A Letter to Byte Magazine
Bertram Moshier
Richard Hodges asked that I repost this letter to Byte. He doubts they
will publish it. He asks everyone to feel free in reposting this
letter. It is already on the IBM BBS (404/835-6600) and CIS.
Bert Moshier
Richard E. Hodges
hod...@ee.ucla.edu
BYTE Magazine
One Phoenix Mill Lane
Peterborough, NH 03458
let...@bytepb.byte.com
Editor:
Over the years, I have looked to BYTE for a broader view of computer
technology than one typically finds in periodicals which are devoted to
one specific platform. Therefore, the present trend of BYTE magazine to
devote itself to Microsoft Windows and related products is
disappointing. Last year, after I received a Windows Special Edition it
occurred to me that BYTE Magazine was becoming too narrowly focused.
Less than a year later, a second Windows Special Edition arrived. To a
large extent, these publications appear to be little more than thinly
veiled advertising supplements.
This trend continues with the June 1993 article, "Windows, Windows
Everywhere?" John Udell appears to be mesmerized by the marketing
mavens at Microsoft. He states that "The 'Windows everywhere'
strategy... makes a great deal of sense..." However, one can easily
argue that "Windows Everywhere" is simply a marketing concept. Its
purpose is to disguise the fact that Microsoft lags behind in 32-bit
systems and object oriented software technology. Instead, they invested
heavily in 16-bit software: DOS and Windows. When more advanced
systems such as OS/2, NeXT, and UnixWare appear, the limitations of
Windows becomes plainly obvious. So, we are told that the 16-bit
Windows API represents the core of a grand plan for operating systems
which encompass everything from small hand-held devices to
multi-processor super computers. This is absurd! In an attempt to
recover from earlier mistakes, Microsoft has created a set of
disconnected and unrelated API functions, patched together on various
incongruous systems, and named them "Win-something" so they appear to
represent a consistent and comprehensive strategy.
If this family of API's is so well-planned and closely related, then why
is Win32s needed? Ooops! Forgot that 32-bit API in DOS/Windows!
Ooops! Forgot that memory management! Ooops! Forgot those threads!
Why is Win32c needed? Ooops! Forgot that object oriented stuff when we
copied the Mac! Ooops! Forgot that drag and drop function! So,
DOS/Windows is a good multimedia platform? Ooops! Forgot that
preemptive multitasking! So, NT is supposed to be useful as a high end
graphics workstation? Ooops! Forgot those graphics APIs in Win32! So,
NT is supposed to be a great network server? Ooops! Forgot those
network protocols! So, NT is supposed to be a good client workstation?
Ooops! Forgot downward compatibility! Ooops! Forgot hardware cost!
We need a much more critical appraisal of the "Windows Everywhere"
strategy. In view of the grandiose claims, a careful look at
Microsoft's track record is warranted. Every new Windows release to
date has been characterized by poor downward compatibility and
questionable reliability. Until Windows 3.1 the performance was lousy
and it still isn't great. Udell acknowledges this, but seems determined
to sweep the dirt under the rug. He states that DOS/Windows 3.1 (for
Workgroups) runs "nicely". Well, except when, "Windows 3.1 suffers from
one of its unpredictable seizures, I waste time reestablishing my
context and sometimes lose data." Bill Gates claims that back in 1987
he wanted to target the 386 for OS/2, rather than the "brain dead" 286.
Six years later, the job still isn't done properly (at least not by
Microsoft). Is this the company that we should trust to be the master
architect of everything from toasters to control of the nuclear arsenal?
What is the credibility of a company with this track record?
I'd like to ask, "John, if you believe your mission is critical, then
how do you judge Windows 3.1 to be acceptable?" Evidently, he doesn't:
Udell appears anxious to jump to a 486 to run NT. Is that we should do?
Pour 16 Megs of RAM into a 486 and buy an extra hard disk to hold the
system? And give up a load of our DOS and Windows programs because they
may not run? The extravagant NT solution apparently doesn't quite work
even if your software will run. Udell recommends, "Even if you can run
NT, however, you might opt to trade its stability (which costs you
system overhead) for the speed you could wring out of Windows 3.1
running Win32s applications on the same hardware." Excuse me? So,
Windows 3.1 seems fast by comparison?
Udell goes on to say, "The point isn't which one you choose, but simply
that you have a choice." Some choice! You either get a system that
doesn't work properly or one that costs a fortune and runs your software
slowly, if at all. Udell finally concludes that, "Almost no one can
afford to ignore the power and mass appeal of a family of compatible
Windows operating systems." I disagree. If you look at ALL your
choices--not just the TWO in the Windows "family"--it is surprisingly
easy to ignore the "appeal" of Windows.
A DIFFERENT EXPLANATION OF "WINDOWS EVERYWHERE"
A review of recent history provides a different interpretation of
"Windows Everywhere" and the alphabet soup of associated API functions.
Microsoft created the 16-bit Windows API as a way to make a fortune
selling a cheap imitation of the Macintosh. Prior to Windows 3.0, OS/2
was positioned as "the future". Microsoft promised to develop a full
line of applications software for OS/2 and evangelized the technical
advantages of the system. Instead, they poured enormous resources into
Windows marketing and Windows applications while providing only token
support for OS/2. Thus, vendors such as Lotus and WordPerfect were
duped into developing for OS/2 instead of Windows. Due to poor planning
and the limitations imposed by DOS, the 16-bit Windows API was an
awkward design. As Steve Ballmer said, "There are a lot of gotchas in
Windows." Consequently, it was difficult for others to learn to write
Windows applications that work properly. As a result, Microsoft's
primary competitor's initial Windows products were not only late, they
were generally inferior.
This gave Microsoft a commanding position. While WordPerfect, Lotus,
Borland and others were struggling to catch up on 16-bit Windows,
Microsoft could continue work on high level functions to support their
next generation of applications software. These include functions such
as Object Linking and Embedding, Multimedia and pen extensions.
Eventually, competitors would discover how to make Windows programs work
properly. But, by the time they do so Microsoft would have a new
generation of applications built on more advanced API functions. So,
the competition always remains a step behind: Windows is a moving
target.
Several years ago, when they split up with IBM, Microsoft regarded OS/2
as a dead project. They assumed IBM would not finish OS/2 2.0 quickly,
and in any event OS/2 was of little concern. There was very little
applications software for OS/2. IBM wouldn't support the PC-clone
market. OS/2's true multitasking required more hardware resources than
DOS/Windows, limiting its market to 386-class machines. Most
importantly, the bureaucratic overhead within IBM made it impossible for
them to adapt to the rapidly changing personal computer software market.
But, IBM gave Microsoft a series of surprises. First, IBM reorganized
the development process and called in expertise from other divisions.
This sharply accelerated the development effort. Next, IBM utilized
their work on OfficeVision to create an object oriented shell with
functionality similar to the Macintosh. To cover the paucity of native
16-bit OS/2 applications, IBM announced that OS/2 would run Windows
programs. Interestingly, a touch of hubris caused Microsoft to believe
Windows applications could not run efficiently on OS/2. I still recall
reading Steve Ballmer's statement that running Windows programs under
OS/2 was "impossible" because Microsoft had tried and could not do it.
To stimulate 32-bit applications development, IBM revamped their
Developers Assistance Program and made low cost OS/2 development tools
widely available.
* Origin: The Warehouse (1:282/115) | 612-379-8272 | 10 Nodes (1:282/115.0)
Bertram Moshier
The "Blue Ninja", Lee Reiswig, appeared from out of nowhere. Lee put a
friendly, human face on a faceless bureaucracy. The Blue Ninja became a
focal point for a renewed sense of excitement about OS/2. IBM sold Blue
Ninja Tee-Shirts and video tapes of Lee demonstrating the latest beta
versions of OS/2. Lee demonstrated OS/2 on clone computers. Lee
appeared live on CompuServe. Other "New IBMers" soon followed suit.
IBM opened a BBS and solicited suggestions for OS/2. These efforts gave
people a sense that IBM was doing their best to deliver. A grass roots
effort emerged from OS/2 users who were abandoned by Microsoft and were
angered over Microsoft's arrogance. OS/2 Bulletin Boards appeared.
OS/2 user groups began popping up. "Team OS/2" was born. OS/2 was not
just an upgrade, it was a movement.
These developments left Microsoft with a dilemma. OS/2 had leapfrogged
Windows technology and exposed the limitations of Microsoft's 16-bit
DOS-based operating systems strategy. But, Microsoft needed to protect
its investment in 16-bit Windows applications which were being designed
around OLE, extensions such as "Pen Windows", and an ill-conceived
multimedia effort. In view of the well-publicized problems with
DOS/Windows, Microsoft could not argue the merits of 16-bit DOS-based
technology. Worse still, a 32-bit Windows equivalent to OS/2 was either
not in development or was years away. Microsoft had no specific
technology developed to provide a comprehensive object oriented
Graphical User Interface. What they had was nascent work on OS/2 3.0.
From a marketing standpoint, the problem was to explain that Microsoft
would produce a functional equivalent of OS/2 based on the Windows API
without giving legitimacy to IBM's claims about OS/2. If "DOS 7/Windows
4" was nothing more than OS/2 2.0, then Independent Software Vendors
could seize the opportunity to gain an advantage over Microsoft by
targeting OS/2 for 32-bit applications.
The solution to this dilemma was "Windows Everywhere".
The key idea of "Window Everywhere" is to get people to believe in "New
Technology". Talk about the advantages of microkernel technology. Talk
about security. Talk about UNICODE. Talk about symmetric
multiprocessing. Talk about the technology to run DOS, Windows, OS/2,
Posix, or ANYTHING! Don't mention the fact that practically nobody has
the hardware to support this system, or that applications software to
utilize these features was years away. Say anything that distracts
attention from the fact that you are selling an unreliable, inefficient
add-on to a 10 year old, real-mode, non-reentrant, interrupt-driven
program loader.
To lure Independent Software Vendors, "Windows Everywhere" offers a kind
of "magic dust" that will end their cross-platform support problems.
Microsoft claims that Windows programs will run on any computer with
nothing but a simple recompile. Windows programs will run under Unix
through an emulator. "Wings" will let you recompile into a native
Macintosh application. Sounds great! But, we need to question the
credibility of these sweeping claims.
The hardware independent Windows NT claims are totally unproven. Even
if the technology works, how many years before the bugs are ironed out?
How efficient is it? Is this better than using object oriented
languages or development tools which offer cross-platform support? If
Microsoft believes in "Windows Everywhere" then why did they attempt to
sabotage IBM's efforts to support Windows under OS/2? Will they try to
do the same thing with Unix? How is porting Windows programs to the Mac
different from Microsoft's failed efforts to port them to native OS/2
1.x? Surely, the OS/2 1.x API is much more similar to Window than the
Mac is.
Even if all of these claims are true, Independent Software Vendors must
still aim at a shadowy moving target in "Windows Everywhere". Should
one build to Win32 when it appears that high level functionality of next
generation applications will ultimately be built on higher level APIs,
rather than low level Win32 APIs. How does integrate OLE 2.0, "Cairo",
"Chicago", Win32, Win32s, and who knows what next? This is certainly
not a clear and comprehensive strategy, at least not outside the walls
of Microsoft.
Amazingly, Microsoft gets writers such as John Udell to blindly follow
the promise of an unannounced and apparently undisclosed technology. To
wit, Udell writes, "Details are sketchy; Microsoft understandably
doesn't want to sabotage NT's moment of glory." This followed by the
glowing estimate, "My 9-MB 386/25 runs Windows for Workgroups nicely,
and I expect it will handle Chicago just fine also..." First off, I
seriously doubt details are "sketchy" inside Microsoft Corporation.
Second, how far along is the "Cairo" and "Chicago" technology? Given
that details are sketchy in 1993, should we believe claims that the
system will ship in 1994? To deliver in 1994 they need to begin beta
testing almost immediately! Also, how does Udell know it will run
"nicely" on his particular hardware configuration? Udell recommends
writing programs to the Win32s APIs. Given the murky references to
"Cairo", am I to naively believe, "Gee! Microsoft is making it easier!
Easier to compete with Microsoft!" Sure. If you believe that, then the
"s" in Win32s really stands for "sucker".
Udell is correct to remind us of "software developers who were badly
burned by Microsoft's handling of OS/2." Indeed, that should have been
the theme of his entire article on the "Windows Everywhere" strategy.
SUMMARY
BYTE Magazine owes their readers more responsible reporting of computer
technology than articles such as "Windows, Windows Everywhere?" Udell
raises important questions about the viability of "Windows Everywhere"
compared to other platforms such as Unix and OS/2. But, the analysis of
Windows NT and the "Windows Everywhere" strategy is incredibly vacuous.
After two years of hype, we are finally told that Windows NT will
require too much resources and have too little downward compatibility
for a desktop system. Furthermore, NT's sparse graphics support limits
its value as a graphics workstation, its inability to support multiple
terminals means it can't handle multiple users, and the lack of global
directory services gives pause to question how useful NT is as a network
operating system. In view of these facts, the obvious question is, "Who
needs NT?"
Remarkably, the credibility of this "Windows Everywhere" strategy was
never seriously questioned. Microsoft scarcely has a track record on
multitasking systems. Yet, we are supposed to believe that "version
1.0" of one of the most complex system Microsoft has ever designed will
be a good candidate for a mission critical server. Udell recommends
Win32s and suggests that Windows 4/DOS 7 is "Lurking Offstage". But he
does not say when this may be available. The latest rumors seem to be
late 1994. Given Microsoft's practice of missing ship dates by more
than a year, perhaps that means 1995. It might be more accurate to say
"Chicago" isn't even on its way to the theater.
Regards,
Richard E. Hodges
University of California, Los Angeles
Jason O'Rourke
750-1000 words, a letter to the editor about 250. This was
a 300 line, 2000+ word editorial! Perhaps the writer could
attempt to shorten it a lot.
Byte is far better than PC Mag has been in terms of objectivity.
Jason O'Rourke
Center for EUV Astrophysics
Tom Hatton
>Well, obviously BYTE won't publish this! A normal column is
>750-1000 words, a letter to the editor about 250. This was
>a 300 line, 2000+ word editorial! Perhaps the writer could
>attempt to shorten it a lot.
>Byte is far better than PC Mag has been in terms of objectivity.
Agreed the "letter" was way too long; but Byte more objective than PC
Mag? In the eye of the beholder, I think. Both have been very focused
on Windows, with reason, but have been slow (creeeak, grrooooaaan) to
cover OS/2, and even now they tend to discuss the plus points of NT
(even where they are not different from OS/2 or Unix) and skimp on any
weaknesses, and discuss the negative points about OS/2 more than its
strengths.
There is tremendous inertia in the trade magazines. So far Microsoft
has been able to schmooze writers more effectively, and has benefited
nicely.
--
Tom Hatton
hat...@cgl.ucsf.edu
(415)-476-8693
Steve Withers
I used to make a special trip into town to get the *latest* BYTE, Boardwatch
and OS/2 Monthly when they got off the boat. Now i just buy Boardwatch.
If i want a Windows magazine, I'll buy "Windows" magazine. Goodbye, BYTE,
until I hear different.
I am about to susbribe to OS/2 Professional, though.I e-mailed them and they
e-mailed me back with subscription info. They are switching to paid
subscriptions as they cannot supply the rapidly growning demand for their
magazine.
--
Steve Withers Wellington, New Zealand | Wellington OS/2 Users Group meets
ste...@swell.actrix.gen.nz (all night)| the first Wednesday of each month.
swit...@vnet.ibm.com (all day) | 19:30, Turnbull House, Bowen St,
MMP supporter and OS/2 2.1 user | (next door to the new Parliament
Herbert Baerten
ste...@swell.actrix.gen.nz (Steve Withers) wrote:
>...
> e-mailed me back with subscription info. They are switching to paid
> subscriptions as they cannot supply the rapidly growning demand for their
> magazine.
Is it possible to post the e-mail address, please ?
Thanks,
Herbert.
------------------------------------
Herbert Baerten
Student of Computer Science
Free University of Brussels, Belgium
Internet : tw4...@vub.ac.be
------------------------------------
Steve Withers
>
> I am about to susbribe to OS/2 Professional, though.I e-mailed them and they
> e-mailed me back with subscription info. They are switching to paid
> subscriptions as they cannot supply the rapidly growning demand for their
> magazine.
Eeerrrr......I meant "growing" demand.....:-)
Steve
Ron Jones
>e-mailed me back with subscription info. They are switching to paid
>subscriptions as they cannot supply the rapidly growning demand for their
>magazine.
"June" issue be out by now? I just saw issue 8 of OS/2 monthly at my
local computer store. It seemed to have more ads but is still only about
50 pages.
--
Ronald Jones r...@osu.edu | Office: (614) 292-1665
The Ohio State University | FAX:(9AM-5PM) (614) 292-7151
Ed Geraghty
>In article <1993Jun3.1...@actrix.gen.nz> ste...@swell.actrix.gen.nz (Steve Withers) writes:
>>I am about to susbribe to OS/2 Professional, though.I e-mailed them and they
>>e-mailed me back with subscription info. They are switching to paid
>>subscriptions as they cannot supply the rapidly growning demand for their
>>magazine.
>I'm glad to hear this as I'd like to see it at stores. BTW shouldn't the
>"June" issue be out by now? I just saw issue 8 of OS/2 monthly at my
>local computer store. It seemed to have more ads but is still only about
>50 pages.
I was BSing(sorry brian :) ) with one of the guys from OS/2 Professional.
Their circulation went from 47,000 in 6/92 to 197,000 this month. They
handed out over 9,000 copies of OS/2 Professional in the first two days of
Comdex.
The numbers are from memory, so don't yell at me if they are off. Overall
they are happy with its growth.
*******************************************************************************
Ed Geraghty | "There is no true escape - I am watching
Systems Manager | all the time..." - JP "Electric Eye"
Albert Einstein College of Medicine |
Dynamic Brain Imaging Lab | "Whenever you dream, you're holding a
Bronx, NYC 10461 | key. It opens a door to let you be
email: gera...@aecom.yu.edu | free" - Ronnie James Dio
*******************************************************************************
Conrad Bullock
> I used to make a special trip into town to get the *latest* BYTE, Boardwatch
> and OS/2 Monthly when they got off the boat. Now i just buy Boardwatch.
>
> If i want a Windows magazine, I'll buy "Windows" magazine. Goodbye, BYTE,
> until I hear different.
Well, I always used to think Byte was the bee's knees. Early this
year, I think it went downhill a bit..... However, I think the last
two issues have been quite a bit better - the May issue on the Pentium
(lots of very good info) and Security was good, as is June's, on
Windows' strategy, Client/Server computing, (and an OS/2 2.1 review).
I think they could do without the "116 Fast 486s" bullshit though,
especially as 80% of them are US-only machines - and with Byte's
"Global Strategy"... Anyway... lots more technology-based articles,
and still the best magazine on the market. It takes me days to get
through a Byte - (or a DDJ), but minutes to get through PCMag/PCWorld/
etc.
ne...@nb.rockwell.com
This thread is as good as any to post this frustration. I am an advocate of
Banyan's VINES NOS. I believe it to be far superior for Enterprise Wide
Networking and even smaller networks. I believe this for alot of reasons that
I won't get into here. I also believe that OS/2 is far superior as well.
When it comes to coverage in the trade rags, Novell gets all the press and
all the talk. LAN Times if often called Novell Times by us Banyan followers.
Why? To put it simply, Novell has market share and that is what people want
to read about. What Byte is doing, along with others, is covering what
the people want to read about. You are absolutely correct when you state that
you don't want to read it when it does not cover what you are interested in
anymore. Is that the fault of the magazine? I think not. They are covering
what the majority of readers want. Should you flame Byte for not covering
what you want? ABSOLUTELY! However if they don't listen it does not mean
they are stupid, etc. It only means that the cumulative voice was not loud
enough to be heard. Does this mean Byte is catering to its advertisers? Not
always. I do believe though that the editorial content of a particular
publication is often dictated by the advertisers, whether intended or not.
Oliver Sharp
>What Byte is doing, along with others, is covering what
>the people want to read about. You are absolutely correct when you state that
>you don't want to read it when it does not cover what you are interested in
>anymore. Is that the fault of the magazine? I think not. They are covering
>what the majority of readers want.
By the way, nobody in this thread has made the usual USENET response to
these complaints: if you want more discussion of your favorite environment
in the magazines, go write some articles. It is all very nice to flame away
in these news groups, but you can devote your energy a lot more productively
by writing a letter to Byte's Managing Editor with some good ideas for
articles - the things don't grow on trees, you know; people like you and me
write them. I thought Doctor Dobbs wasn't devoting enough energy to UNIX,
so I wrote a couple of articles for them that are UNIX related. Voila -
more UNIX coverage :-). Give it a try ... you get to make some money, too.
Cheers,
- Oliver
Tom Hatton
>If i want a Windows magazine, I'll buy "Windows" magazine. Goodbye, BYTE,
>until I hear different.
>
>I am about to susbribe to OS/2 Professional, though.I e-mailed them and they
>e-mailed me back with subscription info. They are switching to paid
>subscriptions as they cannot supply the rapidly growning demand for their
I can see why you like OS/2 Pro - you both go in for typos!
<Grin, duck>
Steve Withers
:-)
I can spell just fine.....it's the damn keyboard skills that need the work. I
used to take the time to correct them, but now I only correct it if it makes
the intended meaning unclear...........
Bill Polhemus
Hatton) writes:
TH> joro...@ocf.berkeley.edu (Jason O'Rourke) writes:
TH> >Well, obviously BYTE won't publish this! A normal column is
TH> >750-1000 words, a letter to the editor about 250. This was
TH> >a 300 line, 2000+ word editorial! Perhaps the writer could
TH> >attempt to shorten it a lot.
TH>
TH> >Byte is far better than PC Mag has been in terms of objectivity.
TH>
TH> Agreed the "letter" was way too long; but Byte more objective than PC
TH> Mag? In the eye of the beholder, I think...
TH>
TH> There is tremendous inertia in the trade magazines. So far Microsoft
TH> has been able to schmooze writers more effectively, and has benefited
TH> nicely.
It is unfortunate that there is not a publication that has an editorial
policy and mission similar to Consumer Reports magazine: accepts no
advertisement, strives for complete objectivity in reporting the relative
merits of products and services, etc.
The world of computer hardware and software is competitive and lends itself
to open advocacy for systems and methods, as befits any area of endeavor
that attracts hobbyists. However, from a consumer point of view, these
systems are also what we depend on to get valuable (e.g. "mission critical"
terminology) work done for business, science, engineering, you name it. It
is important for ME as a consumer of products and services to depend on the
straight "skinny" on what's available to me. Seems to me there is in effect
nowhere to turn, everyone has a personal stake in the bottom line.
Bill Polhemus
Team OS/2
internet: bill.p...@bgbbs.sccsi.com
FIDOnet: 1:170/110
* KWQ/2 1.1 * I think we're ALL bozos on this board.
Jeremy Mathers
...
>TH> There is tremendous inertia in the trade magazines. So far Microsoft
>TH> has been able to schmooze writers more effectively, and has benefited
>TH> nicely.
>
>It is unfortunate that there is not a publication that has an editorial
>policy and mission similar to Consumer Reports magazine: accepts no
>advertisement, strives for complete objectivity in reporting the relative
>merits of products and services, etc.
The obvious answer to this is, "Get Consumer Reports interested in computers."
IMHO, this is a better idea than the usual trite answer of "If you want
it, you should do it yourself."
It probably won't be that much longer until CR does get into it. And,
it will be a good thing when they do.
************************************************************************
"It's bad luck to be superstitious."
-- Andrew W. Mathis
- py...@quads.uchicago.edu, who is still costing the net
hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars, every time he posts -
************************************************************************
rwvpf wpnrrj ibf ijrfer
David Charlap
>The obvious answer to this is, "Get Consumer Reports interested in computers."
>IMHO, this is a better idea than the usual trite answer of "If you want
>it, you should do it yourself."
>
>It probably won't be that much longer until CR does get into it. And,
>it will be a good thing when they do.
Consumer's Union (CR's organization) does review computers, but
there's only so much that they can review. They also have to review
cars, air conditioners, household appliances, and laundry detergents
while they're at it. They would require every page of every issue to
give proper coverage to the computer industry.
Now, perhaps they could be convinced to put out a computer-based
magazine in addition to CR...
--
+------------------------+------------------------------------+
| David Charlap | "Apple II forever" - Steve Wozniak |
| dic...@hertz.njit.edu | "I drank what?" - Socrates |
+------------------------+------------------------------------+
Kenton Shaver
dic...@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
> [...]
> >IMHO, this is a better idea than the usual trite answer of "If you want
> >it, you should do it yourself."
> >
> >It probably won't be that much longer until CR does get into it. And,
> >it will be a good thing when they do.
>
> Consumer's Union (CR's organization) does review computers, but
> there's only so much that they can review. They also have to review
> cars, air conditioners, household appliances, and laundry detergents
> while they're at it. They would require every page of every issue to
> give proper coverage to the computer industry.
>
> Now, perhaps they could be convinced to put out a computer-based
> magazine in addition to CR...
This is a totally awesome idea. I would definitely subscribe. I know
at least two of my friends who would want to subsribe also. The
computer industry is bigger than the auto industry now, isn't it?
As it (the c i) gets more mature, something like this will be needed.
KWS
---------------------------------------------
|ken...@CMU.EDU | OS/2 FIXES BROKEN WINDOWS |
---------------------------------------------
Bill Polhemus
JM> Message-ID: <1993Jun6.1...@midway.uchicago.edu>
JM> In article <13158.3...@bgbbs.sccsi.com> bill.p...@bgbbs.sccsi.com (Bill Polhemus) writes:
JM> >It is unfortunate that there is not a publication that has an editorial
JM> >policy and mission similar to Consumer Reports magazine: accepts no
JM> >advertisement, strives for complete objectivity in reporting the relative
JM> >merits of products and services, etc.
JM>
JM> The obvious answer to this is, "Get Consumer Reports interested in computers."
JM> IMHO, this is a better idea than the usual trite answer of "If you want
JM> it, you should do it yourself."
Unfortunately, last time I read a computer-related article in CR, they as
much as said that they could only cover in a very rudimentary fashion the
basic hardware that is considered to be a "home computer" system (i.e.
mid-range MAC or 386SX P.C.)
Apparently, their editorial staff considers extensive coverage of
automobiles to be about their limit as far as in depth reporting of a single
industry is concerned.
And the days of "do it yourself" seem to be over! Startup costs being what
they are.....
JM> It probably won't be that much longer until CR does get into it. And,
JM> it will be a good thing when they do.
Although, come to think of it, why couldn't Consumer's Union, the parent
organization that publishes CR, launch a separate publication geared only
to computer hardware and software? I really think there's a market out
there. Anyone out in Inter-land involved with CU in any capacity? (If you
subscribe to CR, you're a member of CU.)
Bill Polhemus
Team OS/2
internet: bill.p...@bgbbs.sccsi.com
FIDOnet: 1:170/110
* KWQ/2 1.1 * Fate worse than death: to be married alive.
Kendall Willets
any computer magazine lately!
I especially concur with the comments on the slide of Byte in the infomercial
direction; when I saw the "Windows Everywhere" cover I guessed they meant
to inject a touch of Orwellian irony in suggesting a future where
Microsoft has taken over the world and somehow replaced technology with
marketing, but if what you say is true then the editors have already
become organs of the state!
One pattern that seems obvious in the "computer journalism" field is the
tendency for a publisher to put out several magazines, all completely at
odds with each other. Ziff-Davis, for example, routinely heaps praise
upon DOS, say, in one publication, while at the same time lavishing
compliments on some competing product in another. By doing so the
publishing company reduces its total risk in the market, but I think there
is also a tendency to overspecialize at the expense of objectivity.
Whereas a company invested in only one publication would see its best
interest in remaining as objective as possible, an umbrella organization
such as ZD has no need; it simply spins off another "Windows World" or
"Amiga Weekly" or some such, and none of these rags really ever addresses
the question: should I use an Amiga, or a Macintosh? Granted, each
publication will state unequivocally which we should choose, but is such
advice really sincere? If a better alternative really does come along,
does it make sense for one of these mini-magazines to advocate it, or
would it be better just to let sleeping dogs lie? I'm afraid that's why I
consider "computer journalism" to be somewhat improbable.
Who owns Byte?
R Douglas Botimer
Willets) writes:
good comments deleted
:
:Who owns Byte?
McGraw-Hill
Doug
MCBROOM R C
>>50 pages.
>
>I was BSing(sorry brian :) ) with one of the guys from OS/2 Professional.
>Their circulation went from 47,000 in 6/92 to 197,000 this month. They
>handed out over 9,000 copies of OS/2 Professional in the first two days of
>Comdex.
>
>The numbers are from memory, so don't yell at me if they are off. Overall
>they are happy with its growth.
>
home. A little mailing list clutter to inflate the circulation numbers?
Ed Geraghty
You lucky dog...I only get 1 copy... :)
This is what I was told(at COMDEX)...Take the numbers with a grain of
NaCl. But the obvoius trend is increased popularity with OS/2...
Ed G
stephen swann
>>policy and mission similar to Consumer Reports magazine: accepts no
>>advertisement, strives for complete objectivity in reporting the relative
>>merits of products and services, etc.
>
>The obvious answer to this is, "Get Consumer Reports interested in computers."
>IMHO, this is a better idea than the usual trite answer of "If you want
>it, you should do it yourself."
>
>It probably won't be that much longer until CR does get into it. And,
>it will be a good thing when they do.
It won't be much use. Consumer Reports is only good for dealing with
"uncomplicated" merchandise (except automobiles, which they devote
extensive effort to). I laughed myself silly when I looked at their
stereo equipment recommendations: (paraphrased) "We started out by
assuming that all the equipment sounds pretty much the same, so the
following ratings are based on features and estimated reliability."
It was good of them to at least disclose their criteria, but really,
what use is that to a _serious_ buyer? (and I'm assuming that all
readers of an OS-specific newsgroup are likely to be serious buyers of
computer equipment.
--
Stephen Swann * `` I have several theories, thank you. I just
sw...@cs.buffalo.edu * can't apply them. '' - jd
MILLION D L
>>>It is unfortunate that there is not a publication that has an editorial
>>
>>The obvious answer to this is, "Get Consumer Reports interested in computers."
>>
>>it will be a good thing when they do.
>
>It won't be much use. Consumer Reports is only good for dealing with
>"uncomplicated" merchandise (except automobiles, which they devote
>extensive effort to). I laughed myself silly when I looked at their
>stereo equipment recommendations: (paraphrased) "We started out by
>assuming that all the equipment sounds pretty much the same, so the
>following ratings are based on features and estimated reliability."
>It was good of them to at least disclose their criteria, but really,
>what use is that to a _serious_ buyer? (and I'm assuming that all
>readers of an OS-specific newsgroup are likely to be serious buyers of
>computer equipment.
>
>--
>Stephen Swann * `` I have several theories, thank you. I just
>sw...@cs.buffalo.edu * can't apply them. '' - jd
I agree with Stephen 100 percent. CR is fine rating detergents and toilet
paper (and, yes, cars), but they tend to get out of their depth when it
comes to electronics. I don't pay any attention to their reviews of stereo
equipment anymore, and I'm sure I would not bother to read reviews of
computer equipment if they started doing that.
Dan Million
Internet: l...@ornl.gov