Via: uk.ac.sheffield.dcs; Mon, 14 Dec 1992 11:14:04 +0000
Original-Received: by NeXT Mailer (1.62)
PP-warning: Illegal Received field on preceding line
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.next-l
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 10:45:07 GMT
Reply-To:     M.Crawford@DCS.SHEFFIELD.AC.UK
From:         M.Crawford@DCS.SHEFFIELD.AC.UK
Subject:      whoops!

Sorry, I sent out a beta version by mistake...
I hope this is at least a bit better... maybe all the sentences are
complete...

If anybody can supply me with Internet addresses for BYTE editorial
staff I (and a couple of others!) would be most grateful :-)

Have fun,

Malcolm.

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

Sir,

As a NeXT User and (subscriber to/((regular/occasional)(buyer/reader)

of)) of your magazine, I have been (((very) disappointed
with)/irritated by) with various articles which have either neglected
to mention or unfairly treated the platform I work with and which I
prefer over any other . Your recent coverage of NeXT is too sparse
for a company which, rather than producing yet more clones, is
producing radically innovative software to which others simply
aspire, integrating into a single package some of the best elements
to be found in every area.
Tom Yager's October 1992 article was complimentary, but it was only
one counter-example, 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 offer the
best of the 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 "there is no software for the NeXT" by
predating by a matter of a month or so the release of four 3D
packages for NeXTSTEP. 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 their 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 (now cooperating with
NSTL) that purports to set the standard in reviewing general personal
computer systems treating NeXT and NeXTSTEP so unfairly. Disregarding
NeXT orthography is only the token of your preconceptions.
Disregarding the main models of the hardware line, disregarding
NeXT(STEP) in articles where it should be mentioned, and completely
disregarding NeXTSTEP-specific applications, is far more serious and
unfairly damaging.

You owe it to your reputation, and to your readers who expect more
than just another Windows magazine, to set the record straight, and
to correct the damaging impressions you have given. 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 is certainly sufficient to
write about: the Turbo hardware series has already added performance,
NeXTSTEP 486 is in beta, and we are assured new systems will be
announced very soon. In addition there is a continuous stream of new
applications for NeXTSTEP which offer ease of use, integration, and
features which could only be dreamt of in their counterparts (where
they exist) on other more limited platforms. It would be a healthy
antidote to the recent Microsoft hype, to which you seem to have
unfortunately succumbed. Windows does not deserve so much attention
if quality rather than market share is the issue; if market share is
the issue, Windows NT deserves no attention at all.

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 opinion about

these matters, and it is as valid as if I would have composed it

entirely myself.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU