Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!helios!bcm!rice!uw-beaver!milton!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!caen!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!lll-winken!taco!hobbes!kdarling From: kdarling@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: Amiga coverage in Byte Message-ID: <1991Mar2.001907.29010@ncsu.edu> Date: 2 Mar 91 00:19:07 GMT References: <20655@shlump.nac.dec.com> Sender: news@ncsu.edu (USENET News System) Organization: North Carolina State University Lines: 27 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