Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site aum.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!well!ptsfa!aum!freed From: freed@aum.UUCP (Erik Freed) Newsgroups: net.micro.atari Subject: Re: --- BYTE & the ST --- Message-ID: <265@aum.UUCP> Date: Fri, 20-Sep-85 10:10:48 EDT Article-I.D.: aum.265 Posted: Fri Sep 20 10:10:48 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 25-Sep-85 05:39:32 EDT References: <8509172204.AA04363@UCB-VAX.ARPA> Organization: The Aurora Systems Bunch Lines: 32 > > > From what I understand, the new Atari has been carrying on the old > Commodore tradition of being relatively unfriendly to the press & > software developers (note high price on the pre-release developement > kit....it required a major investment from people who didn't know > how tha merket was going to go). 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 > I still feel that Byte's responsibility, as a member of the Press, is to give us the information that is important to us. The ST is, I feel, more important than a new IBM compatible. It should not matter what is *convenient* for them. They should have tracked down an ST and wheedled Tramiel into giving them info. I don't think they tried... I do blame Byte if they are not flexible enough to go out of their way when the situation warrants it. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik James Freed Aurora Systems San Francisco, CA {dual,ptsfa}!aum!freed