@psuvm.psu.edu --------------------------------------||
J>|| jkt100@psuvm.bitnet jkt100%psuvm.bitnet@psuvax1 QLink: KurtTappe ||
J> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. It was addressed to "AMEGATRONICS". The only other company that mis-spelled
"AMIGA..." in that name before was SAS, so I assume they were the ones that sent
the list. If Byte got the list from a group that KNEW that the names were AMIGA
users (And Programmers) why the NO-ANSWER?
---
Opinions expressed in this message are my Own. My Employer does not even
know what these networks ARE.
Russell McOrmond rwm@Atronx.OCUnix.On.Ca {tigris,alzabo,...}!atronx!rwm
FidoNet 1:163/109 Net Support: (613) 230-2282
Amiga-Fidonet Support 1:1/109kdarling@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (12/18/90)
In <7294@sugar.hackercorp.com>peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes | In article <1990Dec17.095310.8040@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> kdarling@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes: |> Truth. Editors of two major non-IBM-specific magazines have told me that |> they cringe whenever they print *anything* on the Amiga, because they |> know that they'll get tons of nasty letters telling them their "mistakes". | |What sort of "mistakes" are we talking about here? Are we talking about people |like Jerry Pournelle? If that's the case we're better off without the coverage: Yeah, I agree on JP. How can one not? <grimace> Sorry I used "mistakes" as shorthand. Long night. Tired. Figured everyone would know what was meant: anything from outright misinformation to a bad picture of the video screen, to not being "positive enough". Doesn't matter. It's their getting only complaints that hurts. | I've dropped several magazines (Byte, Dr. Dobbs Journal, etc) [...] Not that it matters, but I've kept BYTE if only to see what else is going on. I believe it was mentioned on CIS that one of their new editors used to be an Amiga mag editor, which may explain more Ami coverage recently. Also I should mention that DDJ has said they'd be happy to have more Amiga articles, but just don't get any (yes, it's another Catch-22). >But when you like an article in a magazine, TELL THEM. I haven't read this >particular Byte, but I'll probably buy the magazine just for the article. Absolute agreement with your entire article, Peter. If all the people who posted messages about BYTE coverage instead sent letters to them, I highly suspect their editors would take notice. It's a sad fact of life, but mags are in it for the money, not out of altruistic beliefs. Hmmm...kind of like the evening newscasters ;-). Happy holidays! kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
theorist@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Charles Callaway) (12/19/90)
If multitasking isn't so necessary or desirable for MS-DOS machines, why do I and lots of other Novell Network Administrators run from networked computer to networked computer all over the office running different programs? I don't want to spend 30 minutes waiting for 10,000 mailing labels to sort so that I can wait another 30 minutes backing up my hard drive while wanting to word process a document while those are busy. It's insane to run all over the office using different terminals for different things, but I do it anyway so that I can get home at a reasonable hour. Don't tell me you can blow it off. When I use my amiga 500 at home, I could do all that and more while kicking back and drinking a coke etc. I LIKE IT THAT WAY!!!! (Not intended to be a flame.) Charles Callaway UT-Austin
kevins@dgp.toronto.edu (Kevin Schlueter) (12/20/90)
In article <1990Dec13.155848.8152@maytag.waterloo.edu> giguere@csg.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Giguere) writes: >Don't flame me for this, but.... most people DON'T need multitasking on >their computer. What they do need is a way to switch rapidly between >applications and/or share data. Very few people are TRULY doing two >concurrent things. (Print spooling is about the only thing I can think of >that the average user will want to do.) This is why MultiFinder on the >Mac, the ultimate kludge, is successful. It works! (Well, usually.) It's >why Windows could get away with "co-operative multitasking". It's why >the IBM world proliferates with TSRs. > >Eric Giguere giguere@csg.UWaterloo.CA Don't worry, this isn't a flame :-). I'm not sure about `most people', but I sometimes need multitasking on a computer. Just a few minutes ago, I was waiting for a somewhat involved Prolog program to finish a computation and decided to catch up on my email. If I had been using multifinder, my Prolog program would most likely have stopped computing, which would have been pretty undesirable. Cooperative multitasking would probably have not been any better, as how many Prolog interpreter writers surrender control of the CPU in their computation loops (doing this in a completely general way requires fairly intimate knowledge of program execution, which often no one programmer in a large project has). My other argument in favour of multitasking is that it simply isn't intuitive for a program to stop when its window isn't active or its screen is not visible. Granted, the word `intuitive' isn't quantifiable, but I suspect that those who only do one thing at a time on a computer do so only because they learned this behaviour when they learned about computers (mental set for using a computer). Personally, this is the kind of topic I'd like to see more discussion of in this news group. I'm a PHD student in Human - Computer Interaction, and would be interested in examples of situations where multitasking clearly leads to a better interface (or even arguments as to why it is unnecessary).
dvljhg@cs.umu.se (J|rgen Holmberg) (12/21/90)
I have been trying to find a similar suppression of news in other areas but as long as we are talking non-brand-specific mags I can't think of any. Are there any magazines in the free world that cover all news as long as there are no blacks involved? It would be a perfect look-alike to certain so-called "general" publications. /Jorgen -- ******************************************************************************* email dvljhg@cs.umu.se - other ways to communicate are a waste of time. Everything I say is always true, just apply it to the right reality. "Credo, quia absurdum est." Credo in absurdum est?
BAXTER_A@wehi.dn.mu.oz (12/21/90)
> > My other argument in favour of multitasking is that it simply isn't intuitive > for a program to stop when its window isn't active or its screen is not visible. > Granted, the word `intuitive' isn't quantifiable, but I suspect that those > who only do one thing at a time on a computer do so only because they learned > this behaviour when they learned about computers (mental set for using a > computer). Not at all. Ask Schrodinger. When it can't be seen, an program ceases to be in a defined state, but becomes a wave form with a probability with a finite probability of being crashed when the cube is NeXT opened. However until it is next obsevered it is neither crashed nor running properly. That is how reality is, so it is how multitasking should be to be intuitive. Regards Alan