Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!usc!rutgers!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!aglew From: aglew@dwarfs.crhc.uiuc.edu (Andy Glew) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: time of year clocks (was 64 bit clocks) Message-ID: Date: 25 Aug 90 17:15:45 GMT References: <5539@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <13285@yunexus.YorkU.CA> <30728@super.ORG> <26196@bellcore.bellcore.com> <26199@mimsy.umd.edu> Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News) Organization: University of Illinois, Computer Systems Group Lines: 35 In-Reply-To: chris@mimsy.umd.edu's message of 25 Aug 90 04:58:57 GMT > (Is seems >>obvious that a million-dollar computer would be expected to provide >>at least the functionality of a $10 digital watch, but people >>took some serious convincing of that...) > >I am constantly amazed at the machines that do *not* have these things. At a XYZZY User's Group meeting question and answer session: A customer asks the XYZZY representative why XYZZY don't have battery backed up real time clocks. The XYZZY representative says "We don't feel that our customers need this functionality". The customer asks the audience of XYZZY customers "Who wants a real clock?" 99% say they do. Next Monday design of real-time clock module begins. Part of the trouble is that market research in the computer market isn't all that sophisticated. The market research questionnaires from the vendor are usually filled out by the purchasing office, or some executive. All that management knows is that engineering doesn't like the XYZZY machine, but they don't necessarily know the exact reasons. And minor problems like not having a real-time clock tend to get lost or forgotten in the list of complaints about the FORTRAN compiler, OS stability, etc. Sometimes you have to rank the desirability of features not only by their customer work-stopping importance, but also by their annoyance factor, and the ease of fixing the problem. -- Andy Glew, a-glew@uiuc.edu [get ph nameserver from uxc.cso.uiuc.edu:net/qi]