Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!uwvax!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!amdimage!prls!philabs!linus!raybed2!applicon!hdsvx1!soma!rice!titan!wert
From: wert@titan.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro.68k,net.micro.mac,net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: BYTE issue of September 86 focuses on the 68000
Message-ID: <213@dione.rice.EDU>
Date: Thu, 4-Sep-86 14:40:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: dione.213
Posted: Thu Sep  4 14:40:29 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 8-Sep-86 20:59:10 EDT
References: <3868@ut-ngp.UUCP> <3374@ism780c.UUCP>
Sender: root@rice.EDU
Reply-To: wert@titan.UUCP (Scott Comer)
Organization: Rice University, Houston
Lines: 18
Xref: mnetor net.micro.68k:1195 net.micro.mac:6931 net.micro.amiga:4583

Also, somewhere in this issue is a box detailing all the things that one
must do to resize a window (on a Macintosh and on an Amiga). This is
presented as a comparison, supposedly demonstrating that the Amiga is
better than the Macintosh because you have to do less to resize a window.
The operation was expressed as one step for the Amiga, seven (more or
less, I don't have it in front of me) for the Macintosh.

This is misleading, because in any application that I have ever written,
that code appeared once and only once. Ignored is the possibility that the
Macintosh method allows greater flexibility, etc. A casual, uninformed
reader would conclude that the Amiga was better, and that was the intent
of the demonstration.

This is yellow journalism to the max, and certainly worthy of The National
Inquirer. All in the guise of objectivity.

I quit buying BYTE years ago...
scott