NU123952@VM1.NoDak.EDU (Mark A. Ordal) (02/03/91)
While on the question of ROM upgrades, I want to mention what I
heard last March when I bought my revision A machine. My dealer
heard that 500 people were given free, pre-release, HP48's around
Thanksgiving of '89. These folks were (apparently) the people posting
extensive features lists the same day the 48 was officially released.
Does anyone know if this is true? If true, were those machines
revision A?
My gut reaction to this rumor is that it is true and that the
machines involved were revision A.
So my questions really are:
1) Why were revision A machines sold at all? The usual purpose
of this kind of pre-release testing is to kill as many bugs
as possible before the software (or firmware) is actually
released for sale.
2) Why weren't competent testers chosen? Or if they were
competent, how is it that so many ROM versions were made
without killing bugs? It took until version D to kill the
matrix inverse bug (which fortunately had a simple work
around) and until version E to kill the complex number bug
(which has NO WORK AROUND!).
I have to wonder if management wasn't applying extreme pressure
to get the product out the door and onto dealer's shelves.
Dr. Mark A. Ordal
Physics Department
North Dakota State University
Fargo, ND 58105
NU123952@NDSUVM1billw@hpcvra.cv.hp.com. (William C Wickes) (02/05/91)
Mark A. Ordal writes: > While on the question of ROM upgrades, I want to mention what I > heard last March when I bought my revision A machine. My dealer > heard that 500 people were given free, pre-release, HP48's around > Thanksgiving of '89. These folks were (apparently) the people posting > extensive features lists the same day the 48 was officially released. > > Does anyone know if this is true? If true, were those machines > revision A? > Actually, five (5) people were given rev. A HP48's on about February 1, 1990, one month before intro. These were in fact the people that reviewed the calculator at the release date. > So my questions really are: > > 1) Why were revision A machines sold at all? The usual purpose > of this kind of pre-release testing is to kill as many bugs > as possible before the software (or firmware) is actually > released for sale. As any credible software developer will tell you, no software of the complexity of the HP48 can ever be certified as bug free, no matter how much testing you do. Products are released when testing data predicts that it is unlikely that remaining bugs will be so numerous or so severe that the products will be unacceptable to customers. Unfortunately, we missed the matrix inversion bug, through a combination of human error and bad luck, and it was not discovered until late January, after many thousands of ROM's (A, B and C) were built. There was little point in scrapping those parts and delaying the introduction by several months, given the possibility of more defects to be found. > 2) Why weren't competent testers chosen? Or if they were > competent, how is it that so many ROM versions were made > without killing bugs? It took until version D to kill the > matrix inverse bug (which fortunately had a simple work > around) and until version E to kill the complex number bug > (which has NO WORK AROUND!). > The complex number bug was not found because it was so obvious--as Sherlock Holmes might say, "you saw, but you did not perceive." And there certainly is a work-around--enter (theta,r) instead of (r,theta). Hardly a showstopper. > I have to wonder if management wasn't applying extreme pressure > to get the product out the door and onto dealer's shelves. Show me a product for which this is not true. I certainly wish my PC software were as defect-free as a rev. A HP48. People who can work endlessly on something until it is absolutely perfected generally turn out to be financed by people who don't have that luxury. Bill Wickes HP Corvallis
mcgrant@elaine23.stanford.edu (Michael Grant) (02/05/91)
>> So my questions really are: >> >> 1) Why were revision A machines sold at all? The usual purpose >> of this kind of pre-release testing is to kill as many bugs >> as possible before the software (or firmware) is actually >> released for sale. As a software developer, I know that even when you try very hard to make your program error-free, and you give it out to people to test out, end up feeling confident in your work, and send it out into the world, only to find that casual users have been stymied by an insanely simple bug. Bugs just don't get FOUND, they get DISCOVERED; hence, when they don't show themselves until you stop looking for them. It's Murphy's law rearing it's ugly ahead once more. You've really got to give the people at HP a break. Indeed, it is quite frustrating to be playing with your calculator/computer only to have it crash, or give an incorrect result--especially when the stakes are high-- but you have to keep reminding yourself that basically, you are running a program, and, just like ANY program, it is not very likely to be bug-free, no matter HOW long they beta-tested it. Remember, we're not talking about a simple ALU chip hooked up to a few registers and a keyboard, we are talking about a full-fledged computer in a tiny box. I remember the first Macs, the first IBMS... Michael C. Grant
akcs.tasmith@hpcvbbs.UUCP (Ted A Smith) (02/05/91)
Yea, Bill!