lvirden@pro-tcc.cts.com (Larry Virden) (09/22/89)
I have a question for the Apple folks. Could someone give us a man-hour estimate on how much time it took to write the CD-ROM FST? I am just wondering about a read-only type FST ... does it take as long as a Read Write FST? Since I would be happy initially with Read Only DOS 3.3, MS-DOS and Mac FSTs, perhaps that direction would be financially feasible. Also, maybe if someone needed one of the above BADLY enough, Apple would do it for a price?
farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) (09/29/89)
In article <8909222101.AA06013@trout.nosc.mil> lvirden@pro-tcc.cts.com (Larry Virden) writes: >I have a question for the Apple folks. Could someone give us a man-hour >estimate on how much time it took to write the CD-ROM FST? Remember that the FST took more than just the development time, there was also the need to test it thoroughly. Taking that into account, the High Sierra FST required (approximately) 1.5 years of manpower: 6 months of development, and 6 months of concurrent testing and development (6+6+6 = 18 mos). -- +--------------+-------------------------+ | Cary Farrier | farrier@apple.com | +--------------+-------------------------+
lvirden@pro-tcc.UUCP (Larry Virden) (09/30/89)
Network Comment: to #580 by farrier@apple.com My math must be rusty - you indicated that High Sierra toold 6 months of development and 6 months of testing and development. Now are you telling me that it took 12 months of development and 6 months of testing for that code that almost no one uses, yet the code that most folks want - for reading Mac or Apple DOS 3.3 disks - or even MS-DOS disks - isnt available? Sigh. Oh, and were the 6 testing and 6 development in simultanousness by different groups? I mean, when _I_ do testing and development, I seldom spend 16 hrs a day at it - so 6 months of test/devel is 3 of testing and 3 of devel (roughly).
farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) (10/03/89)
In article <8909300945.AA10599@trout.nosc.mil> lvirden@pro-tcc.UUCP (Larry Virden) writes: >Network Comment: to #580 by farrier@apple.com > >My math must be rusty - you indicated that High Sierra toold 6 months of >development and 6 months of testing and development. Now are you telling >me that it took 12 months of development and 6 months of testing for >that code that almost no one uses, yet the code that most folks want - >for reading Mac or Apple DOS 3.3 disks - or even MS-DOS disks - isnt >available? Sigh. Oh, and were the 6 testing and 6 development in >simultanousness by different groups? I mean, when _I_ do testing and >development, I seldom spend 16 hrs a day at it - so 6 months of test/devel >is 3 of testing and 3 of devel (roughly). At Apple, we have people who do only do testing, and people who only do development. So yes, the testing and development were done by two different (albiet closely connected) departments simultaneously. I have no idea as to the actual usage of the High Sierra FST, but I *can* tell you the reasoning behind doing it first: we were in development of our CD-ROM drive then, and wanted a simultaneous release on both platforms, instead of only giving Macintosh users access to CD-ROM technology. -- +--------------+-------------------------+ | Cary Farrier | farrier@apple.com | +--------------+-------------------------+
mmunz@pro-beagle.cts.com (Mark Munz) (10/03/89)
Network Comment: to #11207 by farrier@apple.com > simultaneously. I have no idea as to the actual usage of the > High Sierra FST, but I *can* tell you the reasoning behind doing > it first: we were in development of our CD-ROM drive then, and > wanted a simultaneous release on both platforms, instead of > only giving Macintosh users access to CD-ROM technology. > I does seem like it would have made more sense to come out with a HFS FST, since it would get much more usage.. It's great that the IIGS can use the CD-ROM drive.. but 99% of IIGS owners are probably not going to get or use the CD-ROM within the next 18 months. In fact, if you can afford to a CD-ROM player, chances are you could afford to get another computer (namely a Mac). That's not to say that having the High Sierra FST isn't great. More is always better (most of the time), as long as the Mac HFS FST will be out shortly. --Mark Munz