Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lsuc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
From: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura)
Newsgroups: net.micro.68k,net.micro.mac,net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: BYTE issue of September 86 focuses on the 68000
Message-ID: <1321@lsuc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 29-Aug-86 21:41:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: lsuc.1321
Posted: Fri Aug 29 21:41:22 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 29-Aug-86 22:06:58 EDT
References: <3868@ut-ngp.UUCP> <3374@ism780c.UUCP>
Reply-To: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura)
Organization: Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto
Lines: 39
Xref: lsuc net.micro.68k:768 net.micro.mac:5369 net.micro.amiga:4465
Summary: Better to have general coverage

In article <3374@ism780c.UUCP> tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) writes:
>I am very annoyed by this issue of BYTE.  First of all, remember
>the issue they had earlier this year that was ALL Intel/PC 
>stuff?  They said that a later issue would cover 68k stuff.  I 
>expected to see an entire issue of 68k stuff.  Instead we get a 
>regular issue whose theme is 68k.  Arrggghh!!  Unless we get a 
>full 68k issue to restore the balance of the universe, it will 
>wobble off its axis and destroy us all!!!!  :-) 
>

     Actually, I prefer to see increased 68K coverage on a monthly
basis, which I feel *has* been happening, rather than a Byte
Special Issue and the same old "mainly IBM-PC, CP/M and Apple II"
we saw in the past.  Also, I've been *very* glad to see the
variety of 68K coverage we've seen so far.  Note that the DSI
coverage and VME-10 coverage have been in recent issues.  I am
also glad that the Atari ST and Amiga have been very strongly
backed by Byte right from the beginnings of both machines.  The
support which I've received by BIX in the 'os.9' conference has
been very gratifying *even though* OS-9'ers have *not* by and
large shown up.  The only regret I have is that from what I've
heard (and I have not seen the Sept. Byte yet), OS-9 was not covered
in this issue.  On the otherhand, a lot of the OS-9 stuff just
didn't happen over the summer as I expected it would, so I can't
really blame Byte for not publishing much on it.

>Next, many of the articles are badly done.  For example, the Mac vs
>Amiga article is full of errors ( e.g., nearly everything it says about
>DAs, and much of what it says about memory allocation ).
>

     I can't comment on this because I don't have the September issue
yet.

-- 
James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto
ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
Byte Information eXchange: jimomura
(416) 652-3880