Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site 3comvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!sun!idi!oliveb!3comvax!mykes From: mykes@3comvax.UUCP (Mike Schwartz) Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga Subject: Re: InfoWorld review of Amiga Message-ID: <313@3comvax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 31-Dec-85 02:58:19 EST Article-I.D.: 3comvax.313 Posted: Tue Dec 31 02:58:19 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 1-Jan-86 04:49:52 EST References: <617@ihlpm.UUCP> <2511@dragon.fluke.UUCP> <1958@islenet.UUCP> <309@3comvax.UUCP> <365@l5.uucp> Reply-To: mykes@3comvax.UUCP (Mike Schwartz) Organization: 3Com Corp; Mountain View, CA Lines: 92 In article <365@l5.uucp> gnu@l5.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >Please take this article in the spirit in which it's offerred. >I'm not trying to flame Amiga or amiga-lovers, just trying to inject >some reality into Mike Schwartz's critique of a "detrimental" Amiga >review in InfoWorld... > Is this a personal attack? > >Maybe infoworld was one of the sites that got 1.0 after waiting for >1.1. Or maybe they wrote the review a few weeks ago. Lord knows even >the Usenet sometimes takes a few weeks to get an article to me. > They got their Amiga at the same place I got mine. Computer Attic called me on the phone to tell me that they had just gotten in their 1.1 software and that they would make a copy for me. I assume they did this for all of their customers. >> My Amiga crashes all the time when I pass extra parameters to function >> calls, etc., but during normal use, system crashes are rare. > >This is a recommendation of the machine? Traditional 68000 Unix C >compilers don't coredump your C programs when you pass extra >parameters, they just ignore the extras. Let alone crashing the whole >system. Sounds like they botched the function call convention. > You missed the point, it was my bugs that crash the Amiga, not the Amiga's bugs (it does still have a few, but they are RARE). >> "As an aside, we forsee a flood >> of bad software written for the Amiga by programmers unaccustomed to >> multi-tasking programs..." is pretty stupid, if you ask me. > >I've seen too many programs written for SunWindows that sit there >burning 100% of the CPU polling when they should be select()ing. I >suspect that people who buy Suns are more experienced than those >who buy Amigas (on the average, no flames please). So I expect that >many Amiga developers will make the same kinds of mistakes and worse. > Who are these developers that write these SunWindows programs that are worth all the money that SOME people pay for? I doubt these people would survive very long in the Amiga marketplace. After all, they are only competing against guys like Microsoft, Lattice, Electronic Arts, Mindscape, Broderbund, Strategic Simulations, and Aztec. Other companies you can expect to see software from in the future are Lotus, MicroPro, Borland, and other such companies (when the market is right). These must be the inexperienced guys that InfoWorld was talking about (sarcasm intended here folks). > >> InfoWorld >> did not even mention a single piece of software that we have all been >> seeing and hearing about since they were anounced and demonstrated at >> the June launch. >> Another quote: "Judging from the number of beta-test programs floating >> around, we can expect to get a chance to judge the software side of the >> Amiga system a lot sooner than we could when the Macintosh was first >> introduced." Well, in June, the Amiga had more software packages announced >> ... > >You are just confirming what they said. "There's lots of software being >announced and demoed and beta-tested and very little being shipped yet." > >I'm glad InfoWorld hasn't fallen to the level of Byte in reviewing random >alpha test stuff to beat their ridiculous lead times for articles. >I want a review that tells me what I get if I walk in and buy one. They DIDN'T tell you what you'd get if you walked in and bought one. OR The DIDN'T tell you what you'd get if you walked in and bought one (and just in time for the Christmas buying season, too), did they. They told you what you could have bought a while ago. That is what I wrote my original article about. They also didn't tell you what you could expect to buy down the road, just that the road was a lot closer than for any machine. Seems like this fact would be a great reason to buy a new machine with potentially no software. I admit that potentially, there is no software for the Amiga, but the sun might not rise tomorrow either (no pun intended). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= OK, why do I have to defend myself? I stated my opinions, and I hope you liked reading them. I like the fact that I got a response, too. I think that it is a bad habit to confuse a rebuttal with personal remarks. I see it all over the place in this newsgroup and between this newsgroup and the Atari one. Let's try to start a rebuttal by saying something like I have a different opinion, or this is how I see things... It sure would be a lot nicer. I appologize for using this paragraph as a soapbox, but I couldn't help myself. I think John Gilmore meant what he said at the beginning of his response "Please take this article in the spirit in which it's offered" to mean that what I originally wrote did not offend him or get him angry (or whatever), just that he had a different view. Then he fell into the typical flame the last guy who wrote anything mode that we all seem to go into.