dredick@g.bbn.com.UUCP (10/29/87)
I'm FLAMING Mad.. As Usual, when I received my monthly issue of BYTE.
I have subscribed to BYTE for the last 10 years... It is a tradition
with me. But of late, (as if you haven't noticed) it has turned into
a mouthpiece for the IBM Clan..
"..In this case, the author based his report on experiences with a late
beta version of Multifinder, lengthy talks with APPLE programmers, and
APPLE documents. IF interest warrants, BYTE will formally review this
product at a latter date."
-- Novemeber issue of Byte
Hey, If it had been the Lastest verion of OS/2 you betcha it would
get the biggest review possible. But just look what we got..
Come on now, Byte is the small systems journal... Why has Apple
products taken a BACK SEAT in the last 2 years of Byte. You think
I'm kidding... Just look at the coverage the APPLE ][ got in byte
for a few year, not to mention TRS-80 and other.
But now its IBM this, and IBM that, and PC this and PC that...
Plus to Anger me more, the even have SPECIAL BYTE ISSUES devoted to
that greatest of machines and company THE IBM PC.
I guess we just don't rate a SPECIAL ISSUE... TOO INSIGNIFICANT...
WE JUST DON'T RATE....
time to cancell a time honored tradition
and pull out my issue of MACTUTOR.
-- Donald Redick (dredick@bbn.com)
Flames Accepted, but just TRY IT.jww@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Joel West) (10/29/87)
I would note one point, at least, in Byte's defense. They
tried to put out a special "68000" issue (Mac, Atari, Amiga)
but they couldn't sell enough ads to justify a new issue.
So instead, they staggered the contents throughout
later issues.
Ad space dictating issue size and special reports, etc.
is not just true for Byte, incidentally. It also applies
to local newspapers, Forbes, etc. etc.
--
Joel West (c/o UCSD)
Palomar Software, Inc., P.O. Box 2635, Vista, CA 92083
{ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!jww jww@sdcsvax.ucsd.edumentat@auscso.UUCP (Robert Dorsett) (10/29/87)
In article <12346169899024@G.BBN.COM> DREDICK@G.BBN.COM (Donald Redick) writes: > > I'm FLAMING Mad.. As Usual, when I received my monthly issue of BYTE. > > I have subscribed to BYTE for the last 10 years... It is a tradition > with me. But of late, (as if you haven't noticed) it has turned into > a mouthpiece for the IBM Clan.. > > Hey, If it had been the Lastest verion of OS/2 you betcha it would > get the biggest review possible. But just look what we got.. > > I guess we just don't rate a SPECIAL ISSUE... TOO INSIGNIFICANT... That's pretty much how I saw it when I cancelled. I did so shortly before they published a survey of their user composition: something like 90% IBM'ers, 9% Maccers, 1% others. Shortly after, their article content changed to reflect this. Their editorial policies have ALWAYS been strange: consider the number of articles lauding the Amiga, a commercial failure, vs. the Mac. Not to mention that ridiculous "benchmark" of the Mac II vs. the 386, which was pub- lished at a time when even the IBM rags were really hyping the Mac II. For a long time, I thought that Byte was actually attempting to play the role of a comprehensive journal on microcomputers (as you say, the early articles on Apple II's, TRS-80's, and homebrew S-100's seemed to support that). Then it swung HEAVILY into "poor theory" and "IBM-oriented" articles. The lead time for articles is ENORMOUS, often seeming to be on the order of six months. It's more worth it to subscribe to MacTutor for Mac technical info, and Communications/ACM for the more esoteric stuff. :-) -- Robert Dorsett {allegra,ihnp4}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!walt!mentat University of Texas at Austin {allegra, ihnp4}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!auscso!mentat
matt@srs.UUCP (Matt Goheen) (10/30/87)
> Not to > mention that ridiculous "benchmark" of the Mac II vs. the 386, which was pub- > lished at a time when even the IBM rags were really hyping the Mac II. Why is it that people just can't face facts. The 80386 is just plain faster than a 68020 of the same clock speed for doing your typical "benchmarky" type things. I have yet to see a benchmark say anything to the contrary. Even Sun's latest "A RISC Tutorial" says that the 80386 benchmarks faster than the 68030! Now, I'm not saying that the 80386 is a great processor (or that I would ever buy a machine that had one in it), but let's face the facts. I'm sure most people don't want to read this argument AGAIN, so if you have something to say, mail it to me. Also, I agree that the Byte "benchmark" was quite ridiculous, but most "benchmarks" are. -- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- - UUCP: {allegra,rutgers,ames}!rochester!srs!matt Matt Goheen - - "If you think too hard, you'll blow yourself in two." S.R. Systems - -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
farren@gethen.UUCP (10/31/87)
In article <588@auscso.UUCP> mentat@auscso.UUCP (Robert Dorsett) writes: >Their editorial policies have ALWAYS been strange: consider the number >of articles lauding the Amiga, a commercial failure, vs. the Mac. Since the number of Amigas sold is rapidly approaching (or may have even exceeded) the one million mark, it can hardly be called a commercial failure. It hasn't taken over the PC world, to be sure, and probably never will, but it hasn't failed, either. I stopped reading BYTE about four years ago, when the amount of general noise (not just IBM PC stuff) began to greatly exceed the amount of useful information. It used to be that going through a copy of BYTE would take a day or two; when I discovered that I was typically able to read all of the stuff in BYTE that I wanted to in less than an hour, I just quit - the time/money equation didn't balance any more. -- ---------------- Michael J. Farren "... if the church put in half the time on covetousness unisoft!gethen!farren that it does on lust, this would be a better world ..." gethen!farren@lll-winken.arpa Garrison Keillor, "Lake Wobegon Days"
merchant@dartvax.UUCP (Peter Merchant) (10/31/87)
In article <12346169899024@G.BBN.COM>, DREDICK@G.BBN.COM (Donald Redick) writes: > I have subscribed to BYTE for the last 10 years... It is a tradition > with me. But of late, (as if you haven't noticed) it has turned into > a mouthpiece for the IBM Clan.. > > "..In this case, the author based his report on experiences with a late > beta version of Multifinder, lengthy talks with APPLE programmers, and > APPLE documents. IF interest warrants, BYTE will formally review this > product at a latter date." > -- Novemeber issue of Byte > > Hey, If it had been the Lastest verion of OS/2 you betcha it would > get the biggest review possible. But just look what we got.. Oh, I don't think it's quite that bad... Byte likes to show off "product previews", which they claim are not reviews. I think this is probably their new disclaimer, because some of their product previews, all of which claim that "This is a product preview. A formal review of this product will appear in later issues", don't get a later review because no one wants to do it. Or, sometimes, it takes quite some time. For example, Data General's laptop machine got a front cover product preview. The review came about a year-and-a-half later. But, hey, let's be honest with ourselves. What is the ratio of installed PC/MS-DOS systems to Macintosh systems? Even more curious, what is the ratio of installed '286 MS-DOS systems (ie, stuff that'll run OS/2) to Macintosh systems? -- "Quantity, not quality." Peter Merchant (merchant@dartvax.UUCP)
hugo@dartvax.UUCP (11/01/87)
Ah cmon...BYTE has had nothing useful since about 1983...ever since they let that idiot Pournelle write for them regularly. Pete -- CSNET: hugo@darmouth.edu UUCP: hugo@dartvax.UUCP (Sorry) ARPA: hugo%dartmouth.edu@relay.cs.net QUOTE:"Hi, hi hi hi hi hi...yo! Hi, Hi hi hi hi hiiii, hiiii" - Talking Heads
cm450s02@uhccux.UUCP (jeff t. segawa) (11/03/87)
>In article <12346169899024@G.BBN.COM>, DREDICK@G.BBN.COM (Donald Redick) writes:
But of late, (as if you haven't noticed) it has turned into
a mouthpiece for the IBM Clan..
(rest of article edited out...)
That may be true of Byte, but have you seen PC Magazine lately? I picked up
the November 24 issue, which has a PS/2 model 80 / Mac II comparision, which
despite a few remarks about the "fruit computer" is well written, and
surprisingly, a few ads for Mac products have been appearing in these
pages! I agreed with most of the comments made in the article, particularly
the comparisons between the fine IBM "enhanced" keyboard, and the so-so
standard Apple keyboard. (or course we all know that REAL Mac users opt for
the expanded model, which is one of the best options around for the SE and II.)dwb@apple.UUCP (David W. Berry) (11/03/87)
In article <1053@uhccux.UUCP> cm450s02@uhccux.UUCP (jeff t. segawa) writes: >>In article <12346169899024@G.BBN.COM>, DREDICK@G.BBN.COM (Donald Redick) writes: >But of late, (as if you haven't noticed) it has turned into >a mouthpiece for the IBM Clan.. >(rest of article edited out...) > >That may be true of Byte, but have you seen PC Magazine lately? I picked up >the November 24 issue, which has a PS/2 model 80 / Mac II comparision, which >despite a few remarks about the "fruit computer" is well written, and >surprisingly, a few ads for Mac products have been appearing in these >pages! I agreed with most of the comments made in the article, particularly >the comparisons between the fine IBM "enhanced" keyboard, and the so-so >standard Apple keyboard. (or course we all know that REAL Mac users opt for >the expanded model, which is one of the best options around for the SE and II.) Me, I wouldn't have the extended keyboard if you gave me one. Function keys are nice to have (a little, they're also user unfriendly unless clearly labeled and consistently used) but I want the escape, delete/bs, and control keys in the usual places. I also have a small desk and the extended keyboard takes up far too much space. -- David W. Berry dwb@well.uucp dwb@Delphi dwb@apple.com 973-5168@408.MaBell Disclaimer: Apple doesn't even know I have an opinion and certainly wouldn't want if they did.
edwards@bgsuvax.UUCP (11/05/87)
In article <588@auscso.UUCP>, mentat@auscso.UUCP (Robert Dorsett) writes: > In article <12346169899024@G.BBN.COM> DREDICK@G.BBN.COM (Donald Redick) writes: > > I'm FLAMING Mad.. As Usual, when I received my monthly issue of BYTE. > > > > I have subscribed to BYTE for the last 10 years... It is a tradition > > with me. But of late, (as if you haven't noticed) it has turned into > > a mouthpiece for the IBM Clan.. > > > > Hey, If it had been the Lastest verion of OS/2 you betcha it would > > get the biggest review possible. But just look what we got.. > > > > I guess we just don't rate a SPECIAL ISSUE... TOO INSIGNIFICANT... > > That's pretty much how I saw it when I cancelled. I did so shortly before they > published a survey of their user composition: something like 90% IBM'ers, > 9% Maccers, 1% others. Shortly after, their article content changed to reflect > this. Their editorial policies have ALWAYS been strange: consider the number > of articles lauding the Amiga, a commercial failure, vs. the Mac. Not to > mention that ridiculous "benchmark" of the Mac II vs. the 386, which was pub- > lished at a time when even the IBM rags were really hyping the Mac II. > For a long time, I thought that Byte was actually attempting to play the role > of a comprehensive journal on microcomputers (as you say, the early articles > on Apple II's, TRS-80's, and homebrew S-100's seemed to support that). Then > it swung HEAVILY into "poor theory" and "IBM-oriented" articles. The lead time > for articles is ENORMOUS, often seeming to be on the order of six months. > It's more worth it to subscribe to MacTutor for Mac technical info, and > Communications/ACM for the more esoteric stuff. :-) I hope someone at BYTE reads this on going protestation of Mac users who having been long time subscribers to BYTE are bailing out because there's just too many bones and not enough fish! I'd settle for a regular 68000 section and a few more articles on programming theory and state of the art hardware (I thought that article a while back on the RS232 weaving loom was interesting and the kind of thing that you would have found in BYTE some years back). ; 'These are only the shadowlands.' C.S. Lewis ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Jenkins as guest @ CSNET: edwards@bgsu ARPANET: edwards%bgsu@csnet-relay UUCP: cbosgd!osu-cis!bgsuvax!edwards US Mail: c/o Century Marketing Corp. 12836 S. Dixie Hwy. Bowling Green , OH 43402 Phone: In Ohio 1-800-821-5409 Out of Ohio 1-800-537-9429 or 1-419-354-2591 -----------------------------------------------------------------
elwell@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Clayton Elwell) (11/09/87)
matt@srs.UUCP (Matt Goheen) writes:
Why is it that people just can't face facts. The 80386 is just plain
faster than a 68020 of the same clock speed for doing your typical
"benchmarky" type things. I have yet to see a benchmark say anything
to the contrary. Even Sun's latest "A RISC Tutorial" says that the 80386
benchmarks faster than the 68030! Now, I'm not saying that the 80386 is
a great processor (or that I would ever buy a machine that had one in it),
but let's face the facts.
The only reason I am posting this instead of mailing it is that it
contains a common misconception. The clock speed has nothing to do
with the speed of the processor or the system, since the clock is used
differently in different systems. The closest thing to a "common
factor" for comparison is the memory cycle time, since that is usually
the bottleneck in real world systems. One of the big advantages of
the 68030 it's intelligent bus interface, which lets you use slower
memory without taking a performance hit.
If you compare processors on the basis of memory cycle time, you get
much more intelligible results. Even so, there is (so far) no
absolute way to compare things that are reasonably different. Intel
and Motorola processors qualify as reasonably different :-).
--
Clayton M. Elwell
UUCP: ...!cbosgd!cis.ohio-state.edu!elwell
ARPA: elwell@ohio-state.arpa (if you feel lucky...)alan@pdn.UUCP (Alan Lovejoy) (11/12/87)
In article <434@srs.UUCP> matt@srs.UUCP (Matt Goheen) writes: >Why is it that people just can't face facts. The 80386 is just plain >faster than a 68020 of the same clock speed for doing your typical >"benchmarky" type things. I have yet to see a benchmark say anything >to the contrary. Even Sun's latest "A RISC Tutorial" says that the 80386 >benchmarks faster than the 68030! Now, I'm not saying that the 80386 is >a great processor (or that I would ever buy a machine that had one in it), >but let's face the facts. I challenge you to produce any non-Intel publication which says that an 80386 is faster than a 68030 of the same clock speed. It's simply not true, even if you can find such a statement in print. Don't forget to include timings both with and without TI's 68030 cache extender chips (these provide the '030 with one clock cycle access (same speed as the on-chip caches or a register) to as much memory as you can afford!). Whether an 80386 is faster than a 68020 depends on the systems in which they are benchmarked, the operating systems, the languages and of course the benchmarks. The fastest CPU that BYTE benchmarked in their recent 4 month series (so far) was the DSI-780, which is a 16MHz 68020. The perfomance of the two CPU's is close enough that the relative difference is less than the uncertainties inherent in benchmarking such architecturally different CPU's (the uncertainties are significant). --alan@pdn