denbeste@bbn.COM (Steven Den Beste) (11/08/87)
[And you have an attitude problem, too, line-eater!]
I've been reading this group since about March, and I see some things I worry
about. This is the feistiest bunch of people I've seen in a coon's
age. (Sorry for the picturesque way of speaking - I'm just a hick from
Portland, OR., a small town of 1.2 million people where we used to live in a
log cabin and keep a shot-gun by the door to shoot the bears. [Sorry, I've got
East-Coasteritis.])
Not only do the amiga folks seem to get into more "my computer is better than
yours" wars than anyone else - since I've been here I've seen at least two
mixups with the ST folks, not to mention the Mac people once and a continual
biting at the PC; anyway, they also seem to be continually displeased with
everyone else, too: all the software vendors, all the hardware vendors, CBM,
fellow netters, binaries and sources moderators, people who write PD software,
people who write SHAREWARE software, and even others. (CBM's ad agency?)
(In fact, the only person I can think of that everyone loves is Fred Fish.)
Speaking as men-of-the-world (and women-of-the-world, too - sorry, jdow) if you
want something from someone, do you think that insulting them at the top of
your lungs is the way to get it? How do you yourself respond when someone does
that to you? [I can tell you this: If my boss yells at me for doing an
incompetent job, I don't buckle down, I start looking for a new position
because he or she isn't worth working for.]
As to the cross-group wars, why bother? Who cares? Just what are you trying to
prove? In fact, there seemed to be an undercurrent in them from this side of
"the amiga is such a fine machine, howcome more people ain't buying it?"
insecurity. Maybe that is why the amigans seem a bit defensive.
So, here is an attitude that I'd like everyone to practice not having:
"If they did it differently than I would have, then they did it wrong."
This is a damaging attitude because it assumes you understand all the problems
that they had to solve.
Every engineering design is a trade-off. Most projects start with an extremely
short list of desired features, and with a retail price goal. (From which you
immediately get a manufacturing price goal by a rule-of-thumb which varies from
company to company. At a company I used to work for, the rule of thumb was
4-to-1 markup, to cover engineering costs, sales costs, advertising, paying for
unsuccessful projects, company overhead and PROFIT.)
The engineers have to answer the question: What can we design within that
dollar constraint, in a short enough time so that it isn't market-irrelevant,
which will sell at that sales price in reasonable volume? (at which point
some very impressive juggling goes on about just what volume you expect to try
to sell - as the volume goes up, component cost goes down, but you have to gear
up the factory to that volume. Most companies try to underestimate this a bit,
because if you underestimate you will have a long back-order list but will be
profitable, but if you overestimate you will have an idle factory and will lose
money.)
This answer isn't the same as to the question "What would be our dream machine
if we could buy our components at surplus stores in onesies, labor was free, we
didn't have to produce in quantity and we didn't have a schedule?" A LOT
different.
One lament I've heard recently summarizes as "Why didn't you improve the A2000
without making it incompatable?" Problem here is this: To improve something,
you much change it. To change something, you induce incompatabilities. Plain
and simple.
Of course, those incompatabilities can be great or small - they fall withing
brackets, and where in the bracket you fall depends on other issues. "Staying
compatable with the A1000" WASN'T the only consideration; you also have to
include the following: "Getting done on time", "Consuming as little engineering
resource as possible" (both to keep costs down, and simply because it allows
your engineers to get more done - read "more products"), "Making it sell at a
reasonable price", "Making it so we can manufacture it in quantity".
Mike Meyers, author of the above lament (and let me say now that I am probably
summarizing it incorrectly, because I got sick of it and started skipping the
articles a long time ago) asked in one of his articles why they couldn't have
designed a product for the A2000 allowing use of A1000 SOTS modules.
Well, technically they could have. But technical considerations are
secondary: the real issue is resource and profitability. Such a product would
be aimed at 1) A1000 owners who 2) own SOTS modules and 3) upgrade to an A2000
and 4) want to bring those SOTS boxes along. Now, by anyone's estimates,
that is a pretty small audience for the product and given that C/A has a
shortage of engineering talent (and EVERYONE ALWAYS has a shortage of
engineering talent relative to all the tasks they wish they could work on) they
have to make a decision whether that particular product would be more
profitable than another which might address the entire A2000 audience. In this
case they have made what I consider a quite realistic decision to let some
third-party make it if they think the market is there - someone like Perry, for
instance. Instead, they have their hardware guys working on other things -
what, of course, I don't know. Maybe a controller for 2M floppies? Maybe the
386 bridge card? Who can say, besides Commodore. But they are not responsible
to us for their decisions, they are only responsible to their management and
their stock-holders.
EVERY decision is a trade-off, and EVERY decision will leave someone pissed off
and feeling shat upon. I know it is an old chestnut, but "You can't please
everyone." [I'm told that some magazines of political commentary gauge their
articles by how many "I'm cancelling my subscription" letters they receive - if
they don't get any, they begin worrying.]
The only possible answer to the question "Why didn't you do this" is "Because
we were busy doing something else we though was more important." Once you
understand that the go/nogo decision on a specific product is not only on its
own merits, but relative to other products which they could also be working on,
you're most of the way there to understanding what they do.
For Meyers to stand up and bombastically say "Commodore Blew It And I'm Taking
My Business Elsewhere" is at best arrogant and at worst ignorant. My reaction
to that comment was "Good riddance."
If I've learned anything in the 12 years I've been in this industry (and 6
years as a student hacker before that) it is these two things: "Nothing lasts"
and "Nothing is perfect". The biggest difference between a good engineer and a
bad engineer is that a bad engineer spends a lot of time bemoaning the sad
state of the tools and components and constantly attempts to achieve
perfection, whereas the good engineer takes what is, makes it work, sells it
and makes money.
Does anyone remember an article I posted a few months ago where I tried to
analyze the markets the A1000 (and the then rumored A2000) could be sold to?
Well, it seems that Commodore had already figured it out, and when the A2000
came out, they had tossed in some things to broaden its appeal. However, the
big surprise was the then not-rumored A500, which seems to be selling as fast
as they can make them. Are the A2000 and A500 perfect? Of course not. Are they
selling and making a profit? They sure are selling, and if they are selling at
C/A's manufacturing capacity then if C/A isn't profitable they need to fire
their accountants.
That makes them good products. Not perfect, but then "perfection" isn't part of
the universe of discourse.
Do they please everyone? Of course not. GM, perhaps the most successful
industrial company in history, has achieved no more than a 1 in 4 penetration
rate. For a company like commodore, if they make 1 in 100 they will be
fantastically successful.
So, the right attitude is "If they did it differently than I would have, then
they must have known something that I don't know."
Folks, when writing about some lack or flaw, the right way to do it is "Have
you considered doing the following?" The wrong way, (the "Meyer's way") is "You
stupid jerks, why didn't you do the following?".
The former used to be the common way on this group, and it WORKED! But
recently, more and more people seem to be destructive rather than
constructive.
I've never seen a computer for which the designers, both software and hardware,
are as available and helpful as for the Amiga - frankly I'm STILL astounded.
Not just CATS (it's their job, after all) but Haynes and Robbins and Schein
and Davis and Finkel and that guy from Sales whose name I've forgotten. They
read our suggestions and listen to them and even implement some of them, they
answer questions and make suggestions, they give us (and therefore their
competitors) hints about what's coming, and they seem to put up with an
incredible amount of abuse for this. Every feature is second guessed, ever
decision is criticized; Folks, is this any way to treat people who don't have
to do this for us? How would you like it if cbmvax went off the air and we quit
hearing from them?
Let's start looking at our nine-tenths full glass instead of our one-tenth
empty glass, OK?
--
Steven C. Den Beste, Bolt Beranek & Newman, Cambridge MA
denbeste@bbn.com(ARPA/CSNET/UUCP) harvard!bbn.com!denbeste(UUCP)
I don't think BBN cares what I think about this stuff.
And that's probably just as well.mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) (11/09/87)
In article <4504@cc5.bbn.COM> denbeste@bbn.COM (Steven Den Beste) writes:
<One lament I've heard recently summarizes as "Why didn't you improve the A2000
<without making it incompatable?" Problem here is this: To improve something,
<you much change it. To change something, you induce incompatabilities. Plain
<and simple.
No, not plain and not simple. Not even true. It's possible to improve
something and leave it compatable with the old version. But this
eventually leaves you with horrible mess.
But both of the above types of changes are different from gratuitous
changes.
Changing the serial serial and parallel ports on the A2000 to be
standard (or IBM-PC compatable) is an improvement.
Pushing the function key row (complete with DEL and ESC keys) up a row
without inserting anything in the middle is a gratuitous change (or
would somebody at CBM care to justify this change). While it doesn't
introduce an incompatability, it's a pain in the *ss if you use any of
those keys heavily.
Likewise, the only justification for the Zorro I to Zorro ][ change I
can see is wanting to build the A2000 in an IBM-PC style box. That
qualifies as gratuitous to me.
<Mike Meyers, author of the above lament (and let me say now that I am probably
<summarizing it incorrectly, because I got sick of it and started skipping the
<articles a long time ago) asked in one of his articles why they couldn't have
<designed a product for the A2000 allowing use of A1000 SOTS modules.
Why didn't you keep skipping it? You'd have been less likely to make
the mistakes you did.
For instance, if you want to bitch about what I said (I was one of the
first to bitch about that), you could at least spell my name right.
Unless one of the many Mike Meyers I don't know has been expressing
views similar to mine, and I haven't seen them.
<Well, technically they could have. But technical considerations are
<secondary: the real issue is resource and profitability.
Yet another mistake. One of the CATS people has already stated that a
SOTS on the A2000 was considered, and rejected on technical grounds -
that it would work less well than the A1000 SOTS, and they didn't want
to repeat that headache (which leaves the A500 SOTS socket as an open
question).
<For Meyers to stand up and bombastically say "Commodore Blew It And I'm Taking
<My Business Elsewhere" is at best arrogant and at worst ignorant. My reaction
<to that comment was "Good riddance."
No, wise. They have practically forced me into a position of having to
consider buying a new computer. I'm considering other options than a
CBM machine. Considering *all* the options is almost always a wise
thing to do.
And if you look, I've *never* said the A2000 had any technical
problems. An ergonomic disaster, yes.
But the real problem is that it's a good demonstration of how well CBM
understands the concept of a "family" of computers. If you can call
three machines with three compatable-with-kludges expansion options a
"family."
<If I've learned anything in the 12 years I've been in this industry (and 6
<years as a student hacker before that) it is these two things: "Nothing lasts"
<and "Nothing is perfect".
Nothing is perfect, yes. I spend more time than I want to think about
working around problems in various systems.
Doesn't last? Well, in the long run, yes. But I've run complex,
multi-languages systems that had last been changed before you started
hacking as a student. All it took was running it on hardware from a
company that believed in upgrade paths.
<The biggest difference between a good engineer and a
<bad engineer is that a bad engineer spends a lot of time bemoaning the sad
<state of the tools and components and constantly attempts to achieve
<perfection, whereas the good engineer takes what is, makes it work, sells it
<and makes money.
I'm not an engineer (praise Bob!). You can ask the people who pay me
whether I'm good or bad at what I do.
I also find that the *best* people constantly seek perfection. Of
course, they weren't just out to make money, they were out to create
things of beauty and please people.
<Are the A2000 and A500 perfect? Of course not. Are they
<selling and making a profit? They sure are selling, and if they are selling at
<C/A's manufacturing capacity then if C/A isn't profitable they need to fire
<their accountants.
Some people think that there are more important things than "profit."
Like making sure your customers are happy.
I'll also point out that the IBM-PC & clones sell much better than the
Amgia - any of them. Does that mean it's a better machine than any of
the Amigas?
<That makes them good products. Not perfect, but then "perfection" isn't part of
<the universe of discourse.
Perfection may not be part of your universe of discourse, but it's
bloody well part of mine. It's what things should aim at. You just
have to decide how short you're willing to fall before release your
product.
Unless you're much more interested in the bottom line than quality, of
course.
<So, the right attitude is "If they did it differently than I would have, then
<they must have known something that I don't know."
Oh, I never claimed that they did it wrong from their viewpoint - just
from mine. I didn't even claim that it was wrong for what they wanted
to do. It's just that what they wanted to do apparently wasn't to
market a serious family of computers.
<The former used to be the common way on this group, and it WORKED!
Haven't been reading this group very long, have you? There have been
several other people who made a lot of people mad by bitching about CBM -
and in one case, about CATS. Strangly enough, they got what they wanted.
<Let's start looking at our nine-tenths full glass instead of our one-tenth
<empty glass, OK?
I'm still looking at my computer with a dead expansion market. I fail
to see how that can be considered nine-tenths full.
<mike
--
I'm gonna lasso you with my rubberband lazer, Mike Meyer
Pull you closer to me, and look right to the moon. mwm@berkeley.edu
Ride side by side when worlds collide, ucbvax!mwm
And slip into the Martian tide. mwm@ucbjade.Bo ao arichard@gryphon.UUCP (11/09/87)
So, you think these amigans have an attitude problem eh ?
I attribute this to the fact that most amigans are well versed
computer types who expect more out of their machine than any other
micro group.
The mac guys are still infatuated with the concept of a mouse. The IBM
guys want to know why ProComm doesnt work, and the ST peoeple, well,
they can barely figure out how to post a message.
I think a lot of those people bought those computers as their first one,
whereas a lot of amigans are seasoned computer battle scarred
veterans of 'the bad old days' (Pre-PC).
The technical content in this group is higher than any other micro group,
we have more diversified peripherals for the amiga than any other micro,
all because of these peoeple who CARE so much, WORK so hard and are
so damn INNOVATIVE. Similarly, in this vein, Bill Volk made a comment
at a local L.A. chapter meeting of SIGGRAPH, that there was more
stuff out for the amiga at 1 year, than there was for the Mac at
2-3 years.
So yes, these here amigans are a highly enthusiastic crowd, and
when they are pissed off sparks fly.
So hit 'n'.
Or 'k'.
But you will notice, that for all his bitchen, when Mike was asked
what it would take, he listed two possabilities. Which opens
up, for somebody, a chance to make those things, and perhaps
make a few bucks on the deal.
You're looking too hard at the dark clouds and missing the silver lining.
Disclaimer: Sorry, I'm in a disgustingly good mood this morning.
Disclaimer 2: If you are a mac, st, or pc owner and you know what
you are doing: no offence. (But I bet you are lonely :-)
--
Richard J. Sexton
INTERNET: richard@gryphon.CTS.COM
UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, ihnp4, nosc}!crash!gryphon!richard
"It's too dark to put the keys in my ignition..."klm@munsell.UUCP (11/12/87)
In article <2214@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: > >So, you think these amigans have an attitude problem eh ? > >I attribute this to the fact that most amigans are well versed >computer types who expect more out of their machine than any other >micro group. DAMN STRAIGHT! >The mac guys are still infatuated with the concept of a mouse. The IBM >guys want to know why ProComm doesnt work, and the ST peoeple, well, >they can barely figure out how to post a message. And the new guys on the block, the computer illiterate stuffed shirt, let's follow Big Blue like lemmings unto the sea, PS/2 types *STILL* don't know what multi-tasking is! :-) >I think a lot of those people bought those computers as their first one, >whereas a lot of amigans are seasoned computer battle scarred >veterans of 'the bad old days' (Pre-PC). Ya mean like back in '78 when I built my own 8080 CPU board and threw it in a home brew S-100 box with a couple of Bill Godbout's 4K memory boards, a Micro-Angelo, and a Tarbell floppy controller and ran it with Northstar DOS? Is that what ya mean by battle scarred? I ruined so many pairs of pants with molten solder that year that I would have gotten out cheaper paying somebody else to build the boards for me. :-) >But you will notice, that for all his bitchen, when Mike was asked >what it would take, he listed two possabilities. Which opens >up, for somebody, a chance to make those things, and perhaps >make a few bucks on the deal. > >You're looking too hard at the dark clouds and missing the silver lining. Stay tuned for my new product announcement, RSN... :-) :-) -- Kevin McBride, the guy in the brace // | Your mind is totally controlled Eikonix - A Kodak Co. // | It has been stuffed into my mold Billerica, MA \\ // Amiga | And you will do as you are told {encore,adelie}!munsell!klm \X/ Rules! | until the rights to you are sold
dragon@trwspf.TRW.COM (Roger Vossler) (11/19/87)
In article <2214@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes:
*
*So, you think these amigans have an attitude problem eh ?
*
*I attribute this to the fact that most amigans are well versed
*computer types who expect more out of their machine than any other
*micro group.
*
[some stuff was deleted]
*
*So yes, these here amigans are a highly enthusiastic crowd, and
*when they are pissed off sparks fly.
*
Sigh. I suppose that this is what life was like out on The Frontier
(re: Old West). As I recall, public hangings were a popular spectator
sport on those days as well.
While I feel that spirited debate on controversial issues is good for
the group, I for one would like less flame content and more technical
content. The Great Upgrade War was pretty interesting at first, then
it became a little tiresome.
--
-- Roger Vossler
TRW, Bldg O2-1395, One Space Park, Redondo Beach, CA 90278
BIX: rvossler UseNet: dragon@trwspf.trw.com
ATT: 213.535.2804 ....!sdcrdc!trwrb!trwspf!dragon