AmigaWorld Errors
38 messages in this thread
MICROBOTICS THE VICTIM OF FAULTY REPORTING IN AMIGAWORLD
In the recently published issue of AmigaWorld (September 1993) there is a
"roundup" style article entitled "A1200 EXPANSION: CHOOSING THE RIGHT PATH".
The article starts on page 21. On page 24 there is a boxed table giving the
aggregate results of AIBB 5.5 benchmark testing on various A1200 expansion
boards and accelerators. Unfortunately for MicroBotics, the results reported
for its new M1230XA accelerator are seriously in error and make the MicroBotics
product look like a poor performer in comparison to other '030 based
accelerators. This is a direct result of not running the AIBB test using XA's
32-bit memory. The author claims the test would not run when XA's memory was
configured, so he and AmigaWorld chose to report XA's results using only slow,
PCMCIA-based ram. Neither the author nor AmigaWorld contacted MicroBotics
before publishing this extremely damaging, misleading report. Since we actually
*use* AIBB to test XA's before shipping and actually included AIBB 5.5 on the
installation diskette we sent AmigaWorld, it is especially puzzling and
disturbing that they failed to at least ask for some explanation from
MicroBotics before damning us in print. We feel that AmigaWorld has caused us
serious harm as a direct result of this weak reporting and editorial work.
Moreover, they have greatly misled and misinformed their readers. This is an
extremely unpleasant and regrettable incident.
In investigating why the author couldn't run AIBB 5.5 on XA, we found that the
M1230XA returned from AmigaWorld was returned *wrongly configured* for *eight
megabytes* of memory installed when the unit had actually only 4 megabytes
installed. Naturally, this would cause almost any program that used FastRAM to
crash. When the board was originally sent to AmigaWorld, it was *correctly*
configured to 4 megabytes (indeed the last step before shipping was to run AIBB
5.5 on the board). So it left Texas correctly set up and came back wrongly
configured. We can only conclude that the author (or someone at AmigaWorld)
made improper use of XA's setup software to tell the system it had more memory
than it actually did and thus caused the failure himself. Further supporting
this surmise is the statement in the article that "each system was configured
with…8MB of 32-bit RAM on board."
We are demanding that AmigaWorld publish a full and prominent apology and full
correction to their mistake in the next available issue. Unfortunately, no
correction can really undo all the damage AmigaWorld has done to MicroBotics
and the XA already. Nevertheless, we publicly call for maximum redress to the
wrong inflicted upon us.
In the table below, we show the aggregate AIBB numbers as reported by
AmigaWorld compared to the *real* results that are obtained when running a
properly configured M1230 XA. The third column is the percentage of error
introduced by AmigaWorld's misreporting. As one can see by the gross average
accuracy summary of only 42 percent, the reader would have been better off
flipping a coin than relying upon the numbers in AmigaWorld. We plead for the
understanding of prospective XA customers with regard to this unfortunate
situation. Accurate AIBB load modules and benchmark information for the M1230
XA are available on the CompuServe and BIX networks as well as directly from
MicroBotics.
AMIGAWORLD ACCURACY RATING CONCERNING
THEIR SEPTEMBER 93 "REPORT" ON
MICROBOTICS M1230 XA ACCELERATOR
AIBB 5.5 INTEGER RATING
AmigaWorld Accurate PERCENTAGE ACCURACY
Erroneous Test of AmigaWorld Report
Report Report
A500 3.93 12.04 32.64%
A2000 3.83 11.73 32.65%
A3000 0.63 1.94 32.47%
A4000 0.31 0.96 32.29%
AIBB 5.5 GRAPHICS RATING
AmigaWorld Accurate
Erroneous Test
Report Report
A500 4.54 5.76 78.82%
A2000 3.37 4.27 78.92%
A3000 1.91 2.42 78.93%
A4000 0.82 1.04 78.85%
AIBB 5.5 FLOATING POINT RATING
AmigaWorld Accurate
Erroneous Test
Report Report
A500 4.52 27.34 16.53%
A2000 3.05 18.46 16.52%
A3000 0.32 1.94 16.49%
A4000 0.11 0.65 16.92%
AGGREGATE PERCENTAGE ACCURACY OF AMIGAWORLD 42.67%
Youch. We were similarly slimed in the most recent issue of Amazing Computing;
the cover claims a head-to-head comparison of Pixel vs InterChange, the author
did a very lousy job all over.
My sympathies, John. AmigaWorld has no excuse for mismanaging this awful job.
They could have at the very least *called* us for five minutes and cleared up
their confusion. I mean, didn't the fact that we include the very benchmark
program they say they couldn't run, on the actual installation diskette give
them some sort of *clue* that they might possibly have made a mistake? And of
course, we'll never completely get free of the stain they've brushed us with.
–Redmond
It's only been a year since we sent Amazing their required two complimentary
review copies. The writer who wrote this latest piece had sent us a form
letter begging for software several months ago. I've despised this guy's
writing for a long time, and so in an unusual lack of diplomacy, I wrote him a
letter and told him what I thought, and that I thought it was rather rude to
beg for software without an assignment. He wrote back apologetically, assured
me he'd be more careful, and could he please get the add-on DXF and 3D Studio
and Wavefront converters for InterChange, he'd mention them in the articles he
writes, and he could really use them in his side-line video business…
You know what happens, right? He writes a poor review: it's not that he said
anything bad about ICP, it's just that he said nothing. No mention of those
add-on converters, no complete description of what's actually in our product,
but he did find the time to write at least a paragraph about what he likes
about PAGErender, a 3D program that was last sold several years ago. He had
our reviewer's guide, he knew the problems in Pixel 3D Pro, he said nothing
about them.
And to top it off, our reader service card responses from Amazing Computing had
about three dozen duplicates within themselves, as if several batches of cards
had been entered several times.
Not to defend AW's writers (as you probably remember, we were completely
jammed up by more than one), but sometimes the type of things you mention
are attributable to the editing process (no mention of particular
converters). The editors of AW, as near as I have been able to tell, are
completely out of touch with what is interesting and what is not. The
editors of Amazing do a bit better, but they can't use english very
well… :^)
–Ben
…via AutoPilot
This is the flip side of AmigaWorld's reviewer policies. I do think it's a
"good thing" that they don't have contact between reviewers and publishers.
Without that, imagine what kind of spin-doctoring could take place, and then
you'd be praying that you get the last chat with the reviewer, as opposed to
your competitor.
What it comes down to is the "lack of clues" in some reviewers. As a writer, I
know I do a lot of self-evaluation long before I agree to write a certain
review. Do I think I can write an accurate, even-handed review? Do I "know
what I'm talking about?" Once into the review, you really need to double-check
all your assumptions – both the positive and negative results. I often
double-check my conclusions with other people that I think "know what they're
talking about."
John,
As one who has done a good many reviews for AW, I can assure you that
there are NO rules preventing reviewers from contacting publishers. When
I have had problems with product, I always call the maker. I don't tell
them I'm working on an AmigaWorld review – unless absolutely forced to do
so (when they request serial numbers etc. the jig is pretty well up). It
gives me a chance to see just what kind of support a buyer can expect, and
that too rightfully becomes part of the fabric of the review.
That said, I too am surprised that the author of the article didn't pursue
his "problem" directly with the MB.
Also surprised by Tim Walsh's conspicuous absence from this thread…saw
some correspondence downstream just a while back.
Finally, I don't know how Amazing works, but at AW there are only two ways
I know of that products get reviewed: 1. I BUY the product and query AW
if they have an interest in having it reviewed. 2. AW calls me because
they have something to be reviewed that fits my interests, qualifications
and equipment.
Any publisher or manufacturer that sends free stuff directly to "freelance
writers" frankly deserves what they get. You're absolutely right that the
editor has to be responsible for the quality of what he or she
prints…and the only way to do that is to deal only directly with them.
Then, whomever they choose to write the review and the review itself is
directly attributable to them!!!
Gary
on AutoPilot from Charlotte, NC
I urge you to call your editors at AmigaWorld and *ask* them about their review
policy.
Gary,
Amiga World constantly – and I mean _constantly_ – requests a copy here,
and a copy there, of anything we make that interests them. They state it
is for reviewers. I can verify that in at least two cases, these were
indeed for reviewers.
We've been screwed unbelievably by Amiga World's reviewers, or editors, or
both – who really can tell? It does tend to make one aa bit skittish about
handing over the product of years of work to some dimwit (and I'm being
kind here) like the guy who reviewed our ClickFAX, or did that brain-dead
comparison of AdPro and Imagemaster.
Amiga World, unfortunately, has the credibility level of gnat around here.
They're nice people, in many cases, but competant magazine people? No.
–Ben
…via AutoPilot
Redmond-
Too bad that these reports are not researched… Reflects on the lack of
editorial accuracy. AW has had a history of driving product in the mud.
The most memorable being the terrible review given for Black Belt System's
ClickFax product. That review destroyed any chance for it to succeed.
Have you gotten any response from AW yet?
-Jonathan
I called them the moment I saw their in-print assassination of my product. They
indulged in the usual non-committal hand-waving. The most galling thing is they
can loose-cannon their way into the destruction of all sorts of products and
there's no downside for them –only for their victims. They have exhibited an
appalling degree of editorial irresponsibility.
–Redmond
Redmond,
It disturbs me to think that your product could be thrashed in this fashion. It
is part of my job here at Mag to make sure things like that DO NOT happen, so I
took immediate notice of your situation. At the very least, AW should run a
correction, if not an outright apology. I sincerely hope that this problem is
resolved to your satisfaction.
Curious, do you think that their "loose cannon" style is the result of a lack
of competition (I mean, there's only a handful of US Amiga mags out there)? If
we ever made a similar mistake (and I'm sure that its happened & will probably
happen again), both our readers AND our comp would be all over us!
–Michael Ryan, PC Magazine Staff Editor, Network Edition 1st Looks
I think AmigaWorld is out of control for the reason you mention (they have no
real competition) and because they are understaffed and underfinanced due to
the weak Amiga market. And they don't pay freelancers really well. And they
don't have an in-house testing facility of any stature.
Plus they just do not have a tradition of being rigorous and scientific in
their approach to such testing and comparisons.
The problem this makes for the manufacturer victimized by AmigaWorld's
amateurism is that they STILL have a lot of credibility in the Amiga market in
the USA. Users believe what they see in AmigaWorld regardless of how
bone-headed ignorant or mistaken it might be.
Thus we have been seriously damaged by their thoughtless, careless editorial
practice. Given the "leaness" of the Amiga market these days, every sale
counts. AmigaWorld, with a few strokes of a very silly pen, has cost
MicroBotics a large number of sales.
–Redmond
Not just a reply to you Redmond but, to all…
On this thread..bummer…
But, there aren't many 'sources' for Amiga users out there and yes, there
are errors, perhaps more under the circumstances but, my feeling they are
there! If one believes everything he/she reads in print that's thier own
fault! As for me I (usually) make sure I get it from a few sources. At
least AW has told me it's out there.
However, that still doesn't help out the people whose product has been
unduely slammed, by those whose print will be taken for gospel (meaning
'THE WORD' not anything else) by the unwary!
as others say 'just my two cents'
But…Bummer if a product is killed before it's given a chance.
Especially, in the Amiga Wolrd.
Robert-
Although I agree with your premise (>>If one believes everything he/she reads
in print that's thier own fault! <<), any magazine has the responsibility to be
as accurate and un-biased as humanly possible. AW, in this case, was apparently
in error & needs to acknowledge that fact to preserve their credibility (which
seems to be a bit lacking at the moment). For the sake of all AW readers, I
hope they do & hope that they adjust their editorial style to improve the
accuracy of their reporting. As we've already said a million times, there isn't
a lot out there, I'd like to think that what little i'm reading is somewhat
accurate!
–Mike Ryan, PC Mag
Mike,
To my >>if anyone believes in print…<< and your >> any magazine has the
responsibility…<< and >>there isn't a lot out there<< …
yep, Yep, YEP.
(Although the premise may be sound)
-Robb
Rob-
Yeah, the premise is always valid, I guess. Seems a shame, however, that in
this teeny market so many people find fault with the leading "authority" on
Amiga news, etc., ya know?
BTW, if the Amiga isn't your 'real' profession, are you a PC or Mac user
elsewhere? Which do you prefer, overall? (honestly!)
–Mike
Well, they haven't killed XA but they may easily cost us tens of thousands of
dollars in US sales. About 100k folk read AmigaWorld. If 10,000 of them are
A1200 owners or about to be owners, and only half of them believe the
disinformation in AmigaWorld, that's 5000 potential customers deflected. Even
if only 10 percent of those would have bought an XA otherwise, that's 500 XA's
at some hundreds of dollars each. That's over 200,000 dollars in lost sales
because AmigaWorld was too busy filling their chart with erroneous
psuedofactoids to call us and clear up the problem *they* caused.
–Redmond
They don't pay freelancers very well? Compared to which other Amiga
publication? Since the beginning, AmigaWorld has paid the most, compared to
any other Amiga publication. For that matter, I don't think their pay is
different (for similar articles) than any other mid-range circulation PC/Mac
magazine.
Look on the bright side… I think AmigaWorld's existence has keep the Amiga
alive. Without it, what would happen? And this reviewer will probably never
get another hardware review assignment for a long time.
The sad part is indeed AmigaWorld is *the* lifeline in the USA for Amiga
business– that's precisely why it hurts so much that they thoughtlessly
smeared our product without checking their facts. –Redmond
Redmond,
I understand your feelings about the review and the damage to your
product's reputation, and I'm really sorry it happened. However, I must
defend AmigaWorld's treatment of authors and reviewers. The first article
I ever sold was to AmigaWorld, and they paid me well – even though
something happened and they didn't print the article. Of all the
magazines I wrote for a few years back, AmigaWorld is the ONLY one that
invariably paid me on time and as much as they promised – and I wrote for
almost all of them, both in the US and in England.
—Betty
Betty,
Wow, You were paid for an article that didn't even make it into print? I
call that honorable. In this neck of the woods, you only get paid after
the article is published, sometimes long after.
Pete Jones, flying on AutoPilot from Brussels, Belgium
In US editorial practice if a writer is assigned an article which is
subsequently not used or killed, they at least get a "kill fee". This is not at
all unusual.
Of course, if the article is unsolicited, and the magazine merely expresses
interest in it, you ain't necessarily going to get something if they don't
print it.
–Redmond
Redmond,
I must tell my various editors. All my articles are ordered, but no
publish, no pay!
Pete Jones, flying on AutoPilot from Brussels, Belgium
That was when AmigaWorld was VERY new – only a few issues old. I kept
waiting and waiting to see my article, and it never showed up. Never knew
why, either.
There are other magazines (still publishing) that never paid me at all for
several articles that WERE published, and several others no longer in
business that didn't pay for even more of them.
So – I think AmigaWorld is really great.
—Betty
Betty,
Swings and roundabouts, then. I have always been paid for my published
articles, barring one where the company went bankrupt.
Pete Jones, flying on AutoPilot from Brussels, Belgium
As Halley's Comet marked Mark Twain's birth and death, I think AmigaWorld's
lifetime will demark the practical limits of the Amiga's lifetime. Sad, sad,
but true. Developers like myself will be forced to other platforms (unless we
want to roll over and get a "real" job 🙂 but I think I'll still use the Amiga
for development. It's a very nice place to write C.
hi john, you are right, that Amazing article was a mess. What the heck was that
pagerender rambling about anyways ? However, you did not come off the worst in
that issue. That honor goest to Caligari 24, reviewed by the same *writer*
forget the text, the images were so poor, they probably would scare off anyone
interested in the product. In fact, his rendering examples of ADpro, Morph
plus, Real 3D, etc. have all probably done more damage than good. They are all
professional level products, but the images were amateurish at best.
R. Shamms Mortier drives me up a tree. He regularly sends out form letters to
software publishers, "please send me your stuff so I can write about it." He
includes a resume of every single review or feature he's written, not
customized to the particular software he's begging for.
He may be a fluff-head. He may be begging for software to fuel his own
production facilities. But the real source of the problem is an editor or
publisher who doesn't realize or doesn't care that they're filling their pages
with this junk.
At least Shamms stopped writing his reviews by going across the menu bar
and reviewing programs by explaining what every menu item does, one by
one. Ugh.
"The Open item on the Project menu is used to load new files. It brings
up a file requester which offers you a choice of all the drives connected
to your system…"
I saw the article a couple days ago, and just knew you'd respond! 🙂 As
you should I might add!
Well, to help your cause, I just got my M1230XA in a week ago, and love
it! I've had no prblems at all with the board, and it performs as
advertised! (I love the speed too, 50Mhz '030 and 50Mhz '882, this suckers
FAST!!)
(* Usual disclamer about not ever having been employed by Microbotics *)
(* I'm just a happy customer *)
Bob Comer — Flying high and fast with my A1200HD'030 on Autopilot!
From Cheyenne, Wyoming U.S.A
Well, Bob, you and your fellow satisfied XA owners are the only real antidote
to AmigaWorld's poison pen. Your word-of-mouth refutation of their amateur
product "analysis" [sic] is the best thing for us. Thanks for your support
–Redmond
Glad to help!
Bob Comer — Flying high and fast with my A1200HD'030 on Autopilot!
From Cheyenne, Wyoming U.S.A
Redmond,
My 1200 is equiped with a 33MHz 1230XA + maths coprocessor and just 1 meg
of fast ram in addition to the 2 meg of Chip. AIBB 6.1 showed it to be
more than 30 percent faster overall than the A3000. I shall be using these
results in my upcoming article here in Belgium. I hope that it will help
to undo the damage caused by AW'serroneous results to which you refer.
Pete Jones, flying on AutoPilot from Brussels, Belgium
Your help will be vastly appreciated, Pete. I ran a load module on an Amiga
4000/30 and it is about the same speed as an A3000 except it's slightly better
on graphics tests than a 3000) Thanks, –Redmond
Redmond,
While I sympathize with you over the numbers published, I don't think that
AmigaWorld really "slimed" you that badly. On page 24, where the results
of the tests are published, there is a note which reads, in part, "Results
for the M1230XA are skewed becuase the AIBB program would lock up when the
board was configured for 32-bit RAM…From all other indications, I feel
the M1230XA performs on a level with a Twelve Guage…"
As a neutral party, (I don't own a 1200, nor do I plan to buy one in the
near future) this article would not stop me from buying your product.
From the text, I would probably check prices and how well the two boards
performed on real world applications. The other real difference seems to
be the SCSI on the Twelve Guage, but given the size of the 1200, I don't
think the ability to run all those other devices would be that big a
selling feature.
In other words, what I got from the article was that the M1230XA was one
of the best products available, especially in its ability to provide
access to more memory than any other product reviewed.
Steve
Well, Steve, I wish (fervently) that you were right. But we have many practical
indicators that tell us unfortunately that your reaction is not typical.
–Redmond