Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!pasteur!franny.Berkeley.EDU!c8s-an
From: c8s-an@franny.Berkeley.EDU (Alex Lau)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: More Mac-related earthquake news
Message-ID: <18836@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 26 Oct 89 21:23:08 GMT
References: <18735@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <4896@internal.Apple.COM> <18815@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <4906@internal.Apple.COM>
Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: c8s-an@franny.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Alex Lau)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 61

In article <18815@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c8s-an@franny.Berkeley.EDU I write:
.> Apple Public Relations reported, according to MacWEEK, that DeAnza 3
.> had suffered "major structural damage," and would be "closed
.> indefinitely." You guys better talk to them about this, if they're
.> so wrong...

In article <4906@internal.Apple.COM> blob@apple.com (Brian Bechtel) writes:
.Major structural damage reported 3rd hand?  DeAnza 3 suffered:
.* the loss of almost all of its ceiling tiles
.* extensive water damage from the sprinklers going off
.* perhaps 10% of its windows fell out, and many more windows were damaged.
.* damage to the office partitions.
.(All this from a message by Glenn Barber, director of facilities at Apple. 
. Who do you think has the message straight: Glenn or MacLeek?)

I believe you and Larry when you tell the net what Glenn says. I also
believe MacWEEK when they say Apple PR said something completely opposite
of what Glenn says. I see no particular reason for the two stories to be
so different, but my place is to report what I've heard and to give my
opinions on that information, not to try and figure out Apple's internal
politics.

If I was able to do that, I could probably get a pretty good job at one
of Apple's competitors... :)

.Some of the occupants were planning to move soon.  Those moves got 
.(vastly) accelerated.  Other people weren't planning to move soon.  They 
.moved.  The building has been declared sound ("...the fundamental 
.superstructure of the building is sound.")  We are beginning the process 
.of renovating the building ("Apple had already planned to refurbish 
.DeAnza 3, and will proceed now instead of later in the fiscal 
.year.)

This is what bothers me... if it's structurally sound, why such a hurry
to renovate? Just a thought...

.I'd also like to point out that DeAnza 3 was the only one of roughly 40 
.buildings in Cupertino that needed to be evacuated.  Over 50% of Apple was 
.back to work within 24 hours.  Over 75% of Apple was back to work within 
.48 hours.  Over 90% of Apple was back to work within three working days.  
.100% of Apple was back to work as of 1 week from the quake.

The reason I (and many others) are so interested in DeAnza 3 is its
importance in research & development, especially in the development of
new System software.

.Hey, I usually bitch and moan about facilities, but these folks did an 
.OUTSTANDING job.  The occupants of DeAnza 3 wound up in 10 different 
.buildings.  Facilities had telephones, mail, electricity, cubicles, and 
.networks all in place in an incredibly short time.  Bravo.

I'm glad, too. But it doesn't answer the question of who, between PR and
Facilities, is not telling the whole story. And why they would be any
different in the first place. Hmmm...

.--Brian Bechtel     blob@apple.com     "My opinion, not Apple's"

--- Alex
UUCP: {att,backbones}!ucbvax!franny!c8s-an
INTERNET: c8s-an%franny.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
FIDONET: Alex.Lau@bmug.fidonet.org (1:161/444)