MacUser on Word 6
M Raghuraman
one of the editors in the Letters section, defending their 4-mice award
to Word 6, praising Word 6 for being a "forward-looking application
[that] has clearly been engineered for Power Mac-class machines", and
gently chiding readers for complaining about Word 6.
Ten pages later, Andy Ihnatko has a 1-1/2 page article on how Word 6
sucks from here to Peru (to paraphrase Letterman on GE). Granted that's
just his opinion, and he was mainly talking about the interface, but the
contrast was amusing anyway.
(And then there's the Macworld article claiming that the PPC-native Word
6 on a PM 7100/66 is only 1.1x faster overall than 68k-Word 6 on a
Centris 650, and 0.7x as fast as Word 5.1 on the Centris. Now that's
forward-looking!)
-Raghu <ra...@u.washington.edu>
Jason Snell
Raghuraman) wrote:
>I got a chuckle out of the March issue of MacUser. There's a note from
>one of the editors in the Letters section, defending their 4-mice award
>to Word 6, praising Word 6 for being a "forward-looking application
>[that] has clearly been engineered for Power Mac-class machines", and
>gently chiding readers for complaining about Word 6.
>
>Ten pages later, Andy Ihnatko has a 1-1/2 page article on how Word 6
>sucks from here to Peru (to paraphrase Letterman on GE).
This'll show you that within the pages of MacUser and within the *walls*
of MacUser, there are a lot of differing opinions of Word 6. You'll note,
for instance, that we didn't nominate it for an Eddy Award.
Word 6 is a funny thing. You seem to like (tolerate?) it or hate it. Me,
well, I use a IIfx, so I can't use it. (What's wrong with _that_ picture?)
:)
-jason @ MU
--
Jason Snell / Assistant Editor, MacUser / jsn...@macuser.ziff.com
Editor, InterText Magazine: inte...@etext.org for details
http://www.etext.org/Zines/InterText/jason.html
david s. broudy
jsn...@macuser.ziff.com (Jason Snell) wrote:
< This'll show you that within the pages of MacUser and within the *walls*
< of MacUser, there are a lot of differing opinions of Word 6. You'll note,
< for instance, that we didn't nominate it for an Eddy Award.
Huh. MacUser is going downhill, turning into an even fluffier clone of
MacWorld. 'User *used* to be an awesome, fat, thick source of info and now
mostly seems to reprint PR flacks' press releases and panders to the
drooling idiot denominator of the Mac user community. Sheesh... though
I'll give you points for *not* nominating MammothSloth Word 6 for an Eddy.
--
bro...@mizar.usc.edu -- http://wpc-4.usc.edu/ /=/
Will that be one lump, or two? \=\ /=/
Robert E. Winston
(david s. broudy) wrote:
> In article <jsnell-3101...@snell.macuser.ziff.com>,
> jsn...@macuser.ziff.com (Jason Snell) wrote:
>
> < This'll show you that within the pages of MacUser and within the *walls*
> < of MacUser, there are a lot of differing opinions of Word 6. You'll note,
> < for instance, that we didn't nominate it for an Eddy Award.
>
> Huh. MacUser is going downhill, turning into an even fluffier clone of
> MacWorld. 'User *used* to be an awesome, fat, thick source of info and now
> mostly seems to reprint PR flacks' press releases and panders to the
> drooling idiot denominator of the Mac user community. Sheesh... though
> I'll give you points for *not* nominating MammothSloth Word 6 for an Eddy.
I was just preparing to throw out some old magazines and noticed something
interesting.
The Nov. '92 MacUser, the oldest I still have, is 364 pages.
The Nov. '94 MacUser is just 226 pages, more than a third smaller.
OTOH, a MacWarehouse catalog from '92 runs 88 pages, while the latest one
is 198 pages - all advertising.
I suspect this has to do with the nature of the Mac hardware/software business.
Retail stores don't carry much Mac stuff so we buy mail order. Since those
purchases are made from catalogs, advertisers naturally want to be closest
to the point of purchase - the catalogs, not the magazines.
As the catalogs proliferate and grow larger, the magazines shrink and are
less willing to stand up to advertisers.
Both MacUser and World are getting smaller and becoming more "advertiser
friendly². [That's the kindest euphemism I can think of for ass-kissing.]
It wouldn't surprise me at all if one of the MacMags folds or if they merge.
________
Robert E. Winston rwin...@iglou.com
Robert E Caceres
Robert E. Winston <rwin...@iglou.com> wrote:
>In article <broudy-3101...@wpc-4.usc.edu>, bro...@mizar.usc.edu
>(david s. broudy) wrote:
>
> > Huh. MacUser is going downhill, turning into an even fluffier clone of
> > MacWorld. 'User *used* to be an awesome, fat, thick source of info and now
> > mostly seems to reprint PR flacks' press releases and panders to the
> > drooling idiot denominator of the Mac user community. Sheesh... though
> > I'll give you points for *not* nominating MammothSloth Word 6 for an Eddy.
>
>I was just preparing to throw out some old magazines and noticed something
>interesting.
>
>The Nov. '92 MacUser, the oldest I still have, is 364 pages.
>
>The Nov. '94 MacUser is just 226 pages, more than a third smaller.
>
I went to the ol' bookcase with a tape measure and found that it might
just be that 1994 was a rotten year for MacUser.
1994 -- 3.75 inches total shelf space
1993 -- 5.25 inches
1992 -- 5.50 inches
1991 -- 5.00 inches
MacWorld suffered similarly. I will start to get worried when they are no
longer glued and bound, but instead, STAPLED.
-- Bob Caceres
FPC Greg
were way down. It's happened before, but this last year was the worst.
Many companies are unfortunately shifting their advertising resources away
from the Mac to their Windows products, because that's where the money is.
Gregory Wasson Contributing Editor, MacUser
fpc...@aol.com
Butch Hauke
rcac...@world.std.com (Robert E Caceres) writes:
> >The Nov. '92 MacUser, the oldest I still have, is 364 pages.
> >
> >The Nov. '94 MacUser is just 226 pages, more than a third smaller.
> >
> <snip>
>
> I went to the ol' bookcase with a tape measure and found that it might
> just be that 1994 was a rotten year for MacUser.
>
> 1994 -- 3.75 inches total shelf space
> 1993 -- 5.25 inches
> 1992 -- 5.50 inches
> 1991 -- 5.00 inches
>
> MacWorld suffered similarly. I will start to get worried when they are no
> longer glued and bound, but instead, STAPLED.
Tell me about it. There's more Macintosh news than ever before and they
both are providing less of it. I want a magazine that's as thick as PC
Magazine, so I don't read it all in one day. Hell, I'd even pay a few
extra bucks a copy!
Butch Hauke
bha...@comtch.iea.com
-----------------
Space Systems Maintenance Supervisor/Technician
U.S. Air Force
-----------------
In space, no one can hear you whine.
Butch Hauke
fpc...@aol.com (FPC Greg) writes:
> Both Mac magazines lost page count for a fairly simple reason: ad revenues
> were way down. It's happened before, but this last year was the worst.
> Many companies are unfortunately shifting their advertising resources away
> from the Mac to their Windows products, because that's where the money is.
Well, that's a real bummer. What's the outlook for this year?
Jeffrey Ganson
> > 1994 -- 3.75 inches total shelf space
> > 1993 -- 5.25 inches
> > 1992 -- 5.50 inches
> > 1991 -- 5.00 inches
> >
> > MacWorld suffered similarly. I will start to get worried when they are no
> > longer glued and bound, but instead, STAPLED.
>
> Tell me about it. There's more Macintosh news than ever before and they
> both are providing less of it. I want a magazine that's as thick as PC
> Magazine, so I don't read it all in one day. Hell, I'd even pay a few
> extra bucks a copy!
I don't think that measuring just the number of pages necessarily provides
an accurate picture. Has anyone actually counted pages of *text*? The
reason I ask is that I've noticed a marked reduction in the size of some
advertisements: A number of the bigger mail-order companies used to run
several pages of ads, but most now run only one or two (presumably since
so many of us now get their catalogs (and duplicates...) in the mail
regularly). I wonder if this accounts for the reduction in "size" of the
mags.
--
Jeff Ganson
University of Washington School of Law, Seattle
http://www.halcyon.com/jganson/Home.html
Finger/WWW/E-mail for PGP Public Key
Jonathan K Goodish
jga...@halcyon.com (Jeffrey Ganson) wrote:
> I don't think that measuring just the number of pages necessarily provides
> an accurate picture. Has anyone actually counted pages of *text*? The
> reason I ask is that I've noticed a marked reduction in the size of some
> advertisements: A number of the bigger mail-order companies used to run
> several pages of ads, but most now run only one or two (presumably since
> so many of us now get their catalogs (and duplicates...) in the mail
> regularly). I wonder if this accounts for the reduction in "size" of the
> mags.
Yes, advertising has been drastically reduced. Some people I've spoken
with actually believe that it's because MacUser ditched Kawasaki.
However, the size of MacUser has _steadily_ and _consistantly_ decreased
over the last year. I have all issues from Feb94-Mar95 sitting in a row
on my shelf right above me, and you can actually see quite clearly the
drastic decrease in size over a year's time period. I can't say the same
for MacWorld, despite the fact that advertising in it has decreased also.
And, despite the fact that MacUser advertising has decreased, there's
still a good bit of it, particularly toward the back of the magazine. I
would, overall, say that with a couple of pages less, the thing could be
stapled like an elementary school newsletter.
JKG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan K. Goodish | Internet E-Mail: jk...@cmu.edu
Freshman, Math/CS, Carnegie Mellon | Finger me for my WWW page location
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Ellsworth
Jeffrey Ganson <jga...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>In article <3h5mej$m...@krel.iea.com>, bha...@comtch.iea.com (Butch Hauke) wrote:
>
>> > 1994 -- 3.75 inches total shelf space
>> > 1993 -- 5.25 inches
>> > 1992 -- 5.50 inches
>> > 1991 -- 5.00 inches
>> >
>> both are providing less of it. I want a magazine that's as thick as PC
>> Magazine, so I don't read it all in one day. Hell, I'd even pay a few
>> extra bucks a copy!
>
>I don't think that measuring just the number of pages necessarily provides
>an accurate picture.
Possibly, possibly not. PC magazine and MacUser both ran major articles
on modems in the last year and a half. The articles were of similar
scope, but the PC Magazine article was easily three times longer. Some
of that was fluff, but much of it was good, solid technical text. When
the net bitching on "why was your article so lame" got to one of the
authors, he responded that his page budget was a third the size of the
one in PC magazine. Had he hthe pages to work with, his article would
have had more of these details and tests.
I do hope you are right, and that we are just getting more bang for the
buck when we read mac magazines, but I suspect that in many cases, they
are just not as large.
Any Ziff people want to comment?
Scott
--
Scott Ellsworth sc...@kaiwan.com
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment
results" - Calivin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams
KTappe
>the net bitching on "why was your article so lame" got to one of the
>authors, he responded that his page budget was a third the size of the
>one in PC magazine.
If the cover prices are the same and the advertising prices are the
same, then the page budgets should be the same. Ziff management
sounds as if they are falling victim to the "Windows is the future"
bug and are trying to squeeze their Mac publications out of business.
:-(
-Kurt
| Kurt Tappe kta...@aol.com
| 184 W. Valley Hill Rd. "Will troubleshoot your
| Malvern, PA 19355-2214 Macintosh for food."
| (610) 363-9485