FERGUSON@TMASL.EXXON.COM (08/19/89)
Ever since I began administering Apollos, I've been plagued by a problem
outside of Apollo:
Whenever Apollo makes these radical OS changes, there's a HUGE (capital H)
time lag before the third party software/peripheral vendors bother to
come out with a new revision of their support software. For instance:
Mercury Computer Systems MC3232 Array processor, driver software
for SR10 is nowhere in sight.
Real-Time Enterprises Optical Disk File Manager: No sr10 drivers.
Way back when:
Graftek CAD Software wasn't ready for sr9.5 for many months.
I've heard they're not ready for sr10 yet either. In fact,
they just released an update that only works on 9.7 recently.
The list continues, but that's not the point.
Now, I've received driver software from Apollo for a Tektronix 4693
printer, and it's all set up with RAI installation procedures. I can't
install this software until I update to sr10. I CAN'T update to sr10
until the third parties get in gear, and support their customers.
Is there anything that Apollo/HP or us users as a group can do to
put more pressure on Solution suppliers to keep up with the pace
of the OS updates? I mean, I know that re-working software for
new OS revisions is a hassle, but I've always found new features
in the OS that the software could take advantage of, and the effort
has always been worthwhile. Plus, NOT keeping up puts us users in a
tight spot about a year after the Apollo revisions come out.
I'm assuming in the future that Apollo won't need to cause such major
waves like 9.2->9.5 and 9.7->10, but then again...
Scott Ferguson
ferguson@erevax.bitnet
(201)730-2339
Exxon Research & Engineering
Annandale, NJ 08801stealth@caen.engin.umich.edu (Mike Peltier) (08/27/89)
In article <8908181731.AA15625@umix.cc.umich.edu> FERGUSON@TMASL.EXXON.COM writes: >Whenever Apollo makes these radical OS changes, there's a HUGE (capital H) >time lag before the third party software/peripheral vendors bother to >come out with a new revision of their support software. For instance: > [examples deleted] Perhaps the developers need to be briefed ahead of time about the impending changes to the operating system, and have the opportunity to use and explore the new verion before it is released to the public, instead of at the same time. Software revision takes time, I don't think it's just a matter of the developers sitting on their duffs all day. -- - - - - - - - - - Michael V. Peltier | Computer Aided Engineering Network 1420 King George Blvd. | University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Ann Arbor, MI 48104-6924 | stealth@caen.engin.umich.edu
steve@simon.UUCP (Steven E. Piette) (09/06/89)
In article <45458f3d.b617@bear.engin.umich.edu>, stealth@caen.engin.umich.edu (Mike Peltier) writes: > In article <8908181731.AA15625@umix.cc.umich.edu> FERGUSON@TMASL.EXXON.COM writes: > >Whenever Apollo makes these radical OS changes, there's a HUGE (capital H) > >time lag before the third party software/peripheral vendors bother to > >come out with a new revision of their support software. For instance: > > [examples deleted] > > Perhaps the developers need to be briefed ahead of time about the impending > changes to the operating system, and have the opportunity to use and explore > the new verion before it is released to the public, instead of at the same > time. Software revision takes time, I don't think it's just a matter of > the developers sitting on their duffs all day. > Apollo did just that in preperation for the release of SR10. Back in August 2 years ago (Or was it three) they held one of the first conferences on SR10 for the solution suppliers as part of the ATQP. Many of the third partys had already had alpha and beta copies of SR10 and were busy porting for the DN1000 which required SR10 as a base level OS. Included were a handfull of SE's from across the world who were trained along with the third partys. We then provided many of the non-disclosure presentations and early field technical support on both SR10 and the DN1000. So, at least in the case of SR10 many software developers had pre-release software, time in the porting centers, and access to the engineers. What I say happen in many cases is that a vendor's development schedule didn't line up well with the new software release schedule because of other hardware platforms they supported, quality control cycles, and limited resources. While I was at Apollo one of the biggest fustrations was customers who were still running old releases of software, not just one release back mine you, Now some was due to third party software issues, but lots were just due to the same issues the third partys had; porting their software, QA, resources. It was really difficult to remember the bugs and try and help these people without sounding like a broken record in suggesting they upgrade. I mean does anyone remember when the current 9.7 version of DOMAIN/IX (the 9.5 tape) was released. (We're talking years now, though one would think in all that time Apollo could have fixed all the bugs :-)) Before laying all the blame on Apollo let me ask are all of you running at least one system with the latest version of software for testing and porting?. My guess is no given the amount of 9.7 and whats in 10.x types of questions seen in this newsgroup. Again, Early access to software for the solution suppliers is only part of the problem, They need external pressure in the form of customers requiring them to maintain current releases of their software in order to sell it. -- Steven E. Piette Applied Computer Technology Inc. UUCP: {smarthost}!simon!steve 1750 Riverwood Drive INET: steve@simon.CHI.IL.US or spiette@SUN.COM Algonquin, IL 60102 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------