peraino@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Bob Peraino) (02/21/91)
>From: FRINGE <TNA32@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU> >. >. >THEY KNEW they had lots of bugs, and sold >them anyway. In with my A there was an "anomoly" sheet (bug report) that >listed all the machines THROUGH the D. Go figure. If they already knew >there were bugs in the D, they must have had them in production, why were >they still releasing A's? They were trying to get away with users not knowing >that there were better versions available. Not true. Anyone who's done major software development will tell you so. If they didn't want you to know about the bugs, then they wouldn't have included the "anomalies" sheet. Once you saw the sheet, you had every opportunity to return the merchandise. And that's why I can't stand those people who are whining for free upgrades. They knew what they were getting when they got it. They "just couldn't wait" to get one in their hands. And I REALLY can't stand the people who, now that they have their free upgrades, are bitching because they don't like the keyboard. YOU figure. >... If they already knew there were bugs in the D, they must have had them >in production, why were they still releasing A's? Wrong. Let's look at software development. When a product reaches the testing stage, bugs start to fall out, and a list starts growing. Over time the frequency of new bugs starts dropping. Of course, the frequency never really reaches zero. How do you really know you've got them all? (I believe there really numerically is a point at which they say, OK, it's time to release," but I don't know what it is.) Along with this, you must assign bug fixes to particular releases, and release dates to those versions (the economics of the situation demands this). SO, just because they knew of bugs in D doesn't mean the units were necessarily "in production". Practically speaking, it means that release D will still have the following bugs, because the fixes won't make it in time for the previous release. So then you might ask, "why release that previous version, then?" And the answer is, there are many steps involved from the time you discover a bug to the time you release a fixed unit. You have to write the fix, test the fix, make new ROM masks, etc., etc., and meanwhile the assembly line keeps rolling. You don't just walk over and slap it in. That's not quality control. So, yes, they knew about the bugs, and the fixes were "in the pipeline" so to speak making their way to the assembly line. I believe HP provided fixed units as fast as they could, without violating their quality control system. Just think, they could be still making ver. A's right now, waiting for all the problems to be worked out, and put all those fixes in a new version down the road. And let's be realistic here; if HP really did this, then all those people who are bitching about ROM releases wouldn't be saying a peep, because they'd rather have an A than nothing. So HP gets screwed simply for trying to bring the fixes to market as quickly as possible. What I want to know is, what are those people going to be saying when REV. F comes out? The fact is, software is CONSTANTLY improving. I don't expect a company to give me free upgrades to software I purchased two years ago, simply because the latest version is better. >I think that this net actually had something to do with their change >in heart. One final point: Don't think that c.s.h really had any pressure to bear on HP having a trade-in offer at all; the number of hp48 owners that read this group is most likely VERY small compared to the entire hp48 user base. So, it really didn't cost HP anything to make the upgrade offer, to shut up the whiners. peraino@gmuvax.gmu.edu peraino@gmuvax
kaufman@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman) (02/21/91)
In article <3532@gmuvax2.gmu.edu> peraino@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Bob Peraino) writes: >Once you saw the sheet, you had every opportunity to return the merchandise. Maybe where you brought yours, but Elec-tec has a no-return policy. Michael -- Michael Kaufman | I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on kaufman | fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in @eecs.nwu.edu | the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be | lost in time - like tears in rain. Time to die. Roy Batty
dave@bgtys6.uucp (Dave Hubert) (02/22/91)
In article <16866@accuvax.nwu.edu> kaufman@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman) writes: >In article <3532@gmuvax2.gmu.edu> peraino@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Bob Peraino) writes: >>Once you saw the sheet, you had every opportunity to return the merchandise. > >Maybe where you brought yours, but Elec-tec has a no-return policy. > At least it seems some of you got a sheet of bugs with the rom when you bought your 48sx s. I know I didn't, that's for sure. I also missed out on the free equation library card deal by a month. Maybe I wouldn't have minded as much, if I knew what I was getting or HP had sweetened the deal for me. I think HP calculators are great, don't get me wrong. I've bought the 41c and 28s, and I like my new calculator even more. But with all the phoning I've done to HP to find out what's wrong with the version D rom, I'm starting to get annoyed. I'm tired of hearing from HP in Canada telling me there is no difference between the version D and E rom. Someone slipped in the sales department and said there was a problem with the 48sx ver. D, and told me to call their parts/service department. After that, it was the same old routine. How's about someone from HP telling me before I write an exam and find out for myself? I'm not bashing HP, just the guys who answer the phones and tells me nothing's the matter. Anyone who reads this newsgroup knows it's not the case. Anyone? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Hubert | ___ ___ Ottawa, Canada | This is where you paste the / / /\ // / (613) 763-8979 | standard disclaimer to /--< / \ //\_/ U of Waterloo | everything. /___// \// \ Coop, Math-CS | -- Bell Northern Research -- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
akcs.jdn@hpcvbbs.UUCP (John D. Nguyen) (03/13/91)
Dave, I bought a 48SX Revision D, and I think the bugs had something to do with symbolic complex numbers. I'm not sure, this is what I've heard through another person. I've done complex number computations and as far as I can tell, the anwers were correct. So, I wouldn't worry too much about doing bad on an exam because your HP failed you. Unless, of course you do a lot of symbolic as oppose to numeric work involving complex numbers. Again, I don't really know if this problem is for sure. I think Bob Peraino (the person who started on the subject of people "whining") is missing the point when he stated that he didn't expect software company to give him free upgrades just because the latest version is better. First, the 48SX is not software, it's a calculator when you strip all the fancy I/O, displays, etc. out of it. People depend on this tool to be absolutely correct. Since HP knows (or should anyway) how much harder it is to replace the firmware inside the 48SX, they should've waited. The calculator would not only be "better", it would be more ACCURATE. This is the reason why people are complaining, not necessarily about whether or not it's fancier, but rather whether or not they can whole-heartedly trus the functions that it was advertised to do. And if that can be construed as whining, then by all means, count me in as one of the "whiners". HP didn't do it right, and I hope this doesn't mean that they'll be mum and keep secrets about future releases. I hope they will learn from us users and release a more sound 48SX (or a newer calc) in the future. John Nguyen