Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!unmvax!uokmax!d.cs.okstate.edu!drd!mike From: mike@DRD.Com (Mike Rovak) Newsgroups: comp.sys.handhelds Subject: Re: Version D to E upgrades... Summary: balance Keywords: tradeoff Message-ID: <1991Feb6.145058.18348@DRD.Com> Date: 6 Feb 91 14:50:58 GMT References: <7360062@hpfcso.HP.COM> Sender: Mike Rovak Followup-To: comp.sys.handhelds Organization: DRD Corporation Lines: 68 rrd@hpfcso.HP.COM (Ray Depew) wrote: ... stuff ... } >As a side-line, HP should have tested their ROMs more thoroughly... If they } ^^^^^^ ^^^^ } >didn't even try to invert a matrix larger than 8x8, they deserve the penalty } >of replacing every flawed calculator. } } Well, they did a pretty thorough job, from what I saw. Obviously, you don't } know HP. Their reputation for high quality is well-deserved, but even HP } can't be perfect all the time. If you knew how much testing actually did go } into the 48, you probably wouldn't have said this. Like I said in an earlier } posting, even Rev.F will probably have bugs. (No, I don't know what they will } be. I'm speaking from a statistical point of view.) The question is, will you } ever notice them? } } >It is not OUR fault that the entire } >calculator must be replaced. }^^^^ ... stuff ... } } >Anyway, I believe that companies (especially in America) are getting far to } >relaxed about quality control. HP should strive for ZERO DEFECTS and that } >means rigorous testing of the software they put into their calculators. } ... stuff ... Don't mean to nit-pick, but of course you realize that a product which is tested for ZERO DEFECTS never gets to market... The point is that at least in my experience there is always a tradeoff between the amount of time which is devoted to testing and the need to bring the product to competitive and open market. This is a consideration which must always be weighed by the people who have the responsibility for keeping the business in question afloat. It seems to me that as the machine becomes more complex in its capabilities, there will be increased pressure on HP to do something like make the ROMS more accessible for upgrading, either for the experienced user or at least the experienced dealer. In such a case, HP could then charge a nominal fee for an upgrade and would not then have to absorb the (what I am sure is) considerable expense of eating the returned units like what has occurred this year. The result of this type of plan is that the advanced users will remain happy, and inevitable bugs which surface do not become anywhere near the liability which they have been this year for HP. Instead, they have the potential of becoming an asset, so long that "selling upgrades" does not become a marketing end in itself, which is an irritable feeling I get from some software companies, who shall remain nameless. I consider myself fortunate. I discovered this newsgroup just as I was making the decision to buy a 48. Having "been burned" (my own personal perception, which may have no basis in fact) on the 28C, I waited, read the news, and waited. When I heard about the EQLIB promotion and Version E, I bought. So, IMHO, any complaints should be directed to marketing, NOT the poor guys who are TOLD when the thing is to be ramrodded out the door. -- Mike's $0.02 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Disclaimer: My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. ======================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------ mike@DRD.Com uunet!apctrc!drd!mike ========================================================================