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