> > > EA
> 
> > I don't agree with "good riddance"
> 
> We'll have to agree to disagree. My experiences (note the
> plural) with EA led to a dramatic loss of trust. ETI was a
> much superior magazine IMVHO. Whether or not ETI
> staff were more competent or inventive is debatable but
> I just personally preferred ETI's finesse

Actually I did prefer ETI myself.  EA seemed a bit "high brow" to teenage
me.
 
> Recently the editor of Silicon Chip asked readers whether
> the magazine was publishing too many microcontroller-
> based projects. My response to him was that the magazine
> is OK as it is, with the possible exception of needing some
> basic refreshers from time to time.

Yes, I saw that.  I'd said to him before that the only problem with
MCU-based projects is when the MCU is presented as a "black-box" - that part
of the appeal used to be learning some electronics techniques by reading the
"how it works" write-up, but if the workings of the software aren't
explained, then that opportunity to learn is lost.

On the other hand, I'm an extreme hypocrite, since in my only SC-published
project ("Programmable Xmas Star"), I didn't make the source code available.
Which really doesn't help anyone much...

> I think micros have helped magazines stay afloat, opening
> up a whole new genre of projects. It would be foolish for
> both readers and publisher not to move forward with the
> times. Programming is a fairly inexpensive hobby and good
> value for money time-wise

Yep, although it can be a problem for readers if they use too many different
MCUs.  If it's PIC one day, Atmel the next and Freescale on a Friday, it's a
bit much to expect the reader to be across all those and own programmers
(although for Atmels a few resistors seems to do it...) for each.


David
www.gooligum.com.au



-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist