clg@guardian.cs.psu.edu (Craig Lee Gruneberg) (09/26/90)
Latest copy of MacWEEK puts ship date of System 7.0 into first half of calendar year 1991. Same crap about meeting the companies exacting quality standards! Craig -- Craig Lee Gruneberg [clg@cs.psu.edu]| 333 Whitmore Laboratory Penn State University | Department of Computer Science | Watch for Hubble repair University Park, PA 16802 | updates here....
jprice@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu (John Price) (09/26/90)
In article <F$adu*a2@cs.psu.edu>, clg@guardian.cs.psu.edu (Craig Lee Gruneberg) writes: >Latest copy of MacWEEK puts ship date of System 7.0 into first half >of calendar year 1991. Same crap about meeting the companies exacting >quality standards! Bad attitude here. Here Apple is telling us "hey, we're still having problems with it, so rather than ship a product that's second-rate, we're gonna work on it a bit more." And you're *flaming* them! *FLAME ON* Get off their backs about it! Otherwise, maybe they'll stop telling us about it, and we'll sit around, not having the slightest clue when it'll come out! *FLAME OFF* I will re-state what I've said before (seems like it was the last time this subject came up) - announcements of ship dates, be they real or imaginary, should *always* be taken with a grain of salt (some might want to use the whole shaker! :) I use them in order to plan purchases of other software products - for instance, system 7 vs. ATM. Anyone relying on them as gospel is setting themselves up to be disappointed - they are *never* on time. Look at it this way - had they shipped now, how would you like dealing with a buggy system? I bet you'd be flaming Apple a hell of a lot more than you are now... --------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Price | Internet: jprice@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu 5-145 Knudsen Hall | BITNET: price@uclaph UCLA Dept. of Physics | DECnet: uclapp::jprice Los Angeles, CA 90024-1547 | YellNet: 213-825-2259 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Where there is no solution, there is no problem.
clg@guardian.cs.psu.edu (Craig Lee Gruneberg) (09/26/90)
In article <0093D408.262D5B40@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu> jprice@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu (John Price) writes: >In article <F$adu*a2@cs.psu.edu>, clg@guardian.cs.psu.edu (Craig Lee Gruneberg) writes: >>Latest copy of MacWEEK puts ship date of System 7.0 into first half >>of calendar year 1991. Same crap about meeting the companies exacting >>quality standards! > > Bad attitude here. Here Apple is telling us "hey, we're still >having problems with it, so rather than ship a product that's second-rate, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Precisely- Why can't they use those same terms instead of dancing around the fact! That's the jest of my complaint; tell it like it is. Sounds like they blew it originally when they announced a delivery date! They should have told it like it was then. -- Craig Lee Gruneberg [clg@cs.psu.edu]| 333 Whitmore Laboratory Penn State University | Department of Computer Science | Watch for Hubble repair University Park, PA 16802 | updates here....
gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (09/27/90)
Be patient, be patient. You can always sell your macintosh and buy a PC to run OS/2 *snicker*. Tuning could make the difference between having a system 7.0 that's as piggy as OS/2, and a system 7.0 that's correct simple and fast. When was the last time any company added virtual memory support to a computer as an afterthought?
blm@6sceng.UUCP (Brian Matthews) (09/27/90)
In article <F$adu*a2@cs.psu.edu> clg@guardian.cs.psu.edu (Craig Lee Gruneberg) writes: |Latest copy of MacWEEK puts ship date of System 7.0 into first half |of calendar year 1991. Same crap about meeting the companies exacting |quality standards! And if they'd released it this year full of bugs you'd have been whining about Apple releasing buggy products. -- Brian L. Matthews blm@6sceng.UUCP
kent@circus.camex.com (Kent Borg) (09/28/90)
In article <Fp#9dnb2@cs.psu.edu> clg@guardian.cs.psu.edu (Craig Lee Gruneberg) writes: >Sounds like they blew it originally when they announced a delivery >date! [for 7.0] They should have told it like it was then. They tried. Have you never noticed that it is hard to know when software will be finished? They probably estimated when they honestly thought it would be, then tossed in some fudge, and told us the adjusted date. That date was wrong. The problem is that you don't know exactly what your software looks like until you finish it. You don't know how long it will take to write until you finish it. You don't know how fast it will run, nor how much memory it will use, until you finish it. One can estimate and guess about these things, but one will be wrong. Apple has been wrong. >Craig Lee Gruneberg [clg@cs.psu.edu]| 333 Whitmore Laboratory >Penn State University | >Department of Computer Science | Watch for Hubble repair >University Park, PA 16802 | updates here.... -- Kent Borg internet: kent@camex.com AOL: kent borg H:(617) 776-6899 W:(617) 426-3577 "The prospect of their mass excites astrophysicists, who are always on the lookout for ways to make the universe heavier" -- The Economist, 9-22-90
ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchell) (09/28/90)
In article <0093D408.262D5B40@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu> jprice@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu (John Price) writes: > Bad attitude here. Here Apple is telling us "hey, we're still >having problems with it, so rather than ship a product that's second-rate, >we're gonna work on it a bit more." And you're *flaming* them! > > *FLAME ON* > > Get off their backs about it! Otherwise, maybe they'll stop telling >us about it, and we'll sit around, not having the slightest clue when it'll >come out! > > *FLAME OFF* > I will re-state what I've said before (seems like it was the last >time this subject came up) - announcements of ship dates, be they real or >imaginary, should *always* be taken with a grain of salt (some might want >to use the whole shaker! :) I use them in order to plan purchases of >other software products - for instance, system 7 vs. ATM. Anyone relying >on them as gospel is setting themselves up to be disappointed - they are >*never* on time. *FLAME ON* Back off John. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion/impatience. Considering how bad Apple has been about announcing this product with such confidence, then dropping 2/3 of the features and constantly postponing the release, I think people are entitled to some irritation. I totally disagree with your attitude of excusing unprofessional business practice with this "supplicant" posture of "Oh, No. If I'm not nice they won't talk to me". The software industry is one of the few where a company can get away with announcing a new product, then delivering it several years late and with half the promised features. If people are quiet and submissive, as you suggest, companies will never change this practice. Either these companies need to learn a bit about software engineering and planning, or they should announce such "products" as R&D efforts with a relatively open-ended schedule. A big part of the problem is people's expectations that a release date has some meaning. Software vendors should acknowledge this perception by talking about their development efforts in a way that makes it clear that these are VERY approximate. Of course, vendors don't want to lose business to other, available products, so they try to get you hooked on their "new" package with a wildly optimistic release date, then they string you along forever (cf: Microsoft, Apple, etc). Personally, I think this is a rather offensive practice. If I want to bitch about it, I will go right ahead. If they stop talking to me, maybe I will buy someone else's product. *FLAME OFF* I agree that shipping dates should be taken with a truckload of salt, but I utterly dispute the inference that this is okay/acceptable. Eric disclaimer: All standard disclaimers apply. All non-standard disclaimers apply. All truly bizarre disclaimers apply.
freeman@argosy.UUCP (Jay R. Freeman) (09/28/90)
> When was the last time any company added virtual memory support to a > computer as an afterthought? Well, I'm not sure it was the last time, but I seem to recall that "V-A-X" is an acronym for "Virtual Address eXtension". And I am not at all sure whether that bodes well or ill for the future of the, er, shall we say, Vacintosh. -- Jay Freeman <canonical disclaimer -- I speak only for myself>
heksterb@Apple.COM (Ben Hekster) (09/28/90)
Regarding the postponed release of System 7.0, a posting reads: > Personally, I think this is a rather offensive practice. If I want to > bitch about it, I will go right ahead. If they stop talking to me, > maybe I will buy someone else's product. Let's not forget that we are all getting this particular product free of charge, though. It's easy to forget, sometimes--but remember that behind the image of a large company it really comes down to a lot of individuals working very hard on System Software development. If it could have been released now, it would have--they don't like delaying it any more than you do. -- ________________________________________________________________________________ Ben Hekster | "Plans made in the nursery Installer dude | can change the course of history AppleLink: heksterb | Remember that! Internet: heksterb@apple.com | --Shouldn't Have Done That, BITNET: heksterb@henut5 | Depeche Mode [A Broken Frame]
mjwargo@athena.mit.edu (Michael J Wargo) (09/28/90)
In article <45231@apple.Apple.COM>, heksterb@Apple.COM (Ben Hekster) writes: |> Regarding the postponed release of System 7.0, a posting reads: |> |> > Personally, I think this is a rather offensive practice. If I want to |> > bitch about it, I will go right ahead. If they stop talking to me, |> > maybe I will buy someone else's product. |> |> Let's not forget that we are all getting this particular product free of ^^^^^^^ |> charge, though. ^^^^^^ I guess I'm getting confused. Many have commented that a primary reason for high Apple CPU prices is the cost of R&D. Haven't we really paid for this development by purchasing systems from Apple? One more comment. It has been opined that since the developers don't know what the system software will look like before it is written, there is a lot of uncertainty in delivery dates. A simple question: Why not delay the announcement *until* enough development has been accomplished to bring some believability to it? |> |> It's easy to forget, sometimes--but remember that behind the image of |> a large company it really comes down to a lot of individuals working very hard |> on System Software development. If it could have been released now, it would |> have--they don't like delaying it any more than you do. *But*, Apple decided to make the announcement when they did! Mike Wargo |> -- |> ________________________________________________________________________________ |> Ben Hekster | "Plans made in the nursery |> Installer dude | can change the course of history |> AppleLink: heksterb | Remember that! |> Internet: heksterb@apple.com | --Shouldn't Have Done That, |> BITNET: heksterb@henut5 | Depeche Mode [A Broken Frame]
resnick@cogsci.uiuc.edu (Pete Resnick) (09/28/90)
ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchell) writes: >Considering how bad Apple has been about announcing this product with >such confidence, then dropping 2/3 of the features and constantly >postponing the release, I think people are entitled to some irritation. Now, honestly, I am not sure about this, but it was my understanding that: 1) All of the shipping dates were (I agree for political disclaimer reasons) estimated dates of shipping only. I have heard of companies that have had more "definite" ship dates that fall through. Apple didn't seem to do that. 2) The original announcement that we heard a long time ago was an "announcement of an intent to develop", i.e. programmers should prepare for planned future changes, and was specifically qualified as *NOT* an announcement of a shipping date or the like. The only reason people have been so hot and bothered about the amount of time this is taking is because they heard about the "intent to develop" announcement so long ago. If this thread is indicitive of user opinion, I'd imagine Apple won't do it again, which is unfortunate for non-certified developers like me. 3) The main proposed features would still be implemented. Unless we are talking about sub-features (like the folders won't look exactly like was proposed), I would be interested to know what features are not being implemented. I really didn't think it was 2/3 of them. Just my perspective. It may be very cloudy out here in Illinois. pr -- Pete Resnick (...so what is a mojo, and why would one be rising?) Graduate assistant - Philosophy Department, Gregory Hall, UIUC System manager - Cognitive Science Group, Beckman Institute, UIUC Internet/ARPAnet/EDUnet : resnick@cogsci.uiuc.edu BITNET (if no other way) : FREE0285@UIUCVMD
dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) (09/28/90)
In article <1542@camex.COM> kent@camex.com (Kent Borg) writes: >Have you never noticed that it is hard to know when software will be >finished? They probably estimated when they honestly thought it would >be, then tossed in some fudge, and told us the adjusted date. While I, too understand how hard it is to estimate completion dates, there is another scenario that could occur here. The "they" who estimate the the completion date and the "they" who make the announcements are two very different sets of people. (When the techies make announcements, they get FIRED, no?) Cynic that I am, I can imagine Apple software engineers telling marketing that System 7 won't be ready until 91, and Marketing announcing 90 instead, deliberately to string us along. [I'm not saying this IS what happened, just that it MIGHT be what happened.] Why? Isn't it horrible PR to let dates slip? Yes; but it's also horrible PR to say, "We won't solve those problems for another two years." -- Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu UUCP: uunet!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!s-dorner
jprice@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu (John Price) (09/29/90)
In article <1027@mdavcr.UUCP>, ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchell) writes: >In article <0093D408.262D5B40@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu> jprice@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu (John Price) writes: {include std.flame} > > >*FLAME ON* Uh oh... > >Back off John. I'll let this one go for now... >Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion/impatience. Absolutely true. >...I think people are entitled to some irritation. That may well be, and I won't deny that Apple has some explaining to do. However, the post I was answering was more like whining than anything else, and I answered it as such. >I totally disagree with your attitude of excusing unprofessional >business practice with this "supplicant" posture of "Oh, No. If I'm not >nice they won't talk to me". Touche. It did come out that way, didn't it? Sometimes, it's hard to rebut someone without seeming to be completely opposed to their point of view. I too am upset at Apple, but whining (yes, whining) at them about it won't make them ship any faster. >Either these companies need to learn a bit about software engineering >and planning, or they should announce such "products" as R&D efforts >with a relatively open-ended schedule. I think the current trends in the software industry indicate that software companies are not going to learn much about keeping timetables, now or in the near future. However, announcing products as "R&D efforts", with "open-ended schedules" will only lead to those timetables slipping further into never-never land. >A big part of the problem is people's expectations that a release date >has some meaning. Software vendors should acknowledge this perception >by talking about their development efforts in a way that makes it clear >that these are VERY approximate. This is exactly what I said in my first post. Well, OK. It's not. It's what I meant, though :) Next time I feel compelled to make such a post, I'll make this more clear. >Personally, I think this is a rather offensive practice. Offensive? That's a bit harsh, I think. Annoying as all hell, maybe, but not offensive. >If I want to >bitch about it, I will go right ahead. If they stop talking to me, >maybe I will buy someone else's product. You certainly have this right, and I wouldn't dream of arguing this with you. >*FLAME OFF* Whew! Just singed a little bit... :) Eric, you have written one of the better-worded flames that I've read on Usenet. You state your case reasonably well, and argue your points accordingly. The post to which I was originally answering did not do either of these things. Instead, he whined about the fact that Apple had postponed the release of system 7 again, with that "same excuse about meeting exacting quality standards" or something like that. This is not a direct quote; I don't have the original article handy. But, that was the major content. My point (which I, admittedly, did not state well), is that *complaining* like this is not going to have much effect. Sure, we all are getting tired of the repeated delays, and yes, we all wish that Apple would pick a deadline and stick to it - *with* the product performing as advertised, of course. The realities of the situation, however, are such that this is not going to happen. Perhaps a major revolution in the software industry would be necessary to change this; I don't pretend to know. Crying about it, however, will certainly not change a thing. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Price | Internet: jprice@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu 5-145 Knudsen Hall | BITNET: price@uclaph UCLA Dept. of Physics | DECnet: uclapp::jprice Los Angeles, CA 90024-1547 | YellNet: 213-825-2259 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Where there is no solution, there is no problem.
francis@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (RD Francis) (09/29/90)
I'm going to have to take the side of Apple as well, here. Why? 1) Lots of people have talked about the shipping dates. In my opinion, you either announce a shipping date, or you don't. Announcing about when you'd expect that shipping date to be *isn't* announcing a shipping date; announcing that the product will ship on Mar 1, 1990 is announcing a shipping date. The latter is a promise (which, as has been mentioned, experience has taught as will probably be broken in the Mac world); the former is an informal guess to the obvious question "When will we get this marvelous thing?" I don't think Apple has ever promised a date on this thing. We can bitch all we want about how long it's taking, but I don't think it's reasonable to criticize them for not living up to a promise they never made. 2) Hard as it may be to remember, they did do this to help their developers (and it was announced at a developers' conference, not just in some relatively generic press release). How many people remember System 6? Not just 6.0, but 6 in general? As I recall, some of the bugs seen when System 6 came out were attributable to people not getting their programs into line with Apple's rules in time rather than 6.0. 7.0 is going to introduce some major changes; by being up front as soon as possible, Apple lets developers plan ahead so their programs are more likely to be compatible. Some widely-used utilities will be useless, or next to it, in their present form (TOPS, Suitcase, On Cue, etc.); the developers of those utilities have had time to figure out what to do about that. Finally, some features will enhance the way programs can work; this has given developers time to figure out how to use those capabilities. As far as that last point goes, I'm sure that some development houses would have worked on items similar to what Apple's doing; if Apple had kept that a secret, a developer might look at 1000's of man-hours as being down the drain, as they would have been able to use Apple's built-in hooks if they'd known they were coming. Damned if you do, damned if you don't Yes, I'm as impatient as the next guy for this to come out. Yes, there are people to whom I recommended waiting for a feature of 7.0 rather than buying something to work in the meantime, and yes I regret that somewhat. I've worked on enough projects to know that, when you're doing something new and innovative (even if it's only new and innovative to you, and not to the world at large), that Murphy's Law type adage is true -- figure out how long you expect it to take, double the number, and move up to the next highest time unit. Well, OK, that's still hyperbole, but you can basically assume that even your wildest guess as to how long it will take to complete the project will be wrong. Also, think about what beta test means (well, should mean). Beta-quality software should mean software that seems like it's about ready to go out, but needs some people to try it and find the bugs that the programmers haven't. Look at all the software that runs on a Mac; if 7.0 is at a level that I would call beta-quality by now (posts have indicated this, possibly erroneously), it's been run under a lot of conditions, and seems to work. There's a lot to test, and there are thousands of pieces of software to be used to test it. Each little init brings up the possibility of a bug. Every time 7.0 alpha ran into a problem with an init, someone would have to dig around in the system and in the init, presumably, to try to figure out if the problem was in the init or in the system. I'd bet that for every system problem turned up, at least 2 or 3 init problems turned up. Not to mention that they've had to copy alterations made in the system for the fx, maybe the ci, and presumably the 3 new machines. Something like that could easily wind up killing anywhere from a few days to a month, depending. It's an incredible task. Let's try to be patient, and let them do the best job they can. Hey, don't you think all those Apple people want to have a system 7.0 to play with/make their lives easier at *least* as badly as you do? -- R David Francis francis@cis.ohio-state.edu
heksterb@Apple.COM (Ben Hekster) (09/29/90)
I commented on a posting by writing: > Regarding the postponed release of System 7.0, a posting reads: > > > Personally, I think this is a rather offensive practice. If I want to > > bitch about it, I will go right ahead. If they stop talking to me, > > maybe I will buy someone else's product. > > Let's not forget that we are all getting this particular product free of > charge, though. mjwargo@athena.mit.edu (Michael J Wargo) responds to my comment: > I guess I'm getting confused. Many have commented that a > primary reason for high Apple CPU prices is the cost of R&D. > Haven't we really paid for this development by purchasing > systems from Apple? Well, in a sense, perhaps we feel that we have. All I meant to say is that it would seem there is a fundamental difference between paying $x for a product to be delivered to you at a certain time, or sitting back and simply waiting for the upgrades to reach you. Some of us have used System Software since 1.1g up to 6.0, and have benefited greatly from the additional function- ality provided by the upgrades. Also, Mike remarks: > One more comment. It has been opined > that since the developers don't know what the system software > will look like before it is written, there is a lot of > uncertainty in delivery dates. A simple question: Why not > delay the announcement *until* enough development has been > accomplished to bring some believability to it? Yes, but `believability' is not an easily-calculable on/off quality. Unfortunately it is not possible, given a set of design goals and some development time, to come up with an accurate measure of the `believability' of a delivery date. As development proceeds, the targeted completion time becomes less uncertain, until the time of the actual delivery, when the uncer- tainty by definition reaches zero. How does one determine when an estimated delivery date is accurate enough to publicize? I would suppose that the powers that be decided that it might be useful to the developer community and users in general to have an indication of when they might expect to receive the next release. However, it appears that no matter how strongly one qualifies such information there is a tendency to regard is as an absolute commitment that said product will definitely be ready by that time. I also said: > It's easy to forget, sometimes--but remember that behind the image of > a large company it really comes down to a lot of individuals working very had > on System Software development. If it could have been released now, it would > have--they don't like delaying it any more than you do. to which Mike responded: > *But*, Apple decided to make the announcement when they did! Yes--and as I said, I'm sure that at the time it was the most accurate estimate that could have been made. Don't forget that we always have the option of not listening to, or at least not relying too much on (as perhaps we should not) such estimates. Look, I'm sorry, I really didn't intend to get into a discussion about semantics here--all I was trying to say was that you will get System 7.0 as soon as it is finished--noone is trying to spite anyone by slowing down development. Believe me, there are a lot of people working *very* hard to get it to you as soon as possible. -- ________________________________________________________________________________ Ben Hekster | "Plans made in the nursery Installer dude | can change the course of history AppleLink: heksterb | Remember that! Internet: heksterb@apple.com | --Shouldn't Have Done That, BITNET: heksterb@henut5 | Depeche Mode [A Broken Frame]
gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor) (09/29/90)
In article <45231@apple.Apple.COM> heksterb@Apple.COM (Ben Hekster) writes: > >Let's not forget that we are all getting this particular product free of >charge, though. WRONG. Every owner of a Macintosh has paid for the System Software. That's the only way that the current price of any of the Macintosh Family Computers can be justified. Each purchaser pays for the current system software and documentation to such, as well as upgrades to future versions of the System Software - although that does not include manuals to those upgrades. So don't talk to me about Apple's altruism. Each Mac user has paid for the System Software, even though that purchase was buried in the price of the initial purchase of their Macintosh. -=- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Jim Gaynor - The Ohio State Univ. - IRCC - Facilities Mgmt. - OCES <whew!> | | Email [gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu], [gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu] | |_ "Don't tell me truth hurts, little girl; because it hurts like hell..." _|
umcarls9@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Charles Carlson) (09/29/90)
In article <70500041@m.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > >When was the last time any company added virtual memory support to a >computer as an afterthought? Microsoft did. To Windows 3 on a 386. Charles
jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) (09/29/90)
In article <1027@mdavcr.UUCP> ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchell) writes: >In article <0093D408.262D5B40@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu> jprice@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu (John Price) writes: [..] >> Get off their backs about it! Otherwise, maybe they'll stop telling >>us about it, and we'll sit around, not having the slightest clue when it'll >>come out! Yes! Not too long ago, the flames were that Apple didn't provide enough advance notice. It may have been true, that's why the customer found out Word X didn't work with System X, and there were months in between. Apple makes their first attempt to pre-announce, and pre-seed, and the end users are gripping. They should shut up. They don't really know whether system 7 doesn't work, or Word 4 doesn't work under system 7. I don't either. They don't know whether Apple could have release system 7 a year ago for Mac II only, and instead they are respecting the commitment to continue support for the MacPlus. I don't either. > >Back off John. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion/impatience. >Considering how bad Apple has been about announcing this product with >such confidence, then dropping 2/3 of the features and constantly Bad? 2/3 the features? Last I heard they dropped *two* managers from the release. Yes, this is two entire feature sets. And yes, I can believe that it might be possible to enumerate the features in these sets in such a way that if you seperated the added features from the enhanced features the reduction might total 2/3. My reaction to the two feature sets was "so what". I guess you wanted one or more of those features. Everyone doesn't. >postponing the release, I think people are entitled to some irritation. If they had stopped support of the system 6 series due to the expected release of system 7 you might have some ground to stand on. But Apple never stopped accepting bug reports against system 6, they never responded "fixed in system 7", and they have continued to issue new fixes to system 6. > >I totally disagree with your attitude of excusing unprofessional >business practice with this "supplicant" posture of "Oh, No. If I'm not >nice they won't talk to me". The software industry is one of the few >where a company can get away with announcing a new product, then >delivering it several years late and with half the promised features. Oh, really? Which reality are you living in? The only difference *I* found in this situation was that I didn't have to put my money up front and find out it wasn't delivered. Those newspaper articles about defense department contract delays and overruns weren't based upon professional business practices, I guess. As part of my job I buy things to get my job done. These have included over 16 years, services, contracted development and delivery of hardware, contracted delivery of software, and off-the-shelf hardware and software. This includes 4 years as a Program Manager in DOD development contract situations. It includes 8 years in equivelant commercial position. The other years I was involved but not responsible. I'm not always the boss in the circumstances. In this time the on-time 100% compliance approached zero. From service, hardware, or software contract vendors. Off-the-shelf you get what's available. Test it before you buy, but accept what you get. The contract situations were often at least part money up front. Often you were forced to except partial compliance, 'cause you could get most of your job done, or accept the delays if you couldn't. That's the normal situation. >If people are quiet and submissive, as you suggest, companies will never >change this practice. I agree! But I disagree that you have any true complaint in this situation. You haven't put money up front. Your Mac still works. System 6 is usefull and productive, and supported. > >Either these companies need to learn a bit about software engineering >and planning, or they should announce such "products" as R&D efforts >with a relatively open-ended schedule. Software engineering is not yet as definitive as hardware engineering and from my experience the hardware engineering is not approaching 100% ability to forcast results. I always thought they announced the System 7 with an expected Beta date. When they missed that Beta date I ceased to believe their release date. Why didn't you? > >A big part of the problem is people's expectations that a release date >has some meaning. Software vendors should acknowledge this perception >by talking about their development efforts in a way that makes it clear >that these are VERY approximate. Of course, vendors don't want to lose >business to other, available products, so they try to get you hooked on >their "new" package with a wildly optimistic release date, then they >string you along forever (cf: Microsoft, Apple, etc). Apple has sent out continuous updates. Did you only pay attention if they were in Wall Street Journal or something? Lose their business to whom? System 6? OS/2? >Personally, I think this is a rather offensive practice. If I want to >bitch about it, I will go right ahead. If they stop talking to me, >maybe I will buy someone else's product. Go ahead. Remember, they make you pay to go from DOS1 to DOS2, to DOS3, and then to DOS3.3. And when they announced OS/2 they announced all the managers, but they didn't deliver them all at the same time, and you had to pay for each of them. > >I agree that shipping dates should be taken with a truckload of salt, >but I utterly dispute the inference that this is okay/acceptable. Given: You paid nothing up front. The previous options were not desupported. You are wrong. > > >Eric jim -- Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com +1.408.991.6115 Silvar-Lisco, Inc. 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086
jprice@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu (John Price) (09/29/90)
In article <5163@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu>, gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor) writes: >In article <45231@apple.Apple.COM> heksterb@Apple.COM (Ben Hekster) writes: >>Let's not forget that we are all getting this particular product free of >>charge, though. > WRONG. Every owner of a Macintosh has paid for the System >Software. True enough. Also, every owner of a Macintosh *has* system software. When the next version is ready, you'll have that too. So what's your beef? It's not like Apple is witholding something we've already paid for; they can't - it doesn't exist yet. Once it does, you can bet there'll be an announcement in comp.sys.mac.announce, and we'll all descend on apple.apple.com and ftp it. BTW, Apple folks, it *will* be there, won't it? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Price | Internet: jprice@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu 5-145 Knudsen Hall | BITNET: price@uclaph UCLA Dept. of Physics | DECnet: uclapp::jprice Los Angeles, CA 90024-1547 | YellNet: 213-825-2259 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Where there is no solution, there is no problem.
ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchell) (10/05/90)
In article <1542@camex.COM> kent@camex.com (Kent Borg) writes: >Have you never noticed that it is hard to know when software will be >finished? They probably estimated when they honestly thought it would >be, then tossed in some fudge, and told us the adjusted date. That >date was wrong. > >The problem is that you don't know exactly what your software looks >like until you finish it. You don't know how long it will take to >write until you finish it. You don't know how fast it will run, nor >how much memory it will use, until you finish it. > >One can estimate and guess about these things, but one will be wrong. Many software projects are run with poor methodology. Hardware projects tend to be a little better planned. Unfortunately, most software people have very little experience or interest in doing a proper design and analysis. They tend to blue sky the project objectives and fall far short. There is risk in any project, but I don't believe that the industry has to be as bad as it is. Many systems houses produce one-off, very large systems on time and on budget, even when there is little initial experience in the product. In my experience here at MDA, I have seen highly technical software projects involving hundreds of thousands of lines of code. The complexity of these systems makes System 7.0 look like Tonka Toys. It is the livelyhood of MDA to make these things come out on time and budget. Our industry is very competitive and does not allow for huge profit margins to cushion bad planning. As such, MDA has an established methodology department to help direct projects. Development is done with considerable emphasis on the engineering. I am not trying to blow MDA's horn here - there are many systems houses that achieve comparable results. Therefore, I do not think it is unreasonable to ask for more accurate release dates from vendors. Eric disclaimer: All standard disclaimers apply. All non-standard disclaimers apply. All truly bizarre disclaimers apply.
connolly@convex.com (Dan Connolly) (10/05/90)
In <1990Sep29.083755.2616@silvlis.com> jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) writes: >Yes! >Not too long ago, the flames were that Apple didn't provide enough >advance notice. It may have been true, that's why the customer found >out Word X didn't work with System X, and there were months in >between. Has anybody else noticed how many times the latest and greatest Microsoft product gives the latest and greatest Apple system software indigestion? Has anybody else considered the possibility that Microsoft is not too keen to see Apple's system software stay out ahead of the rest of the personal computers? Kina makes you go ... hmmmmmmmm (^^^ place finger on temple :)
minich@d.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) (10/09/90)
jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) writes: >Yes! >Not too long ago, the flames were that Apple didn't provide enough >advance notice. It may have been true, that's why the customer found >out Word X didn't work with System X, and there were months in >between. Ya know... if Apple would release buggy sys 7 upon the masses, then maybe it would only take the above "months" to get things working rather than the current years. Just an interesting comment. -- |_ /| | Robert Minich | |\'o.O' | Oklahoma State University| A fanatic is one who sticks to |=(___)= | minich@d.cs.okstate.edu | his guns -- whether they are | U | - Ackphtth | loaded or not.