Talk:Byte (magazine)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Magazines (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Wayne Green controversy[edit]

I have in my possession two issues of 73 Magazine from 1975. One has my name in the masthead and the other has an article by me. This is the time when Byte was started. If the first issue was labelled "September" I would attribute that to Wayne's quirkiness. He once pushed up the issue numbers of 73 by leaps and bounds over a period of several monts for no apparent reason. It was not that late in the year. It all happened in the Spring.

In both of these 73's the Business Manasger is Virginia Londner Green. Any other way to report her name at that time is erroneous except for "Virginia Green (nee Londner); that would work, though the former is historically accurate. Get an original copy of Byte and prove me wrong.

73 and Byte came out of a huge house on Pine Street in Peterborough. It was actually on the wrong side of the street to be number 73, but the Post Office didn't mind. I not only worked there for a short while in 1975 (with two bosses, Wayne and Virginia -- that drove me nuts, though some might call it a putt -- I lived there too.

I was present at the first meeting. Carl came with his two housemates, and Wayne and Virginia -- I was not part of the meeting itself, but rather acting in a supporting role -- I made lunch. Stuffed artichokes.

During the meeting Wayne took a picture of an S-100 board flanked by a knife and fork intended for the first cover, but it didn't turn out well enough to be used.

Monday morning Wayne told the ad guy, Bill, to see if he could scare up enough ads to support 56 pages for the first issue. Before noon he stuck his head in and said "How about 128?" Byte was off and running.

Though obviously some would discount my testimony, it is not hearsay.

Wayne fired people from time to time, including me a few weeks after this all happened. The following is actually hearsay, from Wayne himself in 1975 to me. Some time before, Wayne had fired somebody who had friends in high places, They got the IRS down on him. The IRS people found nothing wrong and left. They were sent back again with orders to get nasty, and they did. They disallowed, for instance, photographic equipment as a business expense, even though Wayne was not a photographic hobbyist, and had the equpment for the magazine.

So I guess he copped a plea or something. That's how the thing came to be in Virginia's name. Anyway, lots of people seem to delight in raking him over the coals, and even though I got pushed out the revolving door myself, I respect him enough to want to set the record straight.

;Bear 15:33, 2004 Apr 8 (UTC)

Doesn't really paint a complete picture....

I have an interest in this, as one of the handful of people who appear on the masthead of ALL the magazines...ALL of Wayne Green's, on BYTE, on ALL of Carl Helmers' magazines. (except for the later digital audio magazines that Wayne did). I know all the players personally, and have interacted with them in a professional and social capacity.

You will find my picture in early BYTE magazines.

Wayne's problems with the IRS stemmed from the fact that his publishing house was also his residence, and because his on-paper salary was paltry, with virtually all his personal expenses covered as 'business expense', including his Jaguar, his wardrobe, his groceries, his mortgage, and so on. Nice try, didn't quite pan out, as far as the IRS was concerned. Viewed in light of today's (2008) tax avoidance schemes, it was miniscule and petty.

The driving force behind BYTE was Virginia. Wayne was involved, and certainly his established magazine production facility and contacts were indispensable in getting BYTE launched. But to say that Wayne Green founded BYTE is too simplistic and frankly too much credit. Now, Wayne always liked me, and I always liked him. I used to hang out in his ham shack when I was a child, when my mother was visiting Wayne's first wife, and I enjoyed working for him later.

Virginia was tough, a ruthless business person, though very fair and honorable. Her actions at the start of BYTE had the appearance of "stealing" the magazine out from under Wayne, however that is not the nature of the event. The above editor (EBear) seems to insinuate that Virginia had the magazine in her name for "tax reasons", and in a mendacious act, stole it away under cover of darkness. Not so. Ruthless? yes. Underhanded theft? no.

Carl Helmers was a brilliant and difficult man, who was the original editor of BYTE, and a rather naive businessman. Whatever controversy (or intrigue, depending on your pov) occurred, he was just along for the ride.

dwoz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwoz (talkcontribs) 21:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wayne Green's own words[edit]

In the first issues of Byte Magazine, Wayne Green's From the Publisher column tells how Byte started. Here is a link to the article.

BYTE Issue #1 September 1975

The September 1976 issue says (page 4) that the work started on May 25 1975 and the first issue took 7 week to produce.

Wayne also wrote about starting Byte in 73 Magazine .

SWTPC6800 17:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wayne Green vs Virginia Londner Green[edit]

The June 1975 issue of 73 magazine published "Inside Ma Bell" by "Spenser Whipple Jr." and it had details on how to build a "Black Box", "Red Box", and the infamous "Blue Box", all devices intended to defraud the phone company. This was a series published in 3 issues. The Pacific Bell phone company sued 73 to stop publication.

The phone company settled with 73 Inc in January 1976. (California case C 126265; PacBell vs. Spenser Whipple Jr., Wayne Green, Virginia Londner Green and 200 John/Jane Does.) All issues of the offending 73 Magazines had to be destroyed including those at public libraries. They also had to notify each subscriber and tell them to destroy the June issue. (Most subscribers ignored that and made Xerox copies to give to their friends. The settlement only covered areas served by PacBell.)

The IRS was also unhappy with Wayne Green and did a full audit of him and 73 magazine. This is probably why the new magazine was started in the new Green Publishing, Inc. Wayne Green was the publisher for the first 4 issues then Virginia Green was listed in January 1976. The February 1976 issue is published by BYTE Publications, Inc.

Wayne Green was not happy about losing BYTE magazine so he was going to start a new one called Kilobyte. BYTE quickly trademarked KILOBYTE as a cartoon series in BYTE magazine. Wayne's magazine was called Kilobaud. The author Spenser Whipple Jr. was really Peter Stark and he wrote many articles for Kilobaud magazine.

(Michael Holley 19 February 2006)

Image placement[edit]

The reason for my moving the BYTE cover image below the intro text was an aesthetic one as well as the common practice of having the intro text going over the full width of the article above any images/tables etc. Also, how come the image as such is no longer present (not loading, as of the time of writing)? --Wernher 16:22, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sure, seems reasonable - Seemed wrong to me so I experimented by moving it while tweaking caption. On the other issue, I think the Wiki servers have been a bit stressed out 'cos I had a similar experience with some other images about the same time - all seems working at the moment --Wm 00:42, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
OK; I moved the cover img again as described, and trimmed the cpn a little bit -- the US$ sales price should be enough, I think. But thanks for including the cover title. FYI, as time permits, I plan to contribute photos of the initial and final issues of BYTE (if no one else beats me to it, that is). :-) --Wernher 20:38, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


There is no mention of the online service/BBS that Byte was associated with, known as BIX. --Weyoun6 23:08, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There probably should be such a mention, although my recollection is that despite Pournelle's boosterism (talking about his need for his daily "BIX fix") it was at best a modest success. It wasn't pioneering or anything—the bandwagon had been rolling for quite a while before BYTE jumped on. It's not mentioned in the same breath as CI$. My recollections (which are far too vague to go in the article) is that like many such systems of the time, it had its own unique (text-based) command language and user interface. And that nobody had anything either particularly good or particularly bad to say about it.
For a while, BYTE actually printed a "Best of BIX" section in the magazine, consisting of selected postings from BIX. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:55, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I was a moderator on BIX. It was nicely successful through the early 1990s, after which it went into a slow decline. Denimadept 19:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

BIX Resources[edit]

Denimadept, Help! BIX had plenty of nice code and reources, especially as extension to the main article (for a while, the extra code was published in BIX instead of the print article). Please, how this may be accessed now? Regards. --Connection 13:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Due to copyright issues, a lot of it couldn't be copied. Other stuff was deleted long ago due to lack of disk space. Some was archived by various people, though. I might be able to dig some small stuff up, on floppy disks. Denimadept 15:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I made my little research, following BIX article where you have your contribution. Delphi Forums (latest owner) closed BIX now. I searched the site for BIX, resulting with nothing. I guess there is no copyright claim? The BIX article doesnt show where "members created a new service". Any idea? In fact, other than being an important archive for code extension of the early articles, I am interested in a specific early code for developing a spreadsheet using Prolog. Again, Any idea? Thanks.
I'm not sure what you're asking. The Byte Information Exchange page has a pointer to the new site, in the reflist.
Copyright isn't something you need to see claimed. What you need to see is permission to reuse. If you don't see it and haven't received it from the copyright holder, you can save time and money by assuming you'll be sued if you use the material. To get permission to use the content, see who holds the domain for starters. Denimadept 21:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Right, I checked the new NLZ site. In fact, in the Byte Information Exchange page, I had read "called NLZ" as referring to the "open version of CoSy"!, not the site. Domain is an alias to a totally unrelated address/service. Now my question is about the body of contibutions-when-BYTE-was-in-print (not the forum service). Is it ported and still maintained at NLZ? Does it have a copyright holder as such? May it be reproduced somewhere else?--Connection 21:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
BYTE magazine has no relationship with NLZero. BYTE magazine ceased publication before NLZ was even thought of. I don't know for certain who holds the copyright on BYTE magazine.
I thought you were asking about the content of BIX. That content was copyrighted and NLZ has none of it. I don't know who holds that copyright. Denimadept 21:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing your time and knowledge  :) --Connection 10:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Move to BYTE magazine[edit]

Support The front cover of the magazine has BYTE in capitals --Lox (t,c) 22:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment There don't seem to be any objections, so I have tagged this for CapitalMove. If you do have any objections to this move, please do say so now! --Lox (t,c) 22:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment I've removed it for now, until a conclusion of proposed move over at Talk:Time (magazine) --Lox (t,c) 11:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I think the situation with BYTE is different. BYTE magazine always referred to itself using all-capitals. The current website uses all capitals. All-caps is used in the BYTE print archive, and here, and in this 1998 editorial. The name of the magazine was not "Byte," it was "BYTE." Just as the name of the programming language that was respectable in academia during the 1960s was not Algol, but ALGOL. I'm restoring your request. I hope you don't mind. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't mind at all, thanks for going ahead and doing that! --Lox (t,c) 16:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed the requested move from BYTE magazine to BYTE. The "magazine" isn't needed since BYTE (all caps) is unambiguous, and is currently a redirect. Mirror Vax 22:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  • BYTE magazine feels better, the word BYTE may be associated with someting else in the future. Pavel Vozenilek 22:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not standard to explain what a thing is in the title. If it were ambiguous, the title would be BYTE (magazine), not BYTE magazine. Mirror Vax 22:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Agree with Mirror Vax that BYTE magazine is wrong. However, since BYTE has some kind of continuing existence as []. Should it be BYTE, with the understanding that the article may be extended to include the website, or should it be BYTE (magazine)? I don't care, but I do feel strongly about the all-caps. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This move was incorrect, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). All-capitals are only used for trademarks when each letter stands for something, which is not the case here. See also Talk:Lego. Nohat 07:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not a mere style issue in this case. The capitalization has disambiguation utility. Mirror Vax 09:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Disambiguation utility is not a valid reason to violate the style guide, sorry. Nohat 05:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment Capitalization is also a part of "trademark specs". A valid reason to violate the style guide :).--Connection 20:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Now, whoever moves the page to another title, please remove double redirects immediately after doing so! This also goes when there is a risk that the page might be re-renamed/moved later on. I took the work of removing the dbl dirs the last time, but ths time I demand the "page-renamer" do his/her "duty", dammit! --Wernher 00:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't remove double redirects when a page has been moved incorrectly. You should just move the original page back to the correct title. Nohat 01:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course, but the reason for my previously removing the redirects was that I actually made the error of thinking the move would be permanent... --Wernher 03:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Article doesn't make sense to the uninitiated[edit]

I subsribed to Byte and Kilobaud way back when and was aware that there was some kind of competitive thing going on between Wayne Green and Carl Helmers but I never knew what the story was. The section "Tale of Two Publishers" doesn't explain anything to me. Basically as written the article says 1. Wayne Green was the founding publisher. 2. Wayne Green said a lot of bad things about Byte. So why did Wayne Green leave Byte and who was Carl Helmers?? What was the controversy? (Thomas144 23:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC))


Now that it has cooled off for a few weeks, is unprotection OK? Calwatch 09:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's weeks overdue. I'm unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway 16:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Mirror Vax has once again moved the article to make it noncompliant with the MoS without being willing to discuss on this page. Please, Mirror Vax, explain why the MoS does not apply here. Nohat 20:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
???? Not sure what I'm getting into here, but the name of the magazine was BYTE, all-caps. Surely the manual of style doesn't say that an inaccurate title should be used? I don't have strong feelings about whether it should be "BYTE" or "BYTE (magazine)" but "Byte (magazine)" is just plain wrong. I'm looking at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and I don't see where this issue is addressed. Does it say somewhere that articles about publications should follow the style prescribed by Wikipedia when that is different from the actual style used in the work as published? Dpbsmith (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The letters in Byte do not stand for anything, so they should not need to be capitalized. This is just the standard rule of English mechanics. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), which says "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment". We do not have articles at macy*s and BEER NUTS and LEGO and TIME, and for the same reason this article should be at Byte (magazine) or Byte magazine, not at BYTE. It is not clear that there is any compelling reason for this article to not follow the capitalization and text formatting standards of English which have been adopted on Wikipedia. Nohat 21:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
How about the naming convention that says "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things?" That would be "BYTE magazine," not "Byte magazine." Try a Google Groups search on byte magazine for example. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Byte and BYTE are the same name—the former is just the standard capitalization of the latter. "Use common names" does not apply here because the dispute is not between different names, but between standard and nonstandard capitalization of a trademark, for which there is an entry in the MoS that specifically applies. Nohat 17:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe BYTE is a trademark. No tm or circle-R on their webpage, anyway, no time to search USPTO right now. This isn't a case of trademark, this is a case of idiosyncratic spelling in a title. Does the MoS say we should move Enuff Z'nuff to Enough is enough? Oklahoma! to Oklahoma? Hellzapoppin' to Hell is popping? Thus Spoke Zarathustra to Thus spoke Zoroaster? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course "Byte" is a trademark. It is "a distinctive sign of some kind which is used by a business to uniquely identify itself and its products and services to consumers, and to distinguish the business and its products or services from those of other businesses". It is also a registered trademark: see [1]. (Note that the USPTO does not distinguish case in trademarks: all trademarks are displayed in all capitals.) The Manual of Style section for trademarks therefore undoubtedly applies. None of the examples you give are analogous because spelling and punctuation do make something a different name. Capitalization does not. The examples I gave of BEER NUTS and LEGO and TIME are analogous examples, and you should note how those articles are titled. Nohat 19:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... I think you're right. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Since there has been no further comment on the subject, I'm going to go ahead and move the page back to the MoS-compliant title. If you revert, please comment here why you think the MoS doesn't apply. Thanks. Nohat 21:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The title of the magazine is BYTE. Spelled on the cover of the magazine as B-Y-T-E, all in capitals. In addition to the many valid points which support naming the article BYTE, nobody has actually demonstrated that it is NOT an acronym. The assumption that BYTE refers only to byte as in 8 digital bits is simply an assumption. Given Wayne Green's propensity for word use and controversy it is certainly possible that there was more than one layer of meaning to the magazine's title. In any event, BYTE is the form the publisher chose and BYTE is what appeared on the cover for hundreds of issues. I'm reverting the page. Anyone who can demonstrate that BYTE is NOT an acronym should comment here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Computer Magazines[edit]

Template:Computer Magazines has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Fourohfour 13:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(Notice included here to get attention of unbiased cross-section of potentially interested parties. TfDs and this template don't seem to get much attention on their own, but this template appears in lots of articles.) Fourohfour 13:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Carl Helmers and Experimental Computer Systems[edit]

Thank You, (, for your insight and vision on how Byte magazine started.

The primordial form of Byte was called ECS (for Experimental Computer System). It was a serialized publication started by Carl Helmers that over the course of approximately two years detailed, in irregular installments, the construction of an Intel 8008 microprocessor and peripherals. The very first issue described the construction of a serial interface to a cassette tape recorder as a mass storage device. The original subscribership came about as a result of a classified ad placed in the back of Popular Electronics. It remains uncertain if anyone other than Carl Helmers himself successfully followed the instructions and built a functioning computer.

Later, in 1975 Helmers somehow entered into a collaboration with Wayne Green who was the Editor/Publisher of 73 (an amateur radio magazine) and his ex-wife, Virginia Loudner Green, the Business Manager of 73 Inc, and Byte Magazine was launched.

Carl Helmers is a talented editor and in many ways was responsible for the success of Byte magazine. I used to read his editorials and construction projects every month.

Magazines are started by publishers not editors. It takes a lot of money to go from 400 copies of a newsletter to 15,000 copies of a slick magazine. The first issue of Byte was a 96 page magazine with 28 pages of ads. Many of the advertisers in that issue were long time advertisers in 73 Magazine. The letters to the editor in the first issue were from 73 magazine readers.

Notices of the upcoming Byte magazine were sent to the 400 subscribers of Carl Helmers' ECS (Experimental Computer System) newsletter and the tens of thousands 73 magazine subscribers. After the first issue was in print, Wayne Green went on a road trip to his advertisers showing them the new magazine. He had notices sent to their customer list. The first issue sold out, maybe 400 to ECS subscribers and 14,600 copies to other folks. (About 20 percent of the subscribers were from 73 magazine and 25 percent from advertisers mailing lists.)

Wayne Green also had contacts with the authors that provided the articles for the first issues of Byte. The serial interface and cassette data storage article in the first issue of Byte was written by Don Lancaster.

Wayne wanted a magazine that a beginner could read but Carl wanted a more technical magazine. Lucky for Carl (and the readers) the magazine was in Virginia Greens name. After 3 or 4 issues Carl and Virginia broke away from 73 magazine.

You can read a good accounting of this story in the book Fire in the Valley by Paul Freiberger and Michael Swaine.

Here are some links to more details on how Byte started.

I am reverting these changes on How Byte Started. It would be nice if you could write more on the history of the ECS newsletter. It deserves a section of its own.

SWTPC6800 02:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

BYTE's nadir[edit]

BYTE reached a nadir in February 1988 where subscribers noticed the magazine was about 1/4 inch thick and the articles no longer satisfied the long time readers. However, how can I insert this and additional text into the article?

Find a published reliable source and cite it. Maybe a magazine industry review or financial results? —EncMstr 19:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Micro-8 Newsletter on how BYTE started[edit]

Carl Helmers wrote about his homebrew 8008 computer in his Experimenter's Computer Systems newsletter. He knew and also corresponded with Hal Singer, the editor of the Mark-8 Computer User Group Newsletter. The newsletter's name was changed to Micro-8 and by September 1975 it had 900 subscribers. Soon after Carl signed on with Wayne Green to do BYTE magazine he wrote Hal this letter.

Singer, Hal (June 27, 1975). "Carl Helmers". Micro-8 Computer User Group Newsletter. Lompoc, CA: Cabrillo Computer Center. 1 (8): 1.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) The newsletter was published before 1978 without a copyright notice and is in the public domain.

Carl Helmers of M.P. Publishing Co., Box 387, Belmont, MA 02178 had this to say in a recent letter. "Just a page, to inform you of the demise of ECS Magazine and - like a phoenix from its mailing list arisen the beginning of 'BYTE'! I got a note in the mail about two weeks ago from Wayne Green, publisher of '73 Magazine' essentially saying hello and why don't you come up and talk a bit. The net result of a follow up is the decision to create BYTE magazine using the facilities of Green Publishing Inc. I will end up with the editorial focus for the magazine; with the business end being managed by Green Publishing.

The idea of the magazine is to provide a forum for ideas and communications on the "Home Brew Computer" theme and its practical applications for games, as an aid to small business and professional people's needs, and for the non-practical hardware-hackers who build things and let them sit on the shelf. The forum is the magazine, and its sustenance comes from a combination of subscriptions and advertisements. The subscription price will be $10 for a charter subscriber per annum, and $12 following the initial "turn on" transients. ECS magazine subscribers will be serviced on a two for one basis for the-remainder of their present subscriptions. Individual copies will sell for $1.50."

August 3, 1975. Volume 1, #9, Page 2

Rumors floating around indicate that BYTE has already received over 20,000 subscriptions and advertising rates are up to $1500 a page. The first issue is back from the printer and will have about 94 pages with more advertising than anything else but let's really support them. If it turns out a good as "73" magazine it should be an invaluable aid to the hobby effort.

September 10, 1975. Vol 1, #11, Page 2

Not all rumors are true. BYTE subscriptions seem nearer to 10,000 and the first issue wasn't mostly advertising. The first three issues have been spectacular and future ones should just get better. You have to subscribe! Write BYTE Subscriptions, Peterborough, NH, $12 per year.

-- SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Byte is totally and completely DEAD[edit] now redirects to Dr. Dobbs ( with no mention whatsoever of Byte. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cousert (talkcontribs) 15:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Press release[edit]

The question seems to be, is this notable to this article, or is this vapor. Tough call. A press release of this sort strikes me as important. Whether it's vapor or real is a judgment call, in other words, a POV. We all know what that means. Personally, I don't think they can bring BYTE back. They can create a new magazine called BYTE, but BYTE is long gone, for very specific reasons. Even DJJ has died. The market for a BYTE magazine as it was in the late 1970s and early 1980s is apparently gone. I expect they'll bring it back for a few issues, no one will notice, and it'll die again. - Denimadept (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and press releases say all kinds of things. We have no deadline, let a couple of issues of the revived BYTE come out and we can refer back to this press release then. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. Until then, I'll refer to this version of "BYTE" as "Wishful thinking". - Denimadept (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree.
Imagine what we could write if "crystal" did not exist: Byte will have a strong well-financed reintroduction with the March 2011 issue, initially receiving lukewarm industry commentary. By June 2011, it will be largely forgotten, financially wallow near break-even—despite several innovative publicity stunts—until September 2012 and then cease without advance notice or industry comment.EncMstr (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Sounds about right, except for the publicity stunts. I expect no such thing. If these people understood the Zeitgeist, they'd come up with a new title, such as "Terabyte" or some such, rather than trying to use a name that a lot of us lost faith in by 1989. - Denimadept (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I't s a tough time for the magazine business; even pictures of naked ladies don't sell magazines any more, much less "We review 100 top mousepads" and "Sneek peak at Windows version N+1: You have no choice" style of articles. The car magazines seem to do ok, though.--Wtshymanski (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The new byte should be all circuit cellar but with no soldering required. They should make it a magazine about Legos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantergraph (talkcontribs) 20:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
CC is still around. Back in 1988, BYTE published a tiny issue. This made some of us rebel. The articles sucked, the fun articles from previous years were gone, so we tried reviewing each individual article they published. A few months later, they published one article like in the old days, then once we'd verified that's what we were looking for, the publisher explained why we weren't going to see it. So I unsub'd and haven't looked back. I seriously doubt that anything major has changed to bring the old BYTE back. I expect quite the reverse, that it'll suck more. - Denimadept (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

New "life"[edit]

If a URL such as actually translates as is it really the original URL or the resulting one? I figure they're still pretending to bring back BYTE while it's still Infoweek. - Denimadept (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The New[edit]

I am the current Editorial Director for, which is a publication of UBM TechWeb. It has been up and running since the summer and under my direction since late September.

It's true that the domain redirects to and there are good, technical and business reasons for this, but if you simply look at the site you can see that it's not InformationWeek. We do operate as party of the InformationWeek business group and are lucky to be able to share in some of their resources.

There is a lot of recent content in this article entered by former employees with an agenda. I want to observe Wikipedia protocol as best I can, but I feel it necessary to remove all the self-serving references to subsequent endeavors by former employees. I intend the resulting article to be much simpler and relevant and I hope to build it up over time with new, relevant content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lseltzer (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Lseltzer (talkcontribs) 13:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Larry Seltzer here again. I notice that Byte is in categories for "Publications established in 1975" and "Publications disestablished in 1998" but it would be accurate to have a category, in our case, for "Publications reestablished in 2011". I will look into how such categories are created, but if someone could provide tips I would appreciate it.Lseltzer (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Larry. Just beware your own bias, please. Some of us are not former employees, but former readers and users. We know a few things. - Denimadept (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest Sources[edit]

I redid the Foundation section using impartial sources. The previous version described the dispute between Wayne Green and his ex-wife Virginia Green using sources written by Virginia Green Williamson's third husband, attorney Gordon Williamson. This is a giant conflict of interest. Wayne Green is still a living person so high-quality sources must be used. I added several more readily available unbiased sources and played down the family feud. --SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Rover1962 additions[edit]

It appears that Rover1962 is not an admirer of the late Wayne Green. I believe that this editor previously edited the article as User Carboniferous1001001 in January 2010. [2] It is well known (and reported) that Wayne Green and his ex-wife, Virginia Londner Green, were involved in a bitter dispute over the founding of Byte magazine. Think War of the Roses. Wayne may have the original idea to start a computer magazine but for some reason it was published by Virginia Green's newly formed Green Publishing. The existing article covers this dispute and the fact that Virginia Green prevailed. Rover1962 wants to add the vitriolic details of this dispute based on various court cases. The records may or may not be available in some New Hampshire courthouse. For the Byte magazine article, it does not matter how much Wayne Green got for selling his magazines years later.

Rover1962 additions to the article have been moved here.

The foregoing material was clearly written by Wayne Green (now deceased) or a confederate. Repetition of a lie shouldn't make it a non-lie. Mr. Green filed a lawsuit the purpose of which he stated was to establish his founding and owning of Byte magazine. After years and years of non-prosecution of the suit, the defendant finally pushed for a trial date. Shortly before the trial was to commence, the Green interests settled with a money payment to the defendant. He did not establish any right in Byte magazine. The documents of the case are undoubtedly in deep storage by now, by ought to be obtainable through the office of the Clerk of Courts, Hillsborough County Superior Court North, 300 Chestnut St., Manchester NH 03101. Then, in the mid-1980s, Folio magazine decided to do an article on Wayne Green. He was at least notable for the number of his magazine launches, if not for their success. The article quoted Mr. Green as saying that he started Byte and that his first wife stole it from him. His first wife sued Green and Folio for defamation. Both defendants settled for six figure amounts rather than face a jury. (The payments by Green were apparently a key factor in his declaring personal bankruptcy. His was living in either Hancock NH or Peterborough NH at the time. Records of his bankruptcy ought to be avaibable from town clerks or district court clerks.) The records of the defamation case are also available from Clerk of Courts, Hillsborough County Superior Court North, 300 Chestnut St., Manchester NH 03101. The plaintiff was the true founder, publisher, original owner, and eventual seller to McGraw-Hill, Virginia Williamson. (At the time Folio's lawyers made some suggestion that they would seek to split the case into two cases -- i.e., Williamson v. Green and Williamson v. Folio. This may have been done, or may not have been done, before settlement and capitulation by both defendants. This detail may be of help to the Clerk of Courts if anyone seeks to examine the court documents.)

In any case, these court documents and the case results ought to speak far more loudly and authoritatively than Mr. Green's statements, mostly in his own magazines. Green eventually sold all of his businesses to Computerworld and trumpted to the world (again, mostly in his own magazines) that he was paid sixteen million dollars (or sixty million, depending upon his audience). In discovery in the defamation action, Green and/or Folio produced the contract of sale from Green to Folio. The consideration paid to Green for his entire "empire", which he had been building for at least 20 years, was $5,000 cash and a note for one million dollars payable over five years. Since Byte magazine, at its peak of cirulation and advertising revenue, grossed more in a year and all of Green's properties did together in 20 years and since Byte became McGraw-Hill's second largest magazine in circulation, gross revenue and profit, Green's 30+ year desire to continue to link, falsely, his name to Byte may be understandable if not condoneable.

I am not "Wayne Green (now deceased) or a confederate" but I did started reading BYTE magazine at issue #4, December 1975. I also subscribed to Kilobaud magazine starting at issue #1. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I left a note on Rover1962's talk page telling them about this action. I also mentioned Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered." -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

First Microsoft advertisement[edit]

"Byte ran Microsoft's first advertisement, as "Micro-Soft", to sell a BASIC interpreter for 8080-based computers." I suspect that this is false. According to this official Microsoft Facebook post, their first ad ran in July 1976 in Digital Design magazine. I searched the entirety of all 1975 and 1976 issues of BYTE Magazine (available digitally from the Internet Archive) and couldn't find a single ad by Micro-Soft. (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Growth and change[edit]

The section 'Growth and change' seems to be claiming that Byte got better and better. No it, didn't it got worse and worse. That, of course, is my opinion and shouldn't stated as fact - just as the content of the section 'Growth and change' is opinion and shouldn't be stated as fact. (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)