Via: uk.ac.sheffield.dcs; Sun, 13 Dec 1992 17:17:39 +0000
Original-Received: by NeXT Mailer (1.62)
PP-warning: Illegal Received field on preceding line
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.next-l
Date:         Sun, 13 Dec 1992 16:48:45 GMT
Reply-To:     M.Crawford@DCS.SHEFFIELD.AC.UK
From:         M.Crawford@DCS.SHEFFIELD.AC.UK
Subject:      Re: NeXT and BYTE

Sorry to have taken so long over this...

Thanks to Raf for sending the original; I have edited it a bit,
doubtless ruining it in the process, but I hope it will be of
sufficient use for others.  I'll keep Raf's original "exhortation"!

Please let us know as soon as possible if there are any serious
mistakes!

Have fun,

Malcolm.

---

 ###################################################################
 #   Dept. Computer Science  :  SHeffield Auditory Group           #
 #   Sheffield University    |  Email: M.Crawford@uk.ac.shef.dcs   #
 #   Regent Court            |         (NeXTMail welcome)          #
 #   211 Portobello Street   |  Tel  : (+44) 742 768555 ext 5569   #
 #   Sheffield S1 4DP, UK.   |  Fax  : (+44) 742 780972            #
 ###################################################################


> Please edit the following template to comply with the Post
> Scriptum (which you keep). Then e-mail (if you know Dennis Allen's
> e-mail address on a medium you use, send it to him and edit
> appropriately, otherwise send it to Tom Yager, the author of that
> heartening counterexample of which there are far too few; BE SURE
> TO CLICK NON-NeXT!), fax or post (the necessary information is
> mentioned on a page near the beginning of the magazine). Apply any
> fancy formatting you like using your favourite WP/DTP program for
> ways other than e-mail, customize to your full satisfaction and
> add anything you want to say in addition to this. Please do it!

> Now!
>

To Dennis Allen, Editor in Chief of BYTE magazine.

UK/Europe:
Wimbledon Bridge House
One Hartfield Road
Wimbledon
London SW19 3RU
ENGLAND

Main office:
One Phoenix Mill Lane
Peterborough
NH 03458
USA

c/o Tom Yager for Internet address


Sir,


As a NeXT User and (subscriber to/((regular/occasional)(buyer/reader)
of)) your magazine, I have been (((very) disappointed with)/irritated
by) various articles which have either totally neglected to mention
the platform that I work with and that I prefer over any other, or
which have given it "merely" very unfair treatment.  Your recent
coverage of NeXT is far too sparse for a company that is not just
producing yet some more clones, but is radically innovating in the
software arena, integrating in a standard package virtually the best
elements to be found in every area.

Tom Yager's October 1992 article was very complimentary, but it was
only one counterexample, and merely part of an exhaustive series.  It
also shared the same edition as an article on Japanese language
computers, which failed entirely to mention the revolutionary kanji
version of NeXT's operating system which addresses most of the
problems raised.

In November's edition it was particularly disappointing to see the
article "The Ultimate Workstation." Arguably, NeXT may not be the
best offer of all systems reviewed for those tasks you selected, but
it was not only unfair but unrealistic to use in this review the most
basic of all NeXT systems to compare with either top models or
offerings from very expensive lines. NeXT gives excellent value for
its base price, and also for the higher models, which would more
closely fit the price range of the article.  Furthermore your article
served to perpetrate the myth that that "there is no software for the
NeXT" by predating by a matter of a month or so the release of 4 3D
packages for NeXTSTEP, and ... It was quite clear that software
developers were waiting for the release of NeXTSTEP 3.0 with its
bundled RenderMan support for 3D graphics before releasing thier own
products.

Most recently, in December's edition, it was almost incredible to
read a state-of-the-art series on object-oriented programming which
mentioned NeXT only in passing as the host of MediaView, "an
object-oriented viewer", and as a company which "hopes to make its
development environment more robust by storing its graphical objects
in an OODBMS" whilst devoting column feet to operating systems that
do not even exist yet.

It is most disconcerting to see a magazine that purports to set the
standard in reviewing general personal computer systems (now
cooperating with NSTL) treating NeXTSTEP so unfairly. Disregarding
NeXT orthography is only the token of your preconceptions against
this most advanced piece of software. Completely disregarding the
main models of the hardware line (only focusing on entry level),
completely disregarding NeXT(STEP) in articles where it should be
mentioned, and completely disregarding the applications particular to
the paradigm versus ordinarily ported programs are far more serious
and unfairly damaging.


You owe it to your reputation to set the record straight, and to
correct the damaging impressions you have given with this November
review. I propose that you publish a (new) review of NeXTSTEP,
focusing on version 3.0, with its important additions, many of them
not to be found anywhere else, and all uniquely object-oriented.
There's more than enough to beef it up: the Turbo hardware series has
already added performance, still new hardware will be forthcoming
very soon, NeXTSTEP 486 is in beta. It would be a healthy antidote to
the recent Microsoft (Windows NT) hype, to which you seem to have
also, unfortunately succumbed, to show that the latter really doesn't
deserve so much relative attention if quality is the issue.


Yours,


<your name, your importance, etc.>


PS: The above letter was inspired by a template. However, I have
taken care to make sure that it fully reflects my true opionion about
these matters, and it is as valid as if I would have composed it
entirely myself.