Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ecsvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!ecsvax!calway
From: calway@ecsvax.UUCP (James Calloway)
Newsgroups: net.micro.atari
Subject: Re: --- BYTE & the ST ---
Message-ID: <480@ecsvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 24-Sep-85 07:48:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.480
Posted: Tue Sep 24 07:48:59 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 27-Sep-85 04:14:33 EDT
References: <8509172204.AA04363@UCB-VAX.ARPA>
Reply-To: calway@ecsvax.UUCP (James Calloway)
Organization: The News and Observer
Lines: 45
Summary: 

In article <8509172204.AA04363@UCB-VAX.ARPA> nep.pgelhausen@ames-vmsb.ARPA writes:
>From what I understand, the new Atari has been carrying on the old
>Commodore tradition of being relatively unfriendly to the press & 
>software developers...
The new Atari actually has been very friendly to the press, at least
in my experience. I have been able to get through to top people at Atari
much more easily than at other companies.
On the other hand, their public relations efforts - the outgoing 
"look at us" kind of efforts - dissolved to almost nothing by spring
of this year. 
>   BYTE gets information sent to it
>more than it goes looking for it.....they get more than enough info
>that way that they don't HAVE to go looking...they have more than they
>can handle as it is (note the 3-4 month lag time).   If Atari sent
>them a machine, they would review/preview it....if they (Atari) DON'T
>send a machine for review, the review will have to wait until BYTE has
>a bit of slack in the material available to it.....don't blame BYTE
>for Atari's PR faults.  
>
>			-Richard Hartman
>			max.hartman@ames-vmsb
>
>(P.S.:  I am a definate Atari fan, however I think Tramiel is making som
>        misteaks about publicity here....I think he is deliberately 
>        ignoring magazines, except for the ones that order the 
>	developement kit themselves (Analog Computing did that).  He
>        needs to go out & VOLUNTEER information, and he doesn't like
>	doing that.
If I recall correctly, Compute! published a fairly early look at the 520ST.
They simply went to Atari and said, "May we look at one?" and Atari
said yes. On the other hand, Compute! was initially denied a chance to
preview the Amiga, and only after they complained about it in print
did the "misunderstanding" get cleared up. In other words, Commodore has
been much pickier about who in the press could see the Amiga than Atari
has been about the 520ST.


-- 

James  Calloway
The News and Observer
Box 191
Raleigh, N.C. 27602
(919) 829-4570
{akgua,decvax}!mcnc!ecsvax!calway