CRONEJP@UREGINA1.BITNET (Jonathan Crone) (04/02/89)
So does anyone remmber about a month ago after Leo posted that
Byte had pulled the art section because of too many amiga pictures
we all hoped that Byte would at least do a good job of the
reviews of the competing systems????
Well, they didn't...
Page 258.
Supposedly a screen picture of the amiga version of flight simulator
is really a screen picture off a PC, Because it sure as heck ain't the
screen that i see when I fly flight Sim....
Furthermore....
"From the original Amiga1000 to the less expensive and
LESS EXPANDABLE?????????? {Emphasis mine} Amiga 500 and the higher-
powered Amiga 2000 the amiga begins with 68000... "
"the amiga has a trio of custom IC's dedicated to processing
video information..... the amiga has a degree of multitasking...""
DEGREE??? what the HELL do they call having the Editor, a terminal program
a mandlebrot, three CLI's, and a Compiler running...
thats just a degree of multitasking????
And this is rich....
"The amiga has fallen behind the MacII in the sheer number of colours
.... and so is less competitive as a design and industrial or
business graphics tool."
(so what about the price???? sheesh)
"the amiga's strength is shown in pure graphics tasks such as games
animation and video work..."
relatively true, but i'm not sure i'm happy about the F***ing Games
mention....
Oh yeah, and the much hyped amiga image on the cover of the graphics section..
is not even that good of a raytraced image....
AND THEY DON'T say that it was created with an amiga!!!!
yes I'm frustrated, and its almost enough to make me write
my first letter to these bozos,
(not that they'll print it of course..)
JpC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan P. Crone CRONEJP@UREGINA1.BITNET cronejp@mcl.UUCP
Heisenberg might have been here...nmm@apss.ab.ca (Neil McCulloch) (04/02/89)
In article <8904011630.AA21629@jade.berkeley.edu>, CRONEJP@UREGINA1.BITNET (Jonathan Crone) writes: > yes I'm frustrated, and its almost enough to make me write > my first letter to these bozos, > (not that they'll print it of course..) Write! That article is so biased it isn't true. The more people write, the more Byte might get the message. Back it up with the facts of where the Amiga is used commercially and why it is used. And if you have cancelled your subscription, then read the article at work or at the library and then write. And hit 'em with facts. Better still, someone write a definitive graphics comparison of these machines. I'm so frustrated and I am writing! neil
jwright@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (Jim Wright) (04/02/89)
In article <8904011630.AA21629@jade.berkeley.edu> CRONEJP@UREGINA1.BITNET (Jonathan Crone) writes: | Page 258. | Supposedly a screen picture of the amiga version of flight simulator | is really a screen picture off a PC, Because it sure as heck ain't the | screen that i see when I fly flight Sim.... I thought it was a cheesy selection too, but then I looked at the PC and Mac shots. They're no better. The PC "graphics" was color text being displayed by Procomm Plus (communications program). | "the amiga has a trio of custom IC's dedicated to processing | video information..... the amiga has a degree of multitasking..."" | | DEGREE??? what the HELL do they call having the Editor, a terminal program | a mandlebrot, three CLI's, and a Compiler running... | thats just a degree of multitasking???? Don't toast your socks over this. In context, what they meant was the Amiga has a degree of MULTIPROCESSING. But the bozo who wrote it either doesn't know the difference, or it is just a goof. I wouldn't worry though -- the present BYTE audience wouldn't know the difference either. My impression was that the article was written by someone who knew nothing about the Amiga, and didn't have the time/inclination to learn. They did have some good things to say. And considering that in the vast wasteland of BYTE advertisers none are Amiga shops, they were pretty fair. Anybody really interested in graphics, save your time. This was my "teaser" copy of BYTE trying to get me to subscribe. What do you think I'll do. :-) -- Jim Wright jwright@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu
Doug_B_Erdely@cup.portal.com (04/03/89)
I will tell ya what I don't understand. Everyone has had enough of bytes bull
but yet they buy the magazine or even worse use BIX. Why the Hell does CBM
use BIX as their main online conference??? Switch to P-Link or something else
that supports the Amiga! P-Link goes out of their way on the Amiga SIG. It
is *THE* best place for Amiga. And it is about half the cost of BIX.
Enough talk... in my opinion we should hit Byte where it counts! I say
lets boycott anything connected with Byte, INCLUDING BIX! I mean we are
more or less funding them to spread the lies and bull they print. And worse
yet, CBM helps them. So enough bitching from everyone, lets start DOING
something about it! I have dropped my subscription and I am on just about
every online service except BIX.
- Doug -
Doug_B_Erdely@Portal.Cup.Comjwright@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (Jim Wright) (04/04/89)
In article <16620@cup.portal.com> Doug_B_Erdely@cup.portal.com writes: | Enough talk... in my opinion we should hit Byte where it counts! I say | lets boycott anything connected with Byte, INCLUDING BIX! | | - Doug - Nope. Correct their mistakes. Show them the benefits. Provide them with articles. And hit them where they really live - advertising. You'll never be able to "take over" the rag, but it's a good place to inform the public about what an Amiga really is. -- Jim Wright jwright@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (04/04/89)
In article <16620@cup.portal.com> Doug_B_Erdely@cup.portal.com writes: > It is *THE* best place for Amiga. And it is about half the cost of BIX. Two points, 1) BYTE and BIX are separate corporate entities, one is run by MgH Information Services and the other is owned by the magazine section. 2) BIX is now $160/Yr + Telecom charges if any. That's $13 a month which is only slightly higher than Portal's $10 a month. --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. "A most excellent barbarian ... Genghis Kahn!"
jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) (04/04/89)
In article <952@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu> jwright@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (Jim Wright) writes: >In article <16620@cup.portal.com> Doug_B_Erdely@cup.portal.com writes: >| Enough talk... in my opinion we should hit Byte where it counts! I say >| lets boycott anything connected with Byte, INCLUDING BIX! >| >Nope. Correct their mistakes. Show them the benefits. Provide them >with articles. And hit them where they really live - advertising. >You'll never be able to "take over" the rag, but it's a good place to >inform the public about what an Amiga really is. And don't boycott BIX. The Amiga conferences _force_ them to notice the amiga exists and has a VERY good following among technically oriented people - we're the biggest set of conferences on BIX. If BIX amiga use dwindles, they'll assume no one is interested in the Amiga. Plus BIX is announcing pretty good flat-rate policies. Those of us on BIX keep them on their toes, or at least try (some few of us can get over-excited at times.) Needless to say, the problems with the article have been pointed out by a number of people to Fred Langa. -- Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup
mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Portuesi) (04/05/89)
Before you start writing flame mail to BYTE magazine, perhaps it might help to actually read the article from which these quotes were taken out of context.... > *Excerpts from ext.nn.comp.sys.amiga: 1-Apr-89 Byte Bites. (So have we rea..* > *Jonathan Crone@UREGINA1. (1829)* > Page 258. > Supposedly a screen picture of the amiga version of flight simulator > is really a screen picture off a PC, Because it sure as heck ain't the > screen that i see when I fly flight Sim.... Granted. That was a pretty slimy thing to do. > Furthermore.... > "From the original Amiga1000 to the less expensive and > LESS EXPANDABLE?????????? {Emphasis mine} Amiga 500 and the higher- > powered Amiga 2000 the amiga begins with 68000... " That sentence could also be interpreted as saying that the 500 is less expandable than the 2000, though I admit that it reads as if the 500 is less expandable than the 1000. > "the amiga has a trio of custom IC's dedicated to processing > video information..... the amiga has a degree of multitasking..."" The complete quote, "Instead of leaving the 68000 CPU to handle all the graphics calculations along with its other chores (the Mac strategy), the Amiga has a trio of custom ICs dedicated to processing graphics information. Because these chips can handle video information while the main CPU is working on other tasks, the Amiga has a degree of "multitasking" -- the ability to handle more than one job at a time." is incorrect, but not a deliberate attempt to slam the Amiga. It merely confuses "multitasking" with "multiprocessing". If you decide to write a letter to Byte, it would be wise to simply correct their terminology and point out that the Amiga has a multitasking operating system in addition to multiprocessing capability at the chip level. Such a letter will get the attention of the editors and likely get printed. A knee-jerk flame won't. > "the amiga's strength is shown in pure graphics tasks such as games > animation and video work..." > relatively true, but i'm not sure i'm happy about the F***ing Games > mention.... You left out the following sentence... "The Amiga's real strength is shown in pure graphics tasks such as games, animation, and video work. There, it has a clear advantage over the PC or the Mac, with direct connections to standard video formats and with special graphics acceleration hardware to produce smooth and more realistic games and graphics applications." > yes I'm frustrated, and its almost enough to make me write > my first letter to these bozos, > (not that they'll print it of course..) They certainly won't print a letter that reads like your post to the net. Furthermore, by sending them such a letter, you'll make them think all Amiga owners are a bunch of knee-jerk flamers. To conclude: while the article contains factual inaccuracies, it is not a deliberate attempt to slam the Amiga and actually says very nice things about the Amiga, pointing out places where it can do things the PS/2 and Mac can't. It is worth writing Byte to correct them. It is not worth writing Byte to alienate them. -- Michael Portuesi * Information Technology Center * Carnegie Mellon University INET: mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu * BITNET: mp1u+@andrew UUCP: ...harvard!andrew.cmu.edu!mp1u+ "Some say that knowledge is something that you never have" -- K. Bush
Doug_B_Erdely@cup.portal.com (04/05/89)
Sorry Jim,
We have kept correcting their STUPID mistakes, and it has done NO GOOD!
So now it is time to roll up our sleeves and get tough! :>
- Doug -
Doug_B_Erdely@Portal.Cup.Comlindwall@sdsu.UUCP (John Lindwall) (04/05/89)
In article <IYCER8y00VsfQ8XX5s@andrew.cmu.edu>, mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Portuesi) writes: > is incorrect, but not a deliberate attempt to slam the Amiga. It merely > confuses "multitasking" with "multiprocessing". > > If you decide to write a letter to Byte, it would be wise to simply correct > their terminology and point out that the Amiga has a multitasking operating > system in addition to multiprocessing capability at the chip level. Such a Please help me out by clarifying the difference between the terms "multiprocessing" and "multitasking". Does multitasking refer to time-sliced process scheduling, whereas multi- processing refers to true simultaneous operation of processing elements? (I may be wrong but that sentence sure sounds like I know something!) :-) Thank You. John Lindwall johnl@tw-rnd.SanDiego.NCR.COM Above opinions are mine and not my employers nor my schools.
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (04/05/89)
<IYCER8y00VsfQ8XX5s@andrew.cmu.edu> In article <IYCER8y00VsfQ8XX5s@andrew.cmu.edu>, mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Portuesi) writes: > Before you start writing flame mail to BYTE magazine, perhaps it might help to > actually read the article from which these quotes were taken out of context.... > > > *Excerpts from ext.nn.comp.sys.amiga: 1-Apr-89 Byte Bites. (So have we rea..* > > *Jonathan Crone@UREGINA1. (1829)* > > > Page 258. > > Supposedly a screen picture of the amiga version of flight simulator > > is really a screen picture off a PC, Because it sure as heck ain't the > > screen that i see when I fly flight Sim.... > Granted. That was a pretty slimy thing to do. To be perfectly acurate, the screen shot was of an Amiga *emulating* an IBM pc (probably a bridge card) and running flight simulator. You can tell it was from an Amiga because you can see the Amiga mouse pointer on the screen! In my opionion, that is dirty pool. If the layout department screwed up and accidently printed an IBM screenshot and labelled it an Amiga shot, that might have been an honest mistake. But in order to get a screen shot of an Amiga running a CGA program (MSDOS flight simulator), they had to actually plan it. They had to load the bridge board and flight simulator and then take the picture. No way to 'do it by accident'. -- John Sparks | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps [not for RHF] | sparks@corpane.UUCP | 502/968-5401 thru -5406 As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error.
jimm@amiga.UUCP (Jim Mackraz) (04/07/89)
In article <16620@cup.portal.com> Doug_B_Erdely@cup.portal.com writes:
) P-Link goes out of their way on the Amiga SIG. It
)is *THE* best place for Amiga. And it is about half the cost of BIX.
)
) Doug_B_Erdely@Portal.Cup.Com
1) BIX isn't the same as Byte.
2) You are wrong: bix is the best Amiga bbs, at least for developers.
You've posted this sentiment a couple of times. Why?
jimm
--
Jim Mackraz, I and I Computing "Like you said when we crawled down
{cbmvax,well,oliveb}!amiga!jimm from the trees: We're in transition."
- Gang of Four
Opinions are my own. Comments are not to be taken as Commodore official policy.Doug_B_Erdely@cup.portal.com (04/08/89)
In article <16620@cup.portal.com> Doug_B_Erdely@cup.portal.com writes:
) P-Link goes out of their way on the Amiga SIG. It
)is *THE* best place for Amiga. And it is about half the cost of BIX.
)
) Doug_B_Erdely@Portal.Cup.Com
1) BIX isn't the same as Byte.
2) You are wrong: bix is the best Amiga bbs, at least for developers.
You've posted this sentiment a couple of times. Why?
jimm
--
Jim Mackraz, I and I Computing "Like you said when we crawled down
{cbmvax,well,oliveb}!amiga!jimm from the trees: We're in transition."
- Gang of Four
I posted my message ONCE! I am not sure how you got "a couple of times". Unless,
you count this message, then it would be twice! :>
WHY? Because I am tired of hearing people complain about Byte, yet doing
NOTHING about it! And PLINK *IS* the best. At least for what most folks want.
And if the developers moved off of BIX then there would be no question at all.
And everyone has said that BIX is slow. Now granted, I will be the first to
admit, this is second hand info. But at the time I was asking about BIX, it
was more expensive than CompuServe.
- Doug -
Doug_B_Erdely@Portal.Cup.Com