soh@shiva.trl.oz (kam hung soh) (09/14/90)
yegerleh@handel.ecn.purdue.edu (James D Yegerlehner) writes: >So my question is, will Byte review it [the TT] and put it on the front cover, >as they did with the Amiga 68030 whatever-it-is? Maybe you guys at >Atari should send them one. The Byte review for the A3000 was a pathetic three page write-up that talked about little more than the hardware specifications. Hardly anything about the Amiga software features, etc. Hopefully, the TT will get a more thorough review. I can't see why anyone should worry about what Byte says anyway (except from a marketing viewpoint). The so-called `Journal for Small Systems' has gone done the tubes with regards to any useful technical or intellectual articles. Witness the paucity of information between reams of advertising. Save the forests! Forget Byte! :-) --- Soh, Kam Hung email: h.soh@trl.oz.au tel: +61 03 541 6403 Telecom Research Laboratories, P.O. Box 249, Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (09/14/90)
In article <2218@trlluna.trl.oz> soh@shiva.trl.oz (kam hung soh) writes: >yegerleh@handel.ecn.purdue.edu (James D Yegerlehner) writes: >>So my question is, will Byte review it [the TT] and put it on the front cover, >>as they did with the Amiga 68030 whatever-it-is? Maybe you guys at >>Atari should send them one. >The Byte review for the A3000 was a pathetic three page write-up that >talked about little more than the hardware specifications. Hardly >anything about the Amiga software features, etc. In BYTE parlance, at least, that A3000 article was a preview. They claim that they won't do a full review on anything until it's actually shipping and available in its finished form. That's probably not a bad policy; we could have changed all kinds of things between the December/January dates they probably looked at the 3000 and their April publication date (must have been the May or June issue, if it came out in May). Of course, that's not at all to say they couldn't have done a more complete job. The 15+ page AmigaWorld article was finished at the same time (early copies of both mags were available at the A3000 launch). The other thing is that, while the BYTE staff does the previews, they often count on contributors to do the actual review (at least, that was the case for the A2000). So you often don't see much in the way of a review. Any BYTE has roughly a five month lead time. Given that A3000s first shipped in mid June, I wouldn't expect to see an actual review until the November or December issues, at the earliest. If at all. >Hopefully, the TT will get a more thorough review. Maybe it will. If the TT is as out in force as the Atari folk claim, it's really too late for BYTE to do their typical preview on it, unless they just haven't found the space for it yet (hey, wouldn't want to have to displace Yet Another PClone review just to write up a few pages on something with a hope of being a little different). >I can't see why anyone should worry about what Byte says anyway >(except from a marketing viewpoint). BYTE is good exposure, since lots of computer folks read it, and it still hangs, albeit a bit tenuously, to its claim of multiple platform coverage. >The so-called `Journal for Small Systems' has gone done the tubes with >regards to any useful technical or intellectual articles. That's true, but unfortunate. Back in the 70s and 80s, BYTE was kind of a Scientific American of small computer systems. Lotsa good stuff, technical stuff written so that you didn't have to be an expert to understand it. Now a days it's about as technical on computers as "Car and Driver" is on cars; lots of reviews and editorials, nothing hardcore. There's nothing wrong with that, but in the case of BYTE, there's no adequate replacement available for what BYTE once was. It's a shame when progress means going retrograde. >Soh, Kam Hung email: h.soh@trl.oz.au tel: +61 03 541 6403 -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Get that coffee outta my face, put a Margarita in its place!
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (09/17/90)
In <82@maxx.UUCP>, tyager@maxx.UUCP (Tom Yager) writes: > >As for displacing a PC clone review, balderdash! Open any recent issue >of BYTE, and you'll see reviews of software development tools, UNIX >workstations, Mac stuff, graphics hardware...PCs get a lot of ink because >they are rolled out more quickly than any other type of computer, but we go >out of our way to make sure that other platforms get covered. If anything, we >kill PC clone reviews in favor of something more interesting. If you do, or if you start doing it more, it will definitely be a welcome change. I have not even bothered to glance at a Byte in a large number of months, since I really was not interested in reviews that raved about yet another fractional increase in clock speed hailed as a significant improvement. >We recognized some months ago that people were starting to see us as strictly a >PC book. So, we're changing. Lots of changes are already in place, but 1991 >will bring an almost entirely new BYTE. I won't give away any secrets, but >we're working to bring back a lot of the nuts-and-bolts, technical leadership >that made BYTE so popular way back when. It's already happening. Check out the >September (if you can lift it) and October issues for a few tastes of things to >come. I hope so. I have nearly every issue, right up to about 1987, and from then on, they get more and more sparse. It will continue on if I see a swing away from slavish devotion to Intel, IBM, and the clone makers, but that hole in the collection will remain. I won't have the sort of garbage that's been in the magazine recently cluttering my home. I'll look for the issues you mention, with a feeling of hope that you are saying sooth. >I assume you call our multi-platform coverage "tenuous" because it hasn't >included much Amiga. Well, that's about to change. No details there, either. >Wait and see. I don't. I call it tenuous because for a VERY long time, nothing seemed to get reviewed unless it was an IBM compatible, or unless it was capable of emulating it. I watched with horror as article after article completely ignored large segments of the industry, ignored superior hardware, ignored superior software, while fawning over MsDos, OS/2, Intel, and so on. Somebody once said that if Cray were to come out with a shirt-pocket, 100 MIPS machine with 20 megs of memory and 1 gig of disk, and sold it for $300, the first thing the industry would ask is "Is it IBM compatible?". This is the feeling I got whenever I looked at a Byte in the past few years. >Before you complain about how BYTE has lost its teeth, go out and buy the >September or October issue. Read it, thoroughly, and if you still don't like >what you see, write and tell us why. Every letter we get is read and >discussed, and readers' opinions DO have an impact on how the magazine works. I sincerely hope you are right in what you say about new directions. Byte has too much influence to be in a position of promoting nothing but the lowest common denominator to those who know no better. -larry -- It is not possible to both understand and appreciate Intel CPUs. -D.Wolfskill +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
tyager@maxx.UUCP (Tom Yager) (09/17/90)
I take a week off for Video Expo, and all hell breaks loose! In article <14445@cbmvax.commodore.com>, daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > In article <2218@trlluna.trl.oz> soh@shiva.trl.oz (kam hung soh) writes: > >yegerleh@handel.ecn.purdue.edu (James D Yegerlehner) writes: > > >The Byte review for the A3000 was a pathetic three page write-up that > >talked about little more than the hardware specifications. Hardly > >anything about the Amiga software features, etc. Not much was said about 2.0 because our VERY early pre-release version wouldn't run for more than a few minutes, and we had no 2.0-compatible applications, except for AmigaVision. Bob (the author) talked about everything he worked with. It's appropriate not to discuss those things you can't see and touch. > In BYTE parlance, at least, that A3000 article was a preview. Actually, BYTE parlance refers to it as a "First Impression." Same thing. > They claim that > they won't do a full review on anything until it's actually shipping and > available in its finished form. That's probably not a bad policy; we could > have changed all kinds of things... Right on--we've run early full reviews of supposedly "golden beta" hardware and found that the vendor changed EVERYTHING when it went to market. That's why there is a clear distinction in the magazine between reviews and First Impressions. We aren't trying to fool anyone. A FI is just our way of introducing a new product to the public. We also avoid injecting much opinion into FIs because it pisses the vendors off. I'm sure you would have enjoyed an article that included "...the system crashed every few minutes, and virtually all the Amiga software we tested wouldn't run on the 3000." You'd have been livid, and rightly so, because it isn't fair to fling knives at something that's still under development. > Of course, that's not at all to say they couldn't have done a more complete > job. The 15+ page AmigaWorld article was finished at the same time (early > copies of both mags were available at the A3000 launch). We gave the 3000 the same amount of coverage as any other First Impression; actually, it got a little more. Our FI of the Apollo 2500, which was arguably just as important (maybe moreso--it kicked off the low-end UNIX workstation market), got two pages. AmigaWorld lives or dies by virtue of the Amiga's success. Of course they gave it 15 pages. If we were a single-platform mag, we'd make a big fuss over the latest box, too. Nothing wrong or dishonest about that; we all need to make a living. > ...while the BYTE staff does the previews, they often count on contributors > to do the actual review (at least, that was the case for the A2000). So you > often don't see much in the way of a review. I wouldn't say that's true. When we go outside the magazine to do a review, it's because we (the editors) feel that an outsider has more expertise. We try to find experts to do our reviews. We don't always manage, but there has been some excellent work in the past few months. We have also been doing a hell of a lot more testing and writing in-house. Virtually all of our UNIX workstation pieces are handled that way. Future Amiga-related articles probably will be, too. > Any BYTE has roughly a five month > lead time. Given that A3000s first shipped in mid June, I wouldn't expect to > see an actual review until the November or December issues, at the earliest. > If at all. Our lead time is four months, and we've got changes in place to trim it to three. Vendors aren't the only ones aggravated by that. I don't think we've scheduled a 3000 review. We received our loaner about a month ago, and we're starting to get some software and accessories together for it. The rule is, if you can't say much more than what was said in the First Impression, don't bother. Right now, that's the case; there isn't much we can add until more 3000 (and 2.0)-specific software and add-ons start to appear. Of course, not being in the "Amiga department" per se, I'm only speculating. > >Hopefully, the TT will get a more thorough review. > > Maybe it will. If the TT is as out in force as the Atari folk claim, it's > really too late for BYTE to do their typical preview on it, unless they just > haven't found the space for it yet (hey, wouldn't want to have to displace > Yet Another PClone review just to write up a few pages on something with a > hope of being a little different). Atari has a reputation of being uncooperative with non-Atari-specific mags. We have never, to my knowledge, gotten a review unit of ANY recent Atari machine. We ask, brother do we ask, but we never get a response. As for displacing a PC clone review, balderdash! Open any recent issue of BYTE, and you'll see reviews of software development tools, UNIX workstations, Mac stuff, graphics hardware...PCs get a lot of ink because they are rolled out more quickly than any other type of computer, but we go out of our way to make sure that other platforms get covered. If anything, we kill PC clone reviews in favor of something more interesting. We recognized some months ago that people were starting to see us as strictly a PC book. So, we're changing. Lots of changes are already in place, but 1991 will bring an almost entirely new BYTE. I won't give away any secrets, but we're working to bring back a lot of the nuts-and-bolts, technical leadership that made BYTE so popular way back when. It's already happening. Check out the September (if you can lift it) and October issues for a few tastes of things to come. > >I can't see why anyone should worry about what Byte says anyway > >(except from a marketing viewpoint). Eventually, EVERYTHING boils down to dollars and cents. The reason 500,000 people read our magazine, and we sell millions in ads every month, is that we ARE taken seriously. I get calls all the time from readers asking for advice about UNIX systems and software, and I know the other editors are all in the same boat. I'm busy enough that I figure somebody must be paying attention. > > BYTE is good exposure, since lots of computer folks read it, and it still > hangs, albeit a bit tenuously, to its claim of multiple platform coverage. I assume you call our multi-platform coverage "tenuous" because it hasn't included much Amiga. Well, that's about to change. No details there, either. Wait and see. > >The so-called `Journal for Small Systems' has gone done the tubes with > >regards to any useful technical or intellectual articles. > > That's true, but unfortunate. Back in the 70s and 80s, BYTE was kind of a > Scientific American of small computer systems. Lotsa good stuff, technical > stuff written so that you didn't have to be an expert to understand it. Now > a days it's about as technical on computers as "Car and Driver" is on cars; > lots of reviews and editorials, nothing hardcore. There's nothing wrong with > that, but in the case of BYTE, there's no adequate replacement available for > what BYTE once was. It's a shame when progress means going retrograde. I hate to harp, because I know virtually everyone reading this is saying, "yeah, right." But McGraw-Hill, the company that publishes BYTE, likes to make money. A lot. And any time they start to see our market share decline, they demand that we take steps. We are taking steps, radical ones. Everything from playing with the cover (little things) to purposely stepping up our UNIX coverage (big things). We're constantly doing research, polling our readership, and trying to make the magazine something more people want to read. You've pointed out a few of our flaws, and we are aware of them (and many others). You can't imagine how hard we're working to improve. Before you complain about how BYTE has lost its teeth, go out and buy the September or October issue. Read it, thoroughly, and if you still don't like what you see, write and tell us why. Every letter we get is read and discussed, and readers' opinions DO have an impact on how the magazine works. That's not self-serving bullshit, it's the truth. When you get to be BYTE's size, you thrive or perish on the basis of reader satisfaction. One piece of advice: Don't send a vague letter ("Howcome you don't have more Amiga coverage? Huh?"). Tell us what you want, why you want it, and why you think there are others out there who agree with you. I've seen changes made based on a single, convincing letter. There is a new BYTE coming, and I think that the readers we've lost over the past few years will start coming back. Oddly, when I started working for BYTE, I didn't read it. I, too, was a fan of the "old BYTE," back in the days of Ciarcia and the like. Now, I'm up to reading about 1/3rd to 1/2 of the editorial material, and it's really starting to grow on me again. Comments from people I run into at trade shows seem to support that trend. Hell, they'd pay me whether I read it or not. Probably 50% of my job is reading, and I don't like to waste that time. Only recently have I found that BYTE is hitting the targets I, as a reader, want them to hit. My targets haven't changed--BYTE has. And will. > >Soh, Kam Hung email: h.soh@trl.oz.au tel: +61 03 541 6403 > -- > Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" > {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy -- +--Tom Yager, Technical Editor, BYTE----Reviewer, UNIX World---------------+ | UUCP: decvax!maxx!tyager NET: maxx!tyager@bytepb.byte.com | | "I just bought...the Macintosh portable. And I took it back. Pain in the | +--butt." --Harry Connick, Jr.-------I speak only for myself.--------------+
scot@amigash.UUCP (Scot L. Harris) (09/17/90)
>In article <RommP2w163w@valnet> joseph@valnet.UUCP (Joseph P. Hillenburg) writes: >be adding more Amiga coverage? I dont want to see games like Jerry >Pournelle did in Chaos Manor for Sword of Aragon. I want to see >-Joseph Hillenburg > >UUCP: ...iuvax!valnet!joseph >INET: joseph@valnet.UUCP >ARPA: valnet!joseph@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu Has anybody else found it laughable that Jerry Pournelle's column shows up in the Expert Advice section of BYTE? Now if the all the people that show up to help Jerry out were writing columns for that section I could understand. -- _ /// /_\ Scot L. Harris ...!tarpit!rtmvax!amigash!scot \XX/ / \ M I G A Orlando, FL (407)273-1759 [VoRecOne by Impulse. Now my Amiga hears me, but does it really listen to me?]
joseph@valnet.UUCP (Joseph P. Hillenburg) (09/17/90)
The original article was too big for the system, so I have to do a simple
post. I know that BYTE mostly supports Mac, MS-DOS, and UNIX, so will it
be adding more Amiga coverage? I dont want to see games like Jerry
Pournelle did in Chaos Manor for Sword of Aragon. I want to see
networking, Amiga UNIX, multimedia, how longbefore Borland releases Turbo
C+++ etc.
-Joseph Hillenburg
UUCP: ...iuvax!valnet!joseph
INET: joseph@valnet.UUCP
ARPA: valnet!joseph@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (09/18/90)
In-Reply-To: message from daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com I'd be expecting a further A3000 write-up in the Nov or Dec issue... I just picked up the October issue, and it has some more on the ][fx...not much really. It just talks about incompatabilities and how much faster the ][fx is than the ][ci. On a different note, Jay Miner is one of the 63 most influential persons in the computer field interviewed by BYTE. The Amiga is mentioned several times throughout this special... Sean //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc | ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil | " Fanatics have their INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com | dreams, wherewith they | weave a paradise for RealWorld: Sean Cunningham | a sect. " Voice: (512) 994-1602 PLINK: ce3k* | -Keats | Call C.B.A.U.G. BBS (512) 883-8351 w/SkyPix | B^) VISION GRAPHICS B^) \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
plouff@kali.enet.dec.com (09/19/90)
In article <82@maxx.UUCP>, tyager@maxx.UUCP (Tom Yager) writes... >I don't think we've scheduled a 3000 review. We received our loaner about >a month ago, and we're starting to get some software and accessories together >for it. The rule is, if you can't say much more than what was said in the >First Impression, don't bother. Right now, that's the case; there isn't much >we can add until more 3000 (and 2.0)-specific software and add-ons start to >appear. >[and several other insights into how Byte handles reviews.] >-- >+--Tom Yager, Technical Editor, BYTE----Reviewer, UNIX World---------------+ >| UUCP: decvax!maxx!tyager NET: maxx!tyager@bytepb.byte.com | >| "I just bought...the Macintosh portable. And I took it back. Pain in the | >+--butt." --Harry Connick, Jr.-------I speak only for myself.--------------+ 3000- and 2.0-specific software? In the best of all possible worlds there should be none. Some compute-intensive packages are available in two versions - one of which has floating-point coprocessor code inline - included in the same box. But one of Amiga' strengths is its compatibility. Up and down the line, forward through OS revisions, things that work on one Amiga usually work on all others. I would expect that much software already works with AmigaDOS v2.0. Software tweaked to work with v2.0 should also still work with v1.3. There is much more "clean" stuff out there than Byte may realize. On another note, there are freely redistributable software tools available (Small C compiler, assembler, C function library) which permit porting the Byte benchmark suite to Amiga. Since Amiga and Macintosh have the same CPUs, I look forward to seeing a head-to-head benchmark comparison in the Amiga 3000 review. Anticipating Tom Yager's objection, the same has already been done with 386-based UNIX boxes vs. MS-DOS machines, no? -- Wes Plouff, Digital Equipment Corp, Maynard, Mass. plouff@kali.dec.com Amiga -- over 460,800,000,000 pixels sold.
jimmy@unix.cis.pitt.edu (James G Tauberg) (09/21/90)
In article <82@maxx.UUCP> tyager@maxx.UUCP (Tom Yager) writes: >In article <14445@cbmvax.commodore.com>, daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >> >Hopefully, the TT will get a more thorough review. >> > >Atari has a reputation of being uncooperative with non-Atari-specific mags. We >have never, to my knowledge, gotten a review unit of ANY recent Atari machine. >We ask, brother do we ask, but we never get a response. "We have never, to my knowledge, gotten a review unit..." I guess it all depends on your definition of "recent Atari machine." ------------------- Check these issues: ------------------- March 1986 Vol. 11, No. 3 issue of Byte. "Product Preview: The Atari 1040 ST" by Phillip Robinson and Jon R. Edwards Two Byte editors take a look at Atari's new $999 1-megabyte machine pg. 84 June 1986 (no Vol. no No.) issue of Byte. REVIEWS: "THE ATARI 520ST" by Eric jensen A good engine for bit-mapped graphics, pg. 233 Thought you might like to know, Jim Tauberg
cwpjr@cbnewse.att.com (clyde.w.jr.phillips) (09/22/90)
In article <4462@crash.cts.com>, seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes: > In-Reply-To: message from daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com > > On a different note, Jay Miner is one of the 63 most influential persons in > the computer field interviewed by BYTE. The Amiga is mentioned several times > throughout this special... > > Sean This is the first time I recall them admitting ( under the Time-line part ) that the A1000 had a Multi-Tasking GUI/OS back in 1985. I prefer Computer Shopper over BYTE anyday!
Robert_G_Brodie@cup.portal.com (09/27/90)
So Tom, Who have you been talking to at Atari?? Give me a shout, I'm the manager of user group services. 408-745-2052 voice, or fax 408-745-2088. Let's try to fix the problem for *both* of us.
STT@kcbbs.gen.nz (Jon Clarke) (10/07/90)
To Bob Brodie @ atari usa. Hi Bob, we missed out on the oyster and kumera food fight :-( Boy every where I go I see your name pop up [grin]. J.Clarke6 - GEnie. Jon Clarke +---------------+-----------------+----------------------+----------+ | o( ) STaTus | The Atari BBS | Node 1:+64-9-606-067 | PDN soon | | / /\ BBS. | in Auckland,NZ | Node 2:+64-9-608-485 | MBBS V3 | +---------------+-----------------+----------------------+----------+