Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!jade!eris!mwm
From: mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: I think we've got an attitude problem here
Message-ID: <5841@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Mon, 9-Nov-87 02:49:23 EST
Article-I.D.: jade.5841
Posted: Mon Nov  9 02:49:23 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Nov-87 04:38:49 EST
References: <4504@cc5.bbn.COM>
Sender: usenet@jade.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer)
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica
Lines: 139

In article <4504@cc5.bbn.COM> denbeste@bbn.COM (Steven Den Beste) writes:
<One lament I've heard recently summarizes as "Why didn't you improve the A2000
<without making it incompatable?" Problem here is this: To improve something,
<you much change it. To change something, you induce incompatabilities. Plain
<and simple.

No, not plain and not simple. Not even true. It's possible to improve
something and leave it compatable with the old version. But this
eventually leaves you with horrible mess.

But both of the above types of changes are different from gratuitous
changes.

Changing the serial serial and parallel ports on the A2000 to be
standard (or IBM-PC compatable) is an improvement.

Pushing the function key row (complete with DEL and ESC keys) up a row
without inserting anything in the middle is a gratuitous change (or
would somebody at CBM care to justify this change). While it doesn't
introduce an incompatability, it's a pain in the *ss if you use any of
those keys heavily.

Likewise, the only justification for the Zorro I to Zorro ][ change I
can see is wanting to build the A2000 in an IBM-PC style box. That
qualifies as gratuitous to me.

<Mike Meyers, author of the above lament (and let me say now that I am probably
<summarizing it incorrectly, because I got sick of it and started skipping the
<articles a long time ago) asked in one of his articles why they couldn't have
<designed a product for the A2000 allowing use of A1000 SOTS modules.

Why didn't you keep skipping it? You'd have been less likely to make
the mistakes you did.

For instance, if you want to bitch about what I said (I was one of the
first to bitch about that), you could at least spell my name right.
Unless one of the many Mike Meyers I don't know has been expressing
views similar to mine, and I haven't seen them.

<Well, technically they could have. But technical considerations are
<secondary: the real issue is resource and profitability.

Yet another mistake. One of the CATS people has already stated that a
SOTS on the A2000 was considered, and rejected on technical grounds -
that it would work less well than the A1000 SOTS, and they didn't want
to repeat that headache (which leaves the A500 SOTS socket as an open
question).

<For Meyers to stand up and bombastically say "Commodore Blew It And I'm Taking
<My Business Elsewhere" is at best arrogant and at worst ignorant. My reaction
<to that comment was "Good riddance."

No, wise. They have practically forced me into a position of having to
consider buying a new computer. I'm considering other options than a
CBM machine.  Considering *all* the options is almost always a wise
thing to do.

And if you look, I've *never* said the A2000 had any technical
problems. An ergonomic disaster, yes.

But the real problem is that it's a good demonstration of how well CBM
understands the concept of a "family" of computers. If you can call
three machines with three compatable-with-kludges expansion options a
"family."

<If I've learned anything in the 12 years I've been in this industry (and 6
<years as a student hacker before that) it is these two things: "Nothing lasts"
<and "Nothing is perfect".

Nothing is perfect, yes. I spend more time than I want to think about
working around problems in various systems.

Doesn't last? Well, in the long run, yes. But I've run complex,
multi-languages systems that had last been changed before you started
hacking as a student. All it took was running it on hardware from a
company that believed in upgrade paths.

<The biggest difference between a good engineer and a
<bad engineer is that a bad engineer spends a lot of time bemoaning the sad
<state of the tools and components and constantly attempts to achieve
<perfection, whereas the good engineer takes what is, makes it work, sells it
<and makes money.

I'm not an engineer (praise Bob!). You can ask the people who pay me
whether I'm good or bad at what I do.

I also find that the *best* people constantly seek perfection. Of
course, they weren't just out to make money, they were out to create
things of beauty and please people.

<Are the A2000 and A500 perfect? Of course not. Are they
<selling and making a profit? They sure are selling, and if they are selling at
<C/A's manufacturing capacity then if C/A isn't profitable they need to fire
<their accountants.

Some people think that there are more important things than "profit."
Like making sure your customers are happy.

I'll also point out that the IBM-PC & clones sell much better than the
Amgia - any of them. Does that mean it's a better machine than any of
the Amigas?

<That makes them good products. Not perfect, but then "perfection" isn't part of
<the universe of discourse.

Perfection may not be part of your universe of discourse, but it's
bloody well part of mine. It's what things should aim at. You just
have to decide how short you're willing to fall before release your
product.

Unless you're much more interested in the bottom line than quality, of
course.

<So, the right attitude is "If they did it differently than I would have, then
<they must have known something that I don't know."

Oh, I never claimed that they did it wrong from their viewpoint - just
from mine. I didn't even claim that it was wrong for what they wanted
to do. It's just that what they wanted to do apparently wasn't to
market a serious family of computers.

<The former used to be the common way on this group, and it WORKED!

Haven't been reading this group very long, have you? There have been
several other people who made a lot of people mad by bitching about CBM -
and in one case, about CATS. Strangly enough, they got what they wanted.

<Let's start looking at our nine-tenths full glass instead of our one-tenth
<empty glass, OK?

I'm still looking at my computer with a dead expansion market. I fail
to see how that can be considered nine-tenths full.

	<mike
--
I'm gonna lasso you with my rubberband lazer,		Mike Meyer
Pull you closer to me, and look right to the moon.	mwm@berkeley.edu
Ride side by side when worlds collide,			ucbvax!mwm
And slip into the Martian tide.				mwm@ucbjade.Bo ao a