Reviewer needed for Lotus 1-2-3 for UNIX

[Tom Yager]

In article <15686 at bfmny0.BFM.COM>, tneff at bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes:
>  * Does Lotus say their 1-2-3 is only for SCO UNIX?  If not, why is SCO
>    UNIX specifically required for the review?  Has BYTE unilaterally
>    decided that SCO is the only UNIX worth checking?

In general, we avoid such edicts. I like ISC and SCO about equally, but since
I'm currently working on X and Motif projects, I'm running ISC 2.2. I switch
back and forth pretty frequently by choice.

Lotus has certified its first release exclusively for SCO UNIX and Xenix. I
believe it may have something to do with the fact that it supports native-mode
VGA graphics, which may be implemented differently under SCO and ISC. I didn't
hear that from Lotus, mind you. If they say it will only run reliably under
SCO, that's how we'll test it.
> 
>  * How is the reviewer supposed to know in advance how much disk and
>    memory you really need to operate a new 1-2-3 release "efficiently"?
>    Isn't that the point of the review?

To some extent, but virtual memory makes the proclamation of memory
requirements somewhat dubious.

I referenced the disk and memory issue because, without looking at 1-2-3, one
could handily guess that it wouldn't run very well on a 2MB system with 1MB of
free disk space. It will be considerably more demanding than its DOS
counterpart. That much is probably obvious; my warning was likely a waste of
breath.
> War is like love; it always      \%\%\%   Tom Neff
> finds a way. -- Bertold Brecht   %\%\%\   tneff at bfmny0.BFM.COM

(ty)
-- 
+--Tom Yager, Technical Editor, BYTE----Reviewer, UNIX World---------------+
|  UUCP: decvax!maxx!tyager          NET: maxx!tyager at bytepb.byte.com      |
|  Always looking for qualified UNIX,Mac,DOS and OS/2 software reviewers-- |
+--mail to "reviews" instead of "tyager" above.---I speak only for myself.-+