Thread overview
Windows Developer Journal/Magazine status
May 03, 2004
Kar G Lim
May 03, 2004
Kar G Lim
May 03, 2004
Matthew
May 03, 2004
A while ago I made a comment that CMP is notorous for taking a good publication and run it down for whatever reasons I don't understand at downunder - for example, BYTE and not WDJ/WDM.

It appears the magazine is no longer in print version and the articles are
really good quality stuff anymore.
Does anyone know the real reasons behind them?  Ron Burk was the chief
editor before...


May 03, 2004
"Kar G Lim" <klim@machealth.com.au> wrote in message news:c746qr$4mv$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> A while ago I made a comment that CMP is notorous for taking a good publication and run it down for whatever reasons I don't understand at downunder - for example, BYTE and not WDJ/WDM.
>

Sorry, I meant NOW, not NOT

> It appears the magazine is no longer in print version and the articles are
> really good quality stuff anymore.
> Does anyone know the real reasons behind them?  Ron Burk was the chief
> editor before...
>
>


May 03, 2004
Simple: it wasn't selling enough. MSDN has the .NET world sewn up, CUJ has the C++ world sewn up, and DDJ has all the general-purpose stuff sewn up (and all the readers).

It's particularly bad for me, since I had 8 articles and 15 Tech Tips in WDM in 2003. Maybe it was my fault ... ;(

Matthew Wilson

Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal
    (www.synesis.com.au/articles.html#columns)
Director, Synesis Software
    (www.synesis.com.au)
STLSoft moderator
    (http://www.stlsoft.org)

-----------------------------------------------------


"Kar G Lim" <klim@machealth.com.au> wrote in message news:c746qr$4mv$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> A while ago I made a comment that CMP is notorous for taking a good publication and run it down for whatever reasons I don't understand at downunder - for example, BYTE and not WDJ/WDM.
>
> It appears the magazine is no longer in print version and the articles are
> really good quality stuff anymore.
> Does anyone know the real reasons behind them?  Ron Burk was the chief
> editor before...
>
>