jbtubman@water.UUCP (Jim Tubman) (11/15/85)
So now "Creative Computing" is going to bite the dust. I confess that I have not read it for some time, but it saddens me none the less. The shakedown in the computer magazine field was severe, we all knew, but surely *some* institutions were exempt. Certainly, "Creative" would have been. But we were wrong. In late 1976, when I was 14, a copy of "Popular Mechanics" caught my eye. The cover story concerned digging for buried treasure, but what got my attention was an article on "Home Computers You Build Yourself". Having experienced my first computer games earlier that year, I had become fascinated with computers and was tantalized at the propect of having one of my own. I read and re-read the article, hungry for more. In December, Popular Science had a better article on home computers, in which they mentioned "Creative Computing". The editor, David Ahl, noted the exponential growth of its subscription base and whimsically observed that at this rate, all humanity would be subscribing to "Creative Computing" within five years. There were no computer stores in rural Saskatchewan in those days, and it wasn't until my family took a trip to Seattle in the spring of 1977 that I was able to get my hands on a copy of "Creative". I still have it. That issue was read over and over again; a subscription form was submitted instantly. Other magazines interested me too: BYTE, of course, and ROM (anybody remember ROM?). But "Creative" was special. There were columns on the three main machines of the day: the TRS-80, the PET, and the Apple. There were simple BASIC programs that did what I considered to be interesting things. There were ads for all sorts of games, distributed on cassette for the TRS-80, PET, or Apple... And there was the brief but interesting reign of Ted Nelson as editor, which I was to appreciate when I looked back on the magazine several years later. But around 1981 I began losing interest. "Creative", which was wonderful for a high school student in an isolated community, began to seem irrelevant to a university computer science major. I let my subscription expire. When there was an interesting article, I would pick it up at the store, but that happened less and less often. There was a big emphasis on the use of computers in primary and high school education, and I was more interested in hacking. The magazine seemed to be doing well until recently. This was physically obvious by observing my friend Gerald's complete collection of "Creative"s on his book shelf -- they got thicker and thicker until about a year or two ago, during the big industry shake-up. The lack of advertising dollars slimmed down the magazine in a massive way. Now "Creative Computing" breathes its last. Though I no longer read it regularly, I shall miss it, for it will always remind me of a time in my youth when home computers were magical, fascinating devices. Jim Tubman University of Waterloo