CXW148@psuvm.psu.edu (03/01/91)
The latest issue of Byte contains a letter that states that the recent lack of
Amiga coverage shows a blatant disreguard for the Amiga which borders on
jealousy. The reply Byte had was that it had either printed articles on, or
mentioned the Amiga 57 times in the past year, and stated that they also
mentioned the lead the Amiga has in SCSI performance.
BUT...
In the same magazine the Amiga is only seen twice:
Once in this letter (Byte probably counts this as ten times, since the
name itself was mentioned this many times), and
There was a review of a SCSI card in the _What's New?_ section.
There was no other mention of the Amiga in this entire 300+ page issue!
In addition:
A review of a multimedia product (software, I believe), for the IBM
actually stated that the product was slow, and the interface exceedingly poor.
The reviewer's conclusion was, "If this is the best IBM animation product
produced, my money's on Apple."
Apple? An article about an IBM animation program, and he compares it to
_Apple's_ animation!!?
Byte hypes itself as an industry-wide magazine, but is
99.99834% IBM magazine.
Actually there was only one article on the Mac in the magazine, and none on
any other systems besides IBM (None on the NeXT, Atari STs, Sun Workstations,
etc.). There was a nice big ad from Sun though. But not one Commodore ad.
This is where Commodore ads aimed at the business market would do well.
Now I know why Sun has done so well. I'll admit that although relatively
high priced, they do their jobs efficiently (Well, there was a review of a
Sparcstation, too).
Byte is not an 'industry-wide computer publication'. Quite the
opposite, it is an 'IBM standard industry publication, with one or
two articles/product reviews for other systems sprinkled
here-and-there for good measure'.
There are plenty of products for other systems that are better than
the ones reviewed in Byte, but for some reason Byte reserves coverage
for IBM products alone. Unless it is a completely new computer system
or something as important as the Video Toaster, Byte doesn't cover
other systems at all.
Chris Winward
userid CXW148 on psuvm.psu.edu
Disclaimer: This note does not exist, therefore you are not reading it now :-)kdarling@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (03/01/91)
CXW148@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >The latest issue of Byte contains a letter that states that the recent lack of >Amiga coverage shows a blatant disreguard for the Amiga which borders on >jealousy. The reply Byte had was that it had either printed articles on, or >mentioned the Amiga 57 times in the past year, and stated that they also >mentioned the lead the Amiga has in SCSI performance. > BUT... > [it has overwhelming IBM coverage etc] Well, figure it out: probably a hundred PClone support companies send in news and review equipment each month, with pictures and so on. In addition, many of them advertise in BYTE. How many Amiga companies do either? In the US, there are (roughly - corrections welcome) 40 million PCs, 4 or 5 million Macs, and 0.5 million Amigas (and guess how many of those very likely are mostly game-oriented? dunno). Combine that ratio with the incoming news slant and Ami authors and reader interest stats and amount of $$ spent per owner, and the Amiga is probably over-covered in BYTE :-). So: write some articles, and send lots of nice <== letters saying how much you and the other thousand people in your office <g> enjoyed the latest Amiga coverage! Ummm.. and come up with a laptop Amiga or Amiga clone or something else exciting along those lines. I mean, just what exactly is new for the Amiga? They've already covered the A3000 and Exec and the Toaster. Perhaps an article on all the new add-on gfx boards would be accepted, for instance. Go for it! best - kev <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
stevew@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Steven L Wootton) (03/01/91)
In article <91059.184958CXW148@psuvm.psu.edu> CXW148@psuvm.psu.edu writes: > > Byte hypes itself as an industry-wide magazine, but is > 99.99834% IBM magazine. Let's take this from the top. There are some 75 million DOS boxes out there. There are 4.5 million macintoshes. Lord knows how many unix systems are currently running. How many Amigas have been sold? Compare the percentage sold to the amount of editorial space each machine gets. Think of economics. Think of trying to sell magazines to the widest possible audience. > Actually there was only one article on the Mac in the magazine, and none on > any other systems besides IBM (None on the NeXT, Atari STs, Sun Workstations, > etc.). There was a nice big ad from Sun though. But not one Commodore ad. > There are plenty of products for other systems that are better than > the ones reviewed in Byte, but for some reason Byte reserves coverage > for IBM products alone. Unless it is a completely new computer system > or something as important as the Video Toaster, Byte doesn't cover > other systems at all. Funny you should mention the Video Toaster. There is a very nice review on pages 245 through 254 in the March 1991 issue of Byte. The "action summary:" - Newtek Video Toaster - What you'll like The Video Toaster is the most complete desktop video production product available, an incredible value at $1595. - What you'll dislike It's not the Toaster's fault, but it'll cost you to really put it to full use. Around $25,000 for a starter setup (including the Amiga) is reasonable. - Who should buy Businesses, schools, and other institutions or individuals wishing to produce high-quality videos and presentations. - System requirements Amiga 2000 or 2500 with 7 MB of memory, an Amiga 1080-series or compatible monitor, and an empty video slot Steve Wootton stevew@ecn.purdue.edu stevew@pur-ee.uucp stevew%ecn.purdue.edu@purccvm.bitnet
gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (03/01/91)
From article <1991Mar1.024207.29305@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, by stevew@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Steven L Wootton): > Let's take this from the top. There are some 75 million DOS boxes out > there. There are 4.5 million macintoshes. Lord knows how many unix > systems are currently running. How many Amigas have been sold? > > Compare the percentage sold to the amount of editorial space each machine > gets. Think of economics. Think of trying to sell magazines to the widest > possible audience. Okay. We have over 2 million. Doesn't that mean we should get at LEAST half the coverage that the Macintosh does??? God knows we're better... :) > > - System requirements > Amiga 2000 or 2500 with 7 MB of memory, an Amiga 1080-series or > compatible monitor, and an empty video slot > Does it really require 7 meg of memory? That's something I didn't know. I mean, I knew it took a lot of memory, but I didn't know it took THAT much. Is that BEFORE modules (tracing, painting) are loaded, or is that DVI with both loaded??? Greg -- gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu | Amigas, Amigas everywhere, but not a one can think. ----Gregory R Block---- | Where's an AI when you need one? ________________________| A Mac, by any other name, would smell like a lawsuit Roses are red, Violets are blue: Go buy a Mac, and you'll be screwed too...
stevew@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Steven L Wootton) (03/01/91)
In article <9833@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: >From article <1991Mar1.024207.29305@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, by stevew@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Steven L Wootton): >> >> - System requirements >> Amiga 2000 or 2500 with 7 MB of memory, an Amiga 1080-series or >> compatible monitor, and an empty video slot >> >Does it really require 7 meg of memory? That's something I didn't know. I >mean, I knew it took a lot of memory, but I didn't know it took THAT much. >Is that BEFORE modules (tracing, painting) are loaded, or is that DVI with >both loaded??? Can't tell exactly from the article. To quote: [after describing a $4000 one-channel time-base corrector/frame sync] There are other extra-cost factors that I'll cover as I go along, but the most important is memory: The Toaster documentation laments those users who have "only 5 megabytes of memory" and recommends 7 MB or more. It's not kidding; don't even bother trying to run the Toaster software in a 3-MB machine. Steve Wootton stevew@ecn.purdue.edu stevew@pur-ee.uucp stevew%ecn.purdue.edu@purccvm.bitnet
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (03/01/91)
In article <1991Mar1.024207.29305@en.ecn.purdue.edu> stevew@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Steven L Wootton) writes: > Let's take this from the top. There are some 75 million DOS boxes out > there. There are 4.5 million macintoshes. Lord knows how many unix > systems are currently running. How many Amigas have been sold? Over two million. About half as many as Macs... but many of those are now obsolete and incapable of running the latest software. Subtract out all the PCs in embedded applications, point of sale terminals, and so on. In terms of the number of smart-but-not-expert computer users BYTE claims to cater to it's probably only a 10:1 ratio in IBM's direction, with about equal numbers for the Mac and Amiga. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
plouff@kali.enet.dec.com (Wes Plouff) (03/01/91)
In article <1991Mar1.022501.18594@ncsu.edu>, kdarling@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes... >CXW148@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >I mean, just what exactly is new for the Amiga? They've already covered >the A3000 and Exec and the Toaster. Perhaps an article on all the new >add-on gfx boards would be accepted, for instance. Go for it! > best - kev <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu> I took the time to research the period from which Byte's editor Fred Langa got his figure of 57 mentions of the Amiga. I was able to find something over 37 of them. From January through October 1990, Amiga received 12 one-line mentions in various articles, 3 listings in resource guides, 4 "What's New" product announcements and 4 letters asking for more Amiga coverage. 10 articles or "sidebar" boxes contained decent coverage of the Amiga or software products that run on Amiga, including the A3000 "First Impression." The A3000UX preview ran after this period. But consider this: Byte has never run a full review of any Amiga machine, complete with benchmarks. All they've had is "First Impression" previews of preproduction models. Other machines in this category include the Apple IIGS and Sun's 386-based Unix workstation. There have been good articles lately, such as the breakthrough Video Toaster review - I can't remember a product review this long that wasn't either a new computer model or an operating system release - and "The Object-Oriented Amiga Executive." But the facts put the lie to Langa's claims. Byte's coverage is very shallow without reviews of products that are stronger than their MS-DOS or Macintosh counterparts, especially in graphics and multimedia. I still wince every month when I read raves about some product, PC or Mac, when anyone even passingly familiar with Amiga knows that that our favorite machine has stronger solutions. BTW, rather than just gripe on Usenet, I sent a letter to Langa politely spelling out the weakness in his 57 references, and politely suggesting specific article topics which "match the quality and newsworthiness of [Byte's] current reviews." -- Wes Plouff, Digital Equipment Corp, Maynard, Mass. plouff@kali.enet.dec.com Networking bibliography: _Islands in the Net_, by Bruce Sterling _The Matrix_, by John S. Quarterman
ptoper@obelix (Andy Nagy) (03/02/91)
In article <20655@shlump.nac.dec.com>, plouff@kali.enet.dec.com (Wes Plouff) writes: [stuff deleted] > BTW, rather than just gripe on Usenet, I sent a letter to Langa politely > spelling out the weakness in his 57 references, and politely suggesting > specific article topics which "match the quality and newsworthiness of > [Byte's] current reviews." > > -- > Wes Plouff, Digital Equipment Corp, Maynard, Mass. > plouff@kali.enet.dec.com So how do you send Fred Langa a letter? (email address) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Andy Nagy (ptoper@asterix.gaul.csd.uwo.ca) The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada "Dee do do do, dee da da da, thats all I want to say to you" -- The Police
kdarling@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (03/02/91)
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1991Mar1.024207.29305@en.ecn.purdue.edu> stevew@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Steven L Wootton) writes: >> Let's take this from the top. There are some 75 million DOS boxes out >> there. There are 4.5 million macintoshes. Lord knows how many unix >> systems are currently running. How many Amigas have been sold? > >Over two million. About half as many as Macs... but many of those are now >obsolete and incapable of running the latest software. Subtract out all the >PCs in embedded applications, point of sale terminals, and so on. In terms >of the number of smart-but-not-expert computer users BYTE claims to cater to >it's probably only a 10:1 ratio in IBM's direction, with about equal numbers >for the Mac and Amiga. Actually, I think worldwide there are 6 million Macs. But whatever: I'm curious, what kind of numbers you're thinking of? I mean, it seems far more likely that we could figure say, 20 million serious clone owners vs 200,000 serious Amiga owners ("serious" meaning people who expand their machines and buy more software other than games)... that is, more of a 100:1 ratio at best. And how many A1000's are out there that won't be running 2.0? truly curious - kev <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
kdarling@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (03/02/91)
plouff@kali.enet.dec.com (Wes Plouff) writes: >But consider this: Byte has never run a full review of any Amiga >machine, complete with benchmarks. All they've had is "First >Impression" previews of preproduction models. BYTE Oct '86 had a six page Review on the A1000, including benchmarks against the IBM PC and Apple IIe. As you noted, there were VERY GOOD previews of the A1000, 2000 and 3000. The A2000 preview was 12 pages, with more info on the Bridgeboard workings than Amiga magazines I read. Again tho, there are huge numbers of new PClone products every month... including new clones themselves, laptops, and so on. Finding enough new Amiga products to cover in fair ratio would be tough. Not to mention finding authors. Plus the lack of Amiga ads can't help things :-(. >[...] Byte's coverage is very shallow without reviews of products >that are stronger than their MS-DOS or Macintosh counterparts, >especially in graphics and multimedia. > >BTW, rather than just gripe on Usenet, I sent a letter to Langa politely >spelling out the weakness in his 57 references, and politely suggesting >specific article topics which "match the quality and newsworthiness of >[Byte's] current reviews." Sounds like a great idea (not the weakness part, tho). But you bring up an interesting topic: what products would you review against each other? thx! - kev <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
jcav@ellis.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) (03/02/91)
In article <1991Mar1.112510.1947@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1991Mar1.024207.29305@en.ecn.purdue.edu> stevew@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Steven L Wootton) writes: >> Let's take this from the top. There are some 75 million DOS boxes out >> there. There are 4.5 million macintoshes. Lord knows how many unix >> systems are currently running. How many Amigas have been sold? > >Over two million. About half as many as Macs... but many of those are now >obsolete and incapable of running the latest software. <sigh> It depends on what you mean by "software". If you mean the OS, then the only Macs incapable of running the current version are those with the original 64K ROMS. According to an Apple market research estimate (of a couple of years ago) there were less than 25,000 such machines left in use, the vast majority having been upgraded. If you mean application software, then the major gulf is between programs that REQUIRE color and those that take advantage if it's there but still work fine when it's not. The architecture of Quickdraw is such that most programs fall into the latter category. Programs that REQUIRE color tend to be high- end graphics and video which would be pointless without it. My point is that, however many Macs are actually out there, it is safe to assume that almost all of them can run current software. -- John Cavallino | EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu University of Chicago Hospitals | USMail: 5841 S. Maryland Ave, Box 145 Office of Facilities Management | Chicago, IL 60637 "Opinions, my boy. Just opinions" | Telephone: 312-702-6900
darrell@comspec.uucp (Darrell Grainger) (03/02/91)
In article <1991Mar1.024207.29305@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, stevew@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Steven L Wootton) writes: > Funny you should mention the Video Toaster. There is a very nice review on > pages 245 through 254 in the March 1991 issue of Byte. The "action summary:" > > - Newtek Video Toaster > > - What you'll like > The Video Toaster is the most complete desktop video production product > available, an incredible value at $1595. > > - What you'll dislike > It's not the Toaster's fault, but it'll cost you to really put it to > full use. Around $25,000 for a starter setup (including the Amiga) is > reasonable. > I was a little shocked to see the price tag Byte has put to the Toaster. My figuring for the Toaster would be the following: - Amiga 2500 (or equivalent) - Add 2 meg to the accelerator - Add 2 meg to the A2091 - Toaster - 1084 monitor - Time Based Corrector (TBC) - video deck - camera with video deck capibilities I know how much the computer equipment costs because I sell it. You would be looking at $5300 (maybe less; I'm guessing high). A camera with TBC, and video deck with TBC costs $20000? I don't think so. What does Byte think you need on the video end of a Toaster setup? > > Steve Wootton > stevew@ecn.purdue.edu > stevew@pur-ee.uucp > stevew%ecn.purdue.edu@purccvm.bitnet ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | Darrell Grainger (darrell@comspec) |Comspec Communications Inc. | | Toronto, Ontario, Canada |Disclaimer: My opinions do not | | (416)617-1475 (416)633-5605 |reflect those of my employer. | |------------------------------------+-------------------------------| | Motorcycle: Honda PC800 | Computer:Amiga 2000 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) (03/02/91)
In article <2411@ria.ccs.uwo.ca> ptoper@obelix (Andy Nagy) writes: >In article <20655@shlump.nac.dec.com>, plouff@kali.enet.dec.com (Wes >Plouff) writes: >[...] >> BTW, rather than just gripe on Usenet, I sent a letter to Langa [...] > > So how do you send Fred Langa a letter? (email address) I'll explain this real slowly, ok? First of all, there's this place called "the real world". If you turn your head away from the terminal screen, you'll catch a small glimpse of it. In this so-called "real world", there are many and various interesting things. One of these is called the US Postal Service. They carry physical mail (ie, hardcopy) between users. And all this for less than a cup of coffee. (so far) This may seem wierd and counter-intuitive, but there are people that can only be reached through this "physical mail" service. Look around. You'll probably see a manual around there somewhere on how to use this "physical mail" service. Otherwise, I think this is covered in alt.real-world.really-slow-ways-to-communicate in the infrequently asked questions array. -- Dave Schaumann dave@cs.arizona.edu 'Dog Gang'! Where do they get off calling us the 'Dog Gang'? I'm beginning to think the party's over. I'm beginning to think maybe we don't need a dog. Or maybe we need a *new* dog. Or maybe we need a *cat*! - Amazing Stories
stevew@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Steven L Wootton) (03/02/91)
In article <1991Mar2.013632.24056@comspec.uucp> darrell@comspec.uucp (Darrell Grainger) writes: >In article <1991Mar1.024207.29305@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, stevew@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Steven L Wootton) writes: >> - What you'll dislike >> It's not the Toaster's fault, but it'll cost you to really put it to >> full use. Around $25,000 for a starter setup (including the Amiga) is >> reasonable. >> > I was a little shocked to see the price tag Byte has put to the Toaster. My >figuring for the Toaster would be the following: > >- Amiga 2500 (or equivalent) >- Add 2 meg to the accelerator >- Add 2 meg to the A2091 >- Toaster >- 1084 monitor >- Time Based Corrector (TBC) >- video deck >- camera with video deck capibilities The BYTE Multimedia Lab (according to a sidebar) contains: Sony PVM-1342Q professional video monitors EVO-9800 Hi-8 VTRs (built-in time-base correction) EVO-9100 Hi-8 camcorder BVU-950 U-matic SP editing/animation VTR Lyon-Lamb Mini-VAS stand-alone single-frame animation controller Amiga 2500/30 with 7MB memory, 40MB internal HD Micropolis 300MB HD Useful quotes: Unfortunately, most Amiga users don't have what they need to make the best use of the Toaster. This isn't a video toy; Newtek's goal was to create an affordable *professional* video production tool. That brings with it certain equipment requirements and assumes you're interested in a high level of quality. As a result, if your video setup amounts to a VHS VCR and a camcorder, you can't use them together with the Toaster. A significant part of the cost of implementing the Toaster relates to its requirement that all the incoming video signals be synchronized to one another. This is called *frame synchronization*, and it certainly isn't cheap. An external time-base corrector/frame synchronizer, such as the Sony MPU-F100, goes for around $4000, and that's just to synchronize one video signal (although it performs other duties, too). The Toaster documentation laments those users who have "only 5 megabytes of memory" and recommends 7 MB or more. It's not kidding; don't even bother trying to run the Toaster software in a 3-MB machine. Steve Wootton stevew@ecn.purdue.edu stevew@pur-ee.uucp stevew%ecn.purdue.edu@purccvm.bitnet
root@graphics.rent.com (Bob Lindabury) (03/03/91)
darrell@comspec.uucp (Darrell Grainger) writes: > figuring for the Toaster would be the following: > > - Amiga 2500 (or equivalent) > - Add 2 meg to the accelerator > - Add 2 meg to the A2091 > - Toaster > - 1084 monitor > - Time Based Corrector (TBC) > - video deck > - camera with video deck capibilities > > I know how much the computer equipment costs because I sell it. You would be > looking at $5300 (maybe less; I'm guessing high). A camera with TBC, and vide > deck with TBC costs $20000? I don't think so. What does Byte think you need o > the video end of a Toaster setup? Well, right off the bat you need to have more than one input source to do the fancy transitions unless you like doing them with still buffer images. Cameras do not require TBC's nor do Laserdisc players. I would say you need at least 2 input sources and an output recorder. If you use 2 tape machines for input, you need two TBCs or a single dual-TBC. TBC's (any worth a crap) cost >$2500 each. Any reasonable tape machines (any worth a crap again) cost >$2500 each. This starts to add up. You didn't even mention the second monitor..you DO want to see what the program is don't you? <grin> You see if you are talking a "real" setup, you are talking pretty darn close to $20k. Also, you were talking hardware..minimal hardware. First of all, you also need a single frame controller for any 3d animation...>$1300. You also need more than a single hard disk. I would suggest a removable type of media...hey..those Toaster frames are around 750k a piece... You see, it all adds up. You can wimp along for under $10k..but you will not be able to take advantage of what the Toaster is all about. -- Bob InterNet: root@graphics.rent.com | Raven Enterprises UUCP: ...rutgers!bobsbox!graphics!root | 25 Raven Avenue BitNet: root%graphics.rent.com@pucc | Piscataway, NJ 08854 Home #: 908/560-7353 | 908/271-8878
dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) (03/03/91)
In article <1991Mar2.013632.24056@comspec.uucp> darrell@comspec.uucp (Darrell Grainger) writes: |In article <1991Mar1.024207.29305@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, stevew@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Steven L Wootton) writes: ||[From 3/91 issue of BYTE:] || It's not the Toaster's fault, but it'll cost you to really put it to || full use. Around $25,000 for a starter setup (including the Amiga) is || reasonable. || | I was a little shocked to see the price tag Byte has put to the Toaster. My |figuring for the Toaster would be the following: | |- Amiga 2500 (or equivalent) |- Add 2 meg to the accelerator |- Add 2 meg to the A2091 |- Toaster |- 1084 monitor |- Time Based Corrector (TBC) |- video deck |- camera with video deck capibilities | | I know how much the computer equipment costs because I sell it. You would be |looking at $5300 (maybe less; I'm guessing high). A camera with TBC, and video |deck with TBC costs $20000? I don't think so. What does Byte think you need on |the video end of a Toaster setup? | I was under the impression that a canonical toaster set up really needs three high-quality monitors: one for preview, one for the toaster software, and one for the output. Depending on what monitors you get, you could run the price up over 10G... but I would have to agree that 20G's is awfully high... || Darrell Grainger (darrell@comspec) |Comspec Communications Inc. | -- Dave Schaumann dave@cs.arizona.edu 'Dog Gang'! Where do they get off calling us the 'Dog Gang'? I'm beginning to think the party's over. I'm beginning to think maybe we don't need a dog. Or maybe we need a *new* dog. Or maybe we need a *cat*! - Amazing Stories
tucker@tahoe.unr.edu (Aaron Tucker) (03/03/91)
Your flames to BYTE are undeserved, in my opinion. You would love to have BYTE condemn the IBM, MAC, SUN, etc. to doom because the AMIGA is here. I love the AMIGA as much as or more than you do. But, there is a place for other machines as well. BYTE started out as an IBM only magazine and has been expanding thier coverage of machines. I don't hear you complaining about not seeing ATARI in there. How come? The articles about the AMIGA that have been printed have been positive. You should be glad that they don't condemn it becuase AMIGA only displays 16 colors in HIRES, jittering all over the screen. What about advertisers? Commodore would be wise to advertise thier 3000UX in there, and maybe the 3000 in a multimedia ad. That's about it. Personally, I think they would get more mileage out of INFOWORLD or RESELLER NEWS. Secondly, the people advertising in BYTE now, are mostly IBM product manufactures and clone manufacturers. Why would they advertise in a magazine that spent 25% or more of its pages dedicated to a machine that couldn't use it's products? Why would an IBM user read BYTE when he could have a 100% IBM machine magazine in PC MAGAZINE? Reconsider your point of view. The AMIGA is great, but it is not everything. Each computer has its strengths and weaknesses, and there are magazines devoted to each one. If there is misinformation about the AMIGA, or an omission where there should be a comment, then let the editors know. But if you want AMIGA coverage, look to an AMIGA magazine first. Juan Trevino Modern Media
stevew@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Steven L Wootton) (03/04/91)
In article <5667@tahoe.unr.edu> tucker@tahoe.unr.edu (Aaron Tucker) writes: >BYTE started out as an IBM only magazine and has been expanding thier >coverage of machines. Eh? BYTE is five years older than the IBM PC. You have the evolution reversed: it is only in recent years (5 or so) that BYTE has come to look so much like PC Magazine. The March 1991 issue looks frighteningly like PC-Computing, a high-gloss rag for management-types. Ah, well. See you all in the Circuit Cellar. Ink, that is. Steve Wootton stevew@ecn.purdue.edu stevew@pur-ee.uucp stevew%ecn.purdue.edu@purccvm.bitnet
pswanson@umvlsi.ecs.umass.edu (Paul Swanson) (03/04/91)
In article <1991Mar2.004532.13380@midway.uchicago.edu> jcav@ellis.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) writes: [...] >My point is that, however many Macs are actually out there, it is safe to >assume that almost all of them can run current software. > Actually it is probably more accurate to say that only a few Macs can run the current software and that the vast majority of them can only walk it. i.e. much current software requires a very fast Mac to get any sort of reasonable response time.
alex@bilver.uucp (Alex Matulich) (03/04/91)
In article <990@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) writes: >>> BTW, rather than just gripe on Usenet, I sent a letter to Langa [...] >> So how do you send Fred Langa a letter? (email address) >I'll explain this real slowly, ok? First of all, there's this place >called "the real world". If you turn your head away from the terminal >screen, you'll catch a small glimpse of it. I would think that the guy has an account on BIX. Isn't that reasonable, considering his magazine runs it? -- _ |__ Alex Matulich (alex@bilver.UUCP) /(+__> Unicorn Research Corp, 4621 N Landmark Dr, Orlando, FL 32817 //| \ UUCP: ...uunet!tarpit!bilver!alex ///__) bitnet: IN%"bilver!alex@uunet.uu.net"
soh@shiva.trl.oz (kam hung soh) (03/04/91)
tucker@tahoe.unr.edu (Aaron Tucker) writes: >[ ... ] BYTE started out as an IBM only magazine and has >been expanding thier coverage of machines. Ummm ... `Byte' started long before the IBM-PC became synonymous with "Personal Computing". That's why some of us old-timers become misty-eyed when we remember the breadth of articles that used to appear in them good ol' days. ------------ Soh, Kam Hung email: h.soh@trl.oz.au tel: +61 03 541 6403 Telecom Research Laboratories, P.O. Box 249, Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia
mark@calvin..westford.ccur.com (Mark Thompson) (03/05/91)
In article <9833@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: >From article <1991Mar1.024207.29305@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, by stevew@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Steven L Wootton): >> - System requirements >> Amiga 2000 or 2500 with 7 MB of memory, an Amiga 1080-series or >> compatible monitor, and an empty video slot >Does it really require 7 meg of memory? That's something I didn't know. I >mean, I knew it took a lot of memory, but I didn't know it took THAT much. >Is that BEFORE modules (tracing, painting) are loaded, or is that DVI with >both loaded??? 5MB is enough to run the switcher, DVE, and the bare bones of Lightwave. To really use the Toaster however requires about 7MB. Without this much memory you will sacrifice motion removal for the frame capture, much of the functionality of Toaster Paint, and all but the most rudimentary images from Lightwave. %~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~% % ` ' Mark Thompson % % --==* RADIANT *==-- mark@westford.ccur.com % % ' Image ` ...!{decvax,uunet}!masscomp!mark % % Productions (508)392-2480 (603)424-1829 % % % ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
farren@sat.com (Michael J. Farren) (03/05/91)
jcav@ellis.uchicago.edu writes: [On Macs and software compatibility] >If you mean application software, then the major gulf is between programs that >REQUIRE color and those that take advantage if it's there but still work >fine when it's not. Hardly. The major gulf is between programs which require major amounts of memory (not available on standard old Macs without major surgery) and those which do not. And since the latest versions of *most* of the powerhouse Mac applications require major memory (even without running Multifinder), the poor folks with their original Macs are out-o'-luck. Color is not an issue, at least not with the apps that people actually use a lot (Word, PageMaker, Freehand, etc.). -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Michael J. Farren farren@sat.com | | He's moody, but he's cute. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
jerry@truevision.com (Jerry Thompson) (03/05/91)
In article <1991Mar1.024207.29305@en.ecn.purdue.edu> stevew@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Steven L Wootton) writes: >- What you'll dislike > It's not the Toaster's fault, but it'll cost you to really put it to > full use. Around $25,000 for a starter setup (including the Amiga) is > reasonable. $25,000 for a starter system?! The equipment in our quite useable setup is only about $5000. For $25,000 you should be able to setup a 3 camera studio with 3/4" decks! -- Jerry Thompson | // checks ___________ | "I'm into S&M, I loved the peace and solitude | \\ // and | | | | Sarcasm and so much, I invited my friends. | \X/ balances /_\ | /_\ | Mass Sarcasm."
ptoper@obelix (Andy Nagy) (03/05/91)
In article <990@caslon.cs.arizona.edu>, dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) writes: > >> BTW, rather than just gripe on Usenet, I sent a letter to Langa [...] > > So how do you send Fred Langa a letter? (email address) > I'll explain this real slowly, ok? First of all, there's this place [stuff deleted] > Dave Schaumann dave@cs.arizona.edu If you read carefully my original message I was inquiring about an email address, not sarcasm. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Andy Nagy (ptoper@asterix.gaul.csd.uwo.ca) The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada "Dee do do do, dee da da da, thats all I want to say to you" -- The Police
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (03/05/91)
In article <91059.184958CXW148@psuvm.psu.edu> CXW148@psuvm.psu.edu writes: > A review of a multimedia product (software, I believe), for the IBM >actually stated that the product was slow, and the interface exceedingly poor. >The reviewer's conclusion was, "If this is the best IBM animation product >produced, my money's on Apple." > Apple? An article about an IBM animation program, and he compares it to > _Apple's_ animation!!? In BYTE's defense, I think they've managed to improve recently. They have had more Amiga information. I, for one, don't buy BYTE specifically to hear about Amigas, or PCs, or anything that's real system specific. I buy it to hear about goings on the computer industry as a whole. Things like the Video Toaster, or perhaps the article on Exec from a month or two ago are reasonably significant to the industry. I don't think a review of "BlazeMonger IV" for the Amiga, or the 5,768,347th way to write a TSR for MS-DOS would be a reasonable thing to read about in BYTE. Of course, like most magazines, BYTE doesn't [a] write all their own articles, or [b] have editorial staff with knowledge of every system. They can't do all that much about the former as long as they solicit articles from the outside (necessary for anyone trying to do something beyond reviews and editorials). The latter is a problem -- you would expect any member of the editorial staff assigned a particular review, etc. to be knowledgeable in the field. If that field is dominated by Amigas or Suns, the article should certainly at least mention these other system, rather than misleading the reader. They also don't automatically know about every product introduced. They are, after all, tracking quite a few. If a company releases a new goody, and doesn't tell BYTE about it by sending them a press release, BYTE probably won't show it in their "What's New" section (or whatever that's called now). On the other hand, if they publish announcements of software package type A for IBM, they should publish that same type for any machine they get a press release about. It shouldn't surprise anyone that there are more things released for PClones than for Amigas, Macs, Suns, NeXTs, Ataris, whatevers; there are simply more of those toys out there. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "What works for me might work for you" -Jimmy Buffett
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (03/05/91)
In article <5667@tahoe.unr.edu> tucker@tahoe.unr.edu (Aaron Tucker) writes: >BYTE started out as an IBM only magazine and has been expanding thier >coverage of machines. Perhaps you're new to this industry? BYTE started out long before there was an IBM PC. It may appear to the newcomer that they started out as an IBM magazine and have been expanding, but that's simply what people have been complaining about over the years -- BYTE never was PC only, but at a certain point in BYTE's life it was awfully hard to tell this. Personally, I think they're getting better. Back in the 70s or early 80s, BYTE was the place you went to read about computer science when you were not quite a computer scientist. Kind of like the way you can read about mathematics, physics, etc. in Scientific American, at a reasonably detailed level, without having to be a professional. Though the articles were, in many cases, of interest to professionals as well. Most of the good stuff didn't center specifically on any platform or OS, unless the thrust of the article was about that (eg, the Amiga Exec article, the one on the PICK OS from long ago, etc). While they still have some ways to go to get back to that "golden age of BYTE", I have noticed a change for the better over the past 6-12 months. >Juan Trevino -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "What works for me might work for you" -Jimmy Buffett
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (03/05/91)
In article <61774@masscomp.westford.ccur.com> mark@calvin.westford.ccur.com (Mark Thompson) writes: >In article <9833@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: >>From article <1991Mar1.024207.29305@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, by stevew@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Steven L Wootton): >>> - System requirements >>> Amiga 2000 or 2500 with 7 MB of memory, an Amiga 1080-series or >>Does it really require 7 meg of memory? ... >5MB is enough to run the switcher, DVE, and the bare bones of Lightwave. >To really use the Toaster however requires about 7MB. That's not really unique to the Toaster, at least as far as the rendering goes. Most Amiga-based rendering programs eat memory. The Starship Enterprise images that Bill Koester did for his animation could only be rendered on a loaded system (the only one we had, back then, with 16MB of 32 bit memory, plus an additional 4MB 16 bit Fast memory). That was under Sculpt-3D. A ray tracing program itself would typically use less memory than a renderer using faster and more clever rendering mechanisms, like what you get with the Toaster. >% ` ' Mark Thompson % -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "What works for me might work for you" -Jimmy Buffett
plouff@kali.enet.dec.com (Wes Plouff) (03/05/91)
In article <2417@ria.ccs.uwo.ca>, ptoper@obelix (Andy Nagy) writes... > If you read carefully my original message I was inquiring about an >email address, not sarcasm. Actually, *I* was the guy who wrote the letter, and I did send it to Byte's office in Peterborough, N.H., at the address on the masthead. As far as I know, Fred Langa is available electronically only on BIX. -- Wes Plouff, Digital Equipment Corp, Maynard, Mass. plouff@kali.enet.dec.com Networking bibliography: _Islands in the Net_, by Bruce Sterling _The Matrix_, by John S. Quarterman
dac@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au (Andrew Clayton) (03/05/91)
In article <2766@trlluna.trl.oz>, kam hung soh writes: > Ummm ... `Byte' started long before the IBM-PC became synonymous with > "Personal Computing". That's why some of us old-timers become > misty-eyed when we remember the breadth of articles that used to > appear in them good ol' days. But now that we have access to USEnet, among others, we have an infinitely more useful resource to plunder for our own use. Getting source code ON PAPER is a pain in the neck. Getting absolutes on paper is plainly stupid. I can (and do) get comp.binaries.amiga, with a wealth of information in it, all for the cost of a phone call. Networks are far far better than magazines, even ones as good as Byte once was. > Soh, Kam Hung email: h.soh@trl.oz.au tel: +61 03 541 6403 Dac -- David Andrew Clayton. // _l _ _ dac@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au *or*|I post.I am. Canberra, Australia.\X/ (_](_l(_ ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au!prolix!dac@munnari.oz
plouff@kali.enet.dec.com (Wes Plouff) (03/06/91)
tucker@tahoe.unr.edu (Aaron Tucker, or is it Juan Trevino?) writes: >Your flames to BYTE are undeserved, in my opinion. You would love to have >BYTE condemn the IBM, MAC, SUN, etc. to doom because the AMIGA is here. This thread has actually not been full of flames, in contrast to other Byte topics in recent months. We are discussing, I think, Byte's claim of good Amiga coverage that editor Fred Langa made in the February letters column. >BYTE started out as an IBM only magazine and has >been expanding thier coverage of machines. Quite the opposite. Anybody who can tell you the story behind the name "Virginia Londoner Green Helmers" can fill you in. kdarling@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes: >plouff@kali.enet.dec.com (Wes Plouff) writes: >>But consider this: Byte has never run a full review of any Amiga >>machine, complete with benchmarks. >BYTE Oct '86 had a six page Review on the A1000, including benchmarks >against the IBM PC and Apple IIe. I stand corrected, and you make a telling point. >...But you bring >up an interesting topic: what products would you review against each other? My short list was: A3000, A3000UX, AmigaVision, Video Toaster, Imagine, survey of accelerator cards, AMAX II, survey of 24-bit video cards. Some of these may seem too obvious to review, but the microcomputer world at large does not know about these products. I chose them as comparable to the kind of thing that Byte already reviews, but better. The list may reveal my hardware bias. :-) daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >In BYTE's defense, I think they've managed to improve recently. They have had >more Amiga information. I, for one, don't buy BYTE specifically to hear about >Amigas, or PCs, or anything that's real system specific. I buy it to hear >about goings on the computer industry as a whole. Things like the Video >Toaster, or perhaps the article on Exec from a month or two ago are reasonably >significant to the industry. I don't think a review of "BlazeMonger IV" for >the Amiga, or the 5,768,347th way to write a TSR for MS-DOS would be a >reasonable thing to read about in BYTE. Mostly agreed. Two years ago I was passing through Peterborough and stopped at Byte's offices to talk with an editor about benchmarks. Having no appointment, I had plenty of time to read Byte's marketing literature on the reception room table. It was full of stuff about decision makers, power users, and the IBM PC. (A few mentions of Macintosh were thrown in.) But there was nothing about it being a general industry magazine. What got me writing the letter to Fred Langa, and answering in this thread on Usenet, was simply this: If Byte never claimed to have any special Amiga coverage, I would still read it for its articles on technology and trends in computing. I am pleased to see Amiga coverage when it appears, in articles such as "The Four Multimedia Gospels." But Fred Langa said that he was proud of Byte's Amiga coverage, that it was the best of the non-machine-specific magazines. My points are: large number of mentions does not equal depth of coverage, and lack of Amiga-oriented reviews is not "good" coverage when there are products plainly superior to the MS-DOS or Macintosh products that do get reviewed. It's worth rereading Stan Seiler's letter and Langa's response. Seiler complained that Byte has "blindness to the Amiga." Langa responded, "Byte is not an Amiga-hostile magazine!" Problem is, they're both right. -- Wes Plouff, Digital Equipment Corp, Maynard, Mass. plouff@kali.enet.dec.com Networking bibliography: _Islands in the Net_, by Bruce Sterling _The Matrix_, by John S. Quarterman
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (03/06/91)
In article <5667@tahoe.unr.edu> tucker@tahoe.unr.edu (Aaron Tucker) writes: > Your flames to BYTE are undeserved, in my opinion ... BYTE started out > as an IBM only magazine ... What have you been smoking? "BYTE... the small systems journal" predates the IBM-PC by at least 2 years. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) (03/06/91)
tucker@tahoe.unr.edu (Aaron Tucker) writes: >Your flames to BYTE are undeserved, in my opinion. You would love to have >BYTE condemn the IBM, MAC, SUN, etc. to doom because the AMIGA is here. I >love the AMIGA as much as or more than you do. But, there is a place for >other machines as well. BYTE started out as an IBM only magazine and has >been expanding thier coverage of machines. I don't hear you complaining >about not seeing ATARI in there. How come? Not quite correct, BYTE started out *LONG* before the IBM PC ever hit the market, they were covering apple II's when they were new. they were covering CP/M machines. BYTE's been around a while. > >Juan Trevino >Modern Media UUCP: {amdahl!tcnet, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) (03/06/91)
In article <2766@trlluna.trl.oz> soh@shiva.trl.oz (kam hung soh) writes: >tucker@tahoe.unr.edu (Aaron Tucker) writes: > >>[ ... ] BYTE started out as an IBM only magazine and has >>been expanding thier coverage of machines. > >Ummm ... `Byte' started long before the IBM-PC became synonymous with >"Personal Computing". That's why some of us old-timers become >misty-eyed when we remember the breadth of articles that used to >appear in them good ol' days. In it's day, Byte was a great magazine. So many different systems to drool over. And lots of source code! These days, I guess Byte just wants to make a buck. Remember Byte taking on Microsoft, because their CPM compilers sucked? I still have some of those old issues. Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP frog!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP
kopnicky@spotted.rice.edu (Lyle Warren Kopnicky) (03/08/91)
You're right. I'm tired of Commodore's lame advertising scheme of pushing only the educational/gaming aspects of the A500. They make it sound like the A2000 and other machines don't even exist, or if they do they're glorified Commodore 64's. The TV ads were on for such a short time they seem like ghosts in my memory. What they need to do is to develop a new advertising angle, showing off the incredible flexibility and power of the A2000+ series to business users. Both IBM and Mac have a lot of compari son ads. If these work for them, why is Commodore afraid to use them? Or are they afraid of the lack of top-notch Amiga business software? Who cares? All they need to show are the incredible multitasking, the advanced multimedia programs and video hardware. Once the computer starts to catch on in the business world (and note that it DOES have WordPerfect, albeit an old version), big companies will want to develop for it. Still, they persist in advertising little kids playing games on the A500. I'll admit it's better than nothing, but they can really get their act together. Also I wonder why it took Commodore five years plus to come up with an Enhanced Chip Set. When the Amiga came out it was so far ahead in graphics and sound it was incredible. Then Commodore sat around and twiddled their thumbs, content with the technology the Amiga company had developed for them. All they did was develop new OS's and have a lousy PR division. They focused more attention on the 64/128 series than on the Amiga. Now that they've finally figured out which direction they ought to be going in, they're working their butts off developing new technologies and they don't have many resources left for much else. If they had been working this hard a few years ago, we'd already have 24-bit color and 16-bit audio. They're just keeping their heads above water. They have a knack for hitting on the innovative and I hope it happens again. The 64 and Amiga were nothing like other computers when they were introduced. Now they're focusing on developing new hardware that will live up to what other comp uters have, rather than forging ahead. This is because they're so far behind. The 64 and Amiga stuff never influenced other computers much, as far as I know. Maybe Amiga multimedia secretly fuelled this present craze. The graphics never became a standard. That's because quirky stuff like sprites and raster interrupts and blitters and HAM or Halfbrite mode isn't fit for standardization. But it's those things that gave Commodore the edge. I hope that as soon as they're through playing catch-up they ca n develop something new and exciting. Good luck Commodore. - Quantum Seep
hamilton@intersil.uucp (03/12/91)
In article <4279@orbit.cts.com>, chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: > tucker@tahoe.unr.edu (Aaron Tucker) writes: >>Your flames to BYTE are undeserved, in my opinion. You would love to have >>BYTE condemn the IBM, MAC, SUN, etc. to doom because the AMIGA is here. I >>love the AMIGA as much as or more than you do. But, there is a place for >>other machines as well. BYTE started out as an IBM only magazine and has >>been expanding thier coverage of machines. I don't hear you complaining >>about not seeing ATARI in there. How come? > > Not quite correct, BYTE started out *LONG* before the IBM PC ever hit the > market, they were covering apple II's when they were new. they were covering > CP/M machines. BYTE's been around a while. I have to agree. BYTE didn't start out as an IBM-only magazine, it *became* one. I can't tell it from any of the other PC-oriented magazines on the news stands any more: In this issue of BYTE: 27 VGA graphics cards reviewed! Multitasking OS's: We help you choose! How To Get Your Machine To Realize It Has More Than 640K of RAM! How To Use The Memory You Just Found As a 2 Megabyte HD Cache! Newtek's Video Toaster! (oops) -- Fred Hamilton Any views, comments, or ideas expressed here Harris Semiconductor are entirely my own. Even good ones. Santa Clara, CA
dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) (03/12/91)
In article <244.27dbb345@intersil.uucp> hamilton@intersil.uucp writes: |[...] |In this issue of BYTE: | |27 VGA graphics cards reviewed! |Multitasking OS's: We help you choose! |[...] Any mention of the Amiga in this article? -- Dave Schaumann | dave@cs.arizona.edu | Short .sig's rule!