derek@leah.Albany.Edu (Derek L. / MacLover) (07/13/90)
Well, I've just been reading the August issue of MacUser. I've had problems reading MacUser in the past, most of which exhibit themselves in the urge to throw it against the far wall of the room. These problems are usually brought on by editorials in which the authors so shamelessly back-pat and Mac-pat (sorry about the pun), that any _content_ is quite overwhelmed in the process. This month's issue is sadly no different. Case in point: "Window Watchers," by Paul Somerson. In his column, the author writes, "Several months ago, Apple unveils its Macintosh IIfx, a 40-megahertz screamer so powerful that it eats dedicated graphics workstations for breakfast. Like all other Macs, it sports an attractive, truly intuitive interface and a high degree of smarts. "Like all other Macs, it can handle multitasking and memory- gluttonous software without a hitch, and it can run the nearly 5,000 applications that are on the market." This is by far not the worst example of the breed. Heck, it didn't even make me close the magazine and take a deep breath. If I went back and looked, I could probably find examples of self-congratulation so striking they would make Reagan blush. But even this example stings: "all Macs... handle multitasking and memory-gluttonous software without a hitch" --right. I can only assume Mr. Somerson was presented with a Mac IIci his very first day on the job, because that's the FIRST Mac I've used in which multitasking and memory management worked as advertised -- and I've used 'em all. I hate this type of space-wasting writing, for two reasons: first, it again glamourizes the "new!" "better!" machine over the older ones, leaving the vast majority, who mostly own SEs, out in the cold; and second, it has the effect of obscuring the very useful material which MacUser can present (for example, their look at accelerator boards in the same issue). Don't misunderstand me -- I'm well aware that it's part of the computer magazine biz to evangelize the computer you're writing about. But I'm of the strong opinion that it can be done by straightforward representation of the facts, rather than glossy meaningless catchphrases. Even the inclusion of a column devoted to comparing PC/Windows to the Mac is questionable in my opinion. The most annoying part of the MacUser problem is that they have classified themselves as the magazine for the "power user." Uh-huh. Okay, I'm a MacPowerUser. Do I really need to have the magazine I go to for information try to sell me on the concept of the Mac? It's unprofessional, annoying and it sure doesn't make me want to get a subscription. I've had this gripe for a while, I just felt like writing about it now (when, of course, I should be studying calc). Oh, by the way, I hate the MacUser color scheme and typeface selections. And those damned subscription cards that always fall out when you're reading it on public transportation. Aaahh, that felt good... Derek L. -- + + One Mac is worth exactly 2.317 PCs (based on current price indices) + + Disclaimer: I was asleep. ---}=-------------------------` ++ All the busy little creatures / Chasing out their destinies --Peart ++
pv9y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (07/13/90)
In article <3337@leah.Albany.Edu>, derek@leah.Albany.Edu (Derek L. / MacLover) writes: > Well, I've just been reading the August issue of MacUser. I've had > problems reading MacUser in the past, most of which exhibit themselves in > the urge to throw it against the far wall of the room. These problems are > usually brought on by editorials in which the authors so shamelessly > back-pat and Mac-pat (sorry about the pun), that any _content_ is quite > overwhelmed in the process. This month's issue is sadly no different. So read TidBITS. We don't write like that. :-) We don't have ugly color schemes or much in the way of distracting graphics. And there isn't a single drop-out card in the whole thing (though it's an interesting thought - to have HyperCard start printing as soon as a user moves to a certain card - truly annoying :-)) The disadvantages? It's free so you can't waste money on it. It's never more than 40K of stack (about 16K of text) each week so you can't waste too much time on it. Each week's stack can merge with the previous one's to form a complete searchable archive so you can't spend your time flipping through the issues looking for that article on X. It's kind of hard to read on public transportation without a Mac Portable. And it may not be Mac-centric enough to make people at MacUser to want to read it. Such is life. The preceding was a shameless ad for a free publication. Just so you know... > > Derek L. -- Adam C. Engst pv9y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "I ain't worried and I ain't scurried and I'm having a good time" -Paul Simon
gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (07/13/90)
I think that, now that the PC industry seems to be entering a slow
growth period, that PC rags like MacUser (and esp. PCWeek / MacWeek)
are starting to realize they have no reason to live.
Their only chance to remain in circulation is to scream as loudly and
as flambuoyantly as possible. In five years, PC magazines will
probably enjoy the same reputation and circulation as "Coin Prices" or
"Hot Rod Racer" magazine.
I have never found a magazine with an entropic information-transfer
rate that is *lower* than MacUser. That's why I wanted to cancel my
2-year gift subscription, about 9 months after receiving it. I'd
estimate the rate of transfer (including advertisements) is 10
bits/page.
Don W. Gillies, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois
1304 W. Springfield, Urbana, Ill 61801
ARPA: gillies@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP: {uunet,harvard}!uiucdcs!gilliesnolan@tssi.UUCP (Michael Nolan) (07/13/90)
In article <3337@leah.Albany.Edu>, derek@leah.Albany.Edu (Derek L. / MacLover) writes: > > Well, I've just been reading the August issue of MacUser > [stuff deleted] These problems are > usually brought on by editorials in which the authors so shamelessly > back-pat and Mac-pat (sorry about the pun), that any _content_ is quite > overwhelmed in the process. This month's issue is sadly no different. Unless you read MacWeek, you're always going to get this (IMHO unnecessary) hype. MacWorld tends to be worse, because a lot of their back-patting is congratulating the reader on reading MacWorld. (With MacWeek you get press release hype, probably a better variation.) > > [I hate those] those damned > subscription cards that always fall out when you're reading it on public > transportation. Find me a non-trade publication that doesn't use those stupid cards. I remember reading one laced with truth once. It said: "This is a breeze-in card. Don't you just hate it when they fall out in your lap." Mike Nolan, somewhat satisfied MacUser reader
danno@us.cc.umich.edu (Daniel T. Pritts) (07/14/90)
In article <3337@leah.Albany.Edu> derek@leah.albany.edu.UUCP (Derek L. / MacLover) writes: > .... >Case in point: > "Window Watchers," by Paul Somerson. In his column, the author >writes, "Several months ago, Apple unveils its Macintosh IIfx, a 40-megahertz >screamer so powerful that it eats dedicated graphics workstations for >breakfast. Like all other Macs, it sports an attractive, truly intuitive >interface and a high degree of smarts. > "Like all other Macs, it can handle multitasking and memory- >gluttonous software without a hitch, and it can run the nearly 5,000 >applications that are on the market." > >This is by far not the worst example of the breed. Heck, it didn't even > [long rant about the stupidity of MacUser magazine] I have to agree with you on this one, Derek. I remember a column in macuser somewhere a while back that OOOOZED and GUSHED over the WONDERFUL mac portable. You know, the one they use in the weight room...the well-lit weight room. This magazine makes me gag...I'm glad I didn't subscribe based on the accounts of its followers... > Aaahh, that felt good... > > Derek L. > You're not kidding.... dan pritts danno@um.cc.umich.edu danno@umichub
derek@leah.Albany.Edu (Derek L. / MacLover) (07/14/90)
In article <70400029@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu spilled his guts, writing: [about computer mags in general] >Their only chance to remain in circulation is to scream as loudly and >as flambuoyantly as possible. In five years, PC magazines will >probably enjoy the same reputation and circulation as "Coin Prices" or >"Hot Rod Racer" magazine. Hopefully the extension of networks amoung computer users will completely negate any need for magazine information, which is usually two months behind the industry anyway. >I have never found a magazine with an entropic information-transfer >rate that is *lower* than MacUser. That's why I wanted to cancel my >2-year gift subscription, about 9 months after receiving it. I'd >estimate the rate of transfer (including advertisements) is 10 >bits/page. The ONLY reason I pick it up is for the advertisements! Of course sitting around the consulting office during the summer I have to read something, and it's just lying there... :-) >Don W. Gillies, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois and nolan@tssi.UUCP (Michael Nolan) writes: >Unless you read MacWeek, you're always going to get this (IMHO unnecessary) >hype. MacWorld tends to be worse, because a lot of their back-patting is >congratulating the reader on reading MacWorld. (With MacWeek you get press >release hype, probably a better variation.) We haven't gotten our "complementary subscription" to MacWeek yet, so I can't compare. I'd suspect that it's better just by the bare fact of being more up-to-date, and taking less room for editorials. For some reason, the same self-congratulation doesn't bother me as much in MacWorld. I don't have a rational reason why, unless it's the fact that MacUser has proclaimed itself the "power user's" and "MacHacker's" mag. I still see MacWorld as basing its readership on the beginner, the proud, confused new owner of a Mac who needs any reassurance available. There's a lot of fluff in MacWorld, but somehow it seems more "reasonable" fluff. Oh well, it's all just personal opinion anyway. Derek L. -- + + One Mac is worth exactly 2.317 PCs (based on current price indices) + + Disclaimer: I was asleep. ---}=-------------------------` ++ All the busy little creatures / Chasing out their destinies --Peart ++