tyager@maxx.UUCP (Tom Yager) (07/16/90)
BYTE magazine has scheduled a review for Lotus' new release of 1-2-3 for UNIX.
The reviewer must be equipped with a 386 or 486-based system running SCO
System V (or Open Desktop) with enough memory and disk to operate the software
efficiently.
The qualified candidate must posess a solid knowledge of the DOS version
of Lotus, preferably release 3. It would also be an advantage if the
candidate's setup included a number of networked, SCO-based UNIX systems, and
at least one serial terminal. Finally, anyone with technical writing experience
will be given priority consideration.
BYTE's readers are already familiar with 1-2-3, so this is a short (750 word)
review.
Please direct a short summary of qualifications to the address below, but
replace the username ("tyager") with "reviews." Mail sent to "tyager" may not
be read in time.
This is an immediate need. Please respond quickly.
Thanks, all.
(ty)
--
+--Tom Yager, Technical Editor, BYTE----Reviewer, UNIX World---------------+
| NET: decvax!maxx!tyager -or- uunet!bytepb!maxx!tyager |
| I speak only for myself "UNIX: It's not a job, |
+-------------------------------------it's a Jihad!" -co-worker------------+tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (07/19/90)
In article <58@maxx.UUCP> tyager@maxx.UUCP (Tom Yager) writes: >BYTE magazine has scheduled a review for Lotus' new release of 1-2-3 for UNIX. >The reviewer must be equipped with a 386 or 486-based system running SCO >System V (or Open Desktop) with enough memory and disk to operate the software >efficiently. Good luck with the review, but I have to question a couple of things here. * Does Lotus say their 1-2-3 is only for SCO UNIX? If not, why is SCO UNIX specifically required for the review? Has BYTE unilaterally decided that SCO is the only UNIX worth checking? * How is the reviewer supposed to know in advance how much disk and memory you really need to operate a new 1-2-3 release "efficiently"? Isn't that the point of the review? -- War is like love; it always \%\%\% Tom Neff finds a way. -- Bertold Brecht %\%\%\ tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM
tyager@maxx.UUCP (Tom Yager) (07/21/90)
In article <15686@bfmny0.BFM.COM>, tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: > * Does Lotus say their 1-2-3 is only for SCO UNIX? If not, why is SCO > UNIX specifically required for the review? Has BYTE unilaterally > decided that SCO is the only UNIX worth checking? In general, we avoid such edicts. I like ISC and SCO about equally, but since I'm currently working on X and Motif projects, I'm running ISC 2.2. I switch back and forth pretty frequently by choice. Lotus has certified its first release exclusively for SCO UNIX and Xenix. I believe it may have something to do with the fact that it supports native-mode VGA graphics, which may be implemented differently under SCO and ISC. I didn't hear that from Lotus, mind you. If they say it will only run reliably under SCO, that's how we'll test it. > > * How is the reviewer supposed to know in advance how much disk and > memory you really need to operate a new 1-2-3 release "efficiently"? > Isn't that the point of the review? To some extent, but virtual memory makes the proclamation of memory requirements somewhat dubious. I referenced the disk and memory issue because, without looking at 1-2-3, one could handily guess that it wouldn't run very well on a 2MB system with 1MB of free disk space. It will be considerably more demanding than its DOS counterpart. That much is probably obvious; my warning was likely a waste of breath. > War is like love; it always \%\%\% Tom Neff > finds a way. -- Bertold Brecht %\%\%\ tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (ty) -- +--Tom Yager, Technical Editor, BYTE----Reviewer, UNIX World---------------+ | UUCP: decvax!maxx!tyager NET: maxx!tyager@bytepb.byte.com | | Always looking for qualified UNIX,Mac,DOS and OS/2 software reviewers-- | +--mail to "reviews" instead of "tyager" above.---I speak only for myself.-+