Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!dimacs.rutgers.edu!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!news.funet.fi!tukki.jyu.fi!tukki!tt From: tt@euler.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) Newsgroups: comp.sys.handhelds Subject: Re: The HP 48 Programmer's ToolKit (review, long) Message-ID: Date: 30 Sep 90 07:35:26 GMT References: <57750@microsoft.UUCP> <1990Sep26.181705.20455@nntp-server.caltech.edu> <6527@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> <1990Sep29.142702.20060@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu> Sender: news@tukki.jyu.fi (News articles) Organization: University of Jyvaskyla Lines: 54 In-Reply-To: lishka@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu's message of 29 Sep 90 14:27:02 GMT > bio_zwbb@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (William Busa) writes: > >It would be *great* if HP would sell a > >software developer's package, consisting of the commented ROM code and > >whatever development tools they have on hand. YES! > >But doing so would make it > >easy for the clone-makers to undercut HP's market position, I would guess, I don't think that's the main reason. More likely they consider the required support &c not worth the effort: they tried it with HP71B and it didn't work (or that's what I'd guess the penny-counters at HP are saying, of course WE know that the real reason for 71's (commercial) failure lies elsewhere). lishka@uwslh.slh.wisc.edu (a.k.a. Chri) writes: > Another important point: it is likely that much of HP's development > software resides on non-IBM hardware (probably HP workstations). It > would be costly to translate this all to the IBM PC, and it seems that > HP Corvallis has enough work to do without taking on this extra role. Quite. They cannot simply take whatever tools they're using and start selling them, they very least they'd have to re-package them and provide some sort of technical support. One possibility to avoid this would be to release the stuff like the 41 internals were, on NOMAS basis (NOt MAnufacturer Supported), if suitable means of distribution could be found (alas, there is no world-wide users' club anymore such as PPC then was; perhaps we should establish a joint organization of various local/national clubs to handle this kind of things?). I at least would be happy to get the development tools even if they only run on HP workstations :-). (Hey, HP, haven't you considered how that could boost your workstation sales?!) > Personally, I think HP should produce a list of internal ROM routines > (i.e. sysevals) and their usage. Even that would be nice, although I doubt if it would be substantially harder for them to give the ROM listings as well (sold as a separate item, perhaps, for there is _a lot_ of it), unless they really are worried about clones (which I doubt, considering the proprietary processor &c). If we really want to get something done about this we'd have to convince HP that it would be in their interest, moneywise, i.e., that it'd bring in more money in increased sales than it'd cost in support &c---i.e., that there are enough of us who'd want it. How about everybody writing a letter to HP about it? (MUCH more efficient than posting here.) -- Tapani Tarvainen (tarvaine@jyu.fi, tarvainen@finjyu.bitnet)