dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (09/09/87)
Yah, I've stopped reading it also. Not because they've dropped 68000 stuff (I've was reading byte years before the Amiga came out), but because there are so many !@#$@#%*($)% advertisements! Worse, it is impossible to page through the magazine any more due to thousands of those little post-card thingy's they are putting in. -Matt
kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) (09/11/87)
Actually, I was wondering if BYTE wasn't engaging in a deliberate attempt to discredit commodore and the amiga. Back in late 1986/early 1987, BYTE had become totally schizophrenic, with excellent technical articles on the amiga from people who obviously knew about them, side by side with ridiculous unchecked, unrebutted claims from letter writers and their editorial staff. I hate the ads (I used to like the ads), and all those cards. I'd cancel in a minute except the technical quality of the articles is increasing. The articles are finally becomming interesting. Sigh.
jdow@gryphon.CTS.COM (Joanne Dow) (09/11/87)
In article <8709090658.AA09801@cory.Berkeley.EDU> dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes: > > Yah, I've stopped reading it also. Not because they've dropped >68000 stuff (I've was reading byte years before the Amiga came out), but >because there are so many !@#$@#%*($)% advertisements! Worse, it is >impossible to page through the magazine any more due to thousands of >those little post-card thingy's they are putting in. > > > -Matt Well, one advantage to being closer than average to the BYTE publishers is the inside poop I learn. (For example Best of BIX is dying as a part of BYTE. It will become a quarterly(?) publication distributed with BYTE.) Anyway, this advertisement issue keeps coming up. It seems Phil is constrained very heavily by MGH upper management types to have a fixed ration of advertising to editorial material. The declining advertising is costing editorial pages. It is sad to watch the apparent degradation of a marvelous techweenie magazine into another PC Magazine clone. As soon as the heavy technical articles with algorithms and really new microcomputer goodies disappear from the rag and it becomes another advertisement for PCs I think I'll let my "since issue 1" subscription lapse. (Unless Phil wants to make a subscription a perk of moderating on bix. Even then I can't guarantee I'll read the thing.) The prospect makes me (and very many of the other BIX moderators) sick to contemplate. -- <@_@> BIX:jdow INTERNET:jdow@gryphon.CTS.COM UUCP:{akgua, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, ihnp4, nosc}!crash!gryphon!jdow Remember - A bird in the hand often leaves a sticky deposit. Perhaps it was better you left it in the bush with the olit: Tings
cheeser@dasys1.UUCP (Les Kay) (09/13/87)
ee, the problem is that you just aren't doing it right! First, when you buy a copy of BYTE, the first thing you do, you grab it by the front and back covers and shake it backwards and forwards and sideways vigorously. This disposes of all of the `dandruf'. The next step, for the porper use of BYTE, is to turn to the list of advertiser and make a list of the page numbers the ads you are interested in appear on. Goto (sloppy, I know, but it works) those pages. If you want to see what else is new, skim pages of ads to get a feel for what's out there. Finally, throw the thing out. Read BYTE? Not with YOUR eyes!!! 8-)
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (09/14/87)
In article <1735@sputnik.COM> kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) writes: >Actually, I was wondering if BYTE wasn't engaging in a deliberate attempt to >discredit commodore and the amiga. Back in late 1986/early 1987, BYTE had >become totally schizophrenic, with excellent technical articles on the amiga >from people who obviously knew about them, side by side with ridiculous >unchecked, unrebutted claims from letter writers and their editorial staff. As someone who has written articles for BYTE, the last one pretty much blew away a lot of the image processing community if the letters I keep getting are a representative sample, I can vouch for BYTE's willingness to publish articles about the Amiga. The big problem is to come up with article ideas that can be done easily on the Amiga and have relevance for the IBM PC community. So when I hear someone say, "Gee, no one gives the Amiga any press coverage." I like to ask them, "Why don't you write an article for them to print?" I know, you say "I'm not a writer, I'm a programmer, or hacker, or whatever." And I say, "Thats why they have technical editors." It's true, they can take your article and make it 100% grammatically correct, you just have to watch that they don't take out any technical information or change it in some way. So, my challenge to everyone who can write an 8 page flame to the Atari/Mac crowd here about how much better the Amiga, is to sit down and write 8 double spaced pages of text describing why your Amiga is the only computer you would own. Then send those to Phil Lemmons at BYTE Magazine, One Phoenix Mill Lane, Peterborough, New Hampshire 03458. Tell him in your cover letter that you don't think BYTE gives enough editorial coverage to the Amiga and therefore you are submitting this article to remedy that situation. Now I am not unrealistic, many if not most will get sent back with a "Thanks for submitting this article to BYTE magazine, but we can't currently use it." Letter, but a few will make it through, a since Byte only has about ten articles per issue, (I'm not counting the 'kernel', 'Reviews', and 'Departments' sections) chances are if the response is great enough we can fill up an entire issue with Amiga articles. And if your one of the ones that gets accepted then you will have some extra cash for that memory board or program you wanted (or tuition if you are a student) and if it gets rejected, send it to Dr. Dobbs. [You can also send it to AmigaWorld, Amazing, etc, but the point is not to preach to the choir if you know what I mean, and I think you do.] Hey, I promise to send one in by the end of October, if anyones interested I let you know what they say. --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
jdg@elmgate.UUCP (Jeff Gortatowsky) (09/18/87)
>As someone who has written articles for BYTE, the last one pretty much blew >away a lot of the image processing community if the letters I keep getting >are a representative sample, I can vouch for BYTE's willingness to publish >articles about the Amiga. The big problem is to come up with article ideas >that can be done easily on the Amiga and have relevance for the IBM PC >community. Is that the point? Or was the last sentence meant to have a '8^)' after it? Why would spend 1-3 weeks of spare time polishing up an article, that, according to the above comments, *MUST* have some relevance to IBM PeeCee clone owners. Why would I do it? I can't think of any reason. More to the point, the above requirement, if it indeed exists, just butresses the notion the Byte "The small systems journal" should be Byte "The IBM-PC and Klone and other junk journal". Cheers, Jeff -- Jeff Gortatowsky {seismo,allegra}!rochester!kodak!elmgate!jdg Eastman Kodak Company These comments are mine alone and not Eastman Kodak's. How's that for a simple and complete disclaimer?
cmcmanis@sun.uucp (Chuck McManis) (09/18/87)
In article <743@elmgate.UUCP> jdg@aurora.UUCP (Jeff Gortatowsky) writes: [about what I originally wrote...] >> .... The big problem is to come up with article ideas >>that can be done easily on the Amiga and have relevance for the IBM PC >>community. > >Is that the point? Or was the last sentence meant to have a '8^)' after >it? Why would spend 1-3 weeks of spare time polishing up an article, >that, according to the above comments, *MUST* have some relevance to IBM >PeeCee clone owners. > >Why would I do it? I can't think of any reason. More to the point, >the above requirement, if it indeed exists, just butresses the notion >the Byte "The small systems journal" should be Byte "The IBM-PC and >Klone and other junk journal". Jeff, and others. The point is that a *lot* of BYTE readers own IBM PC compatibles. (This is a fact, not a supposition) And those readers encourage advertisers who in turn pay for editorial pages. So when BYTE decides to publish something they have to ask "Will our *readers* be interested in this?" And just as you and others complain about the lack to meat and potatoes technical stuff, this larger quantity complains about not enough PC business stuff. Granted this is grossly oversimplified, but it illustrates the point no? You can always publish in Amiga World or Amazing Computing or something. The goal being, like my Image processing article, to show that here is something you can do on the Amiga, sure you can do it on the PC and these are the thousand dollar hoops you have to jump through. If those PC guys and gals are interested they read it, and have a little more exposure to the one true micro :-). Now, BYTE maintains a pretty good editorial direction which is aimed at the sophisticated, usually technical micro computer user. And thats why they publish these things at all (try to get a favorable Amiga article published in PCWeek!) and why you can make a difference. The other point here is, THIS IS ALL ADVICE, and not necessarily BYTE's editorial policy. It works for me, your mileage may vary. There is nothing stopping you from submitting *anything* computer related for publication in BYTE. However, if you are going to do that may I suggest you actually send only the first paragraph and an outline (which will save you a lot of time) and let them tell you if they have any interest at all. -- --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses. But you knew that, didn't you.
duncan@convex.csd.uwm.edu (Shan D Duncan) (12/19/90)
First let me start off by mentioning that the Video toaster received a best products. 2nd that there is an article on Amiga EXEC 3rd (maybe this should go to comp.sys.amiga.games where they are into OS questions as it relates to game implementation) - In a discussion about OS/2 and Windows 3.0 the author mentions a game called Star Control he has running under OS/2. Why? M. Minasi feels one sure way to find out how well a "multitasker" functions is to run highly graphical games or communications--- they to use his words "stop the system dead". So Star Control is available for the amiga (works on A2000 and A3000 last I heard)-- does it support multitasking? Because one of the pluses he mentions for OS/2 2.0 is that he can run Star Control in CGA mode (a graphic intensive game) while working on his word processer and it does not lock up the system. So to quote once more... "Try this with JUST ABOUT any other multitasker: instant lockup." [I added the caps]. hmmmmm. Could he mean.... 4th There is a multimedia product for the Mac called Director and it is version 2.0 by MacroMind. The Right Answer's Group (is that correct) also has Director 2.0 (or is it officially The Director?), but for the amiga. Both appear to be script based packages for putting together sounds, scanned images, artwork and text. Confusing! Just some things I saw while browsing through BYTE while I was giving the old final.