Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!uwmcsd1!marque!uunet!portal!atari!good
From: good@atari.UUCP (Roy Good)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Bugs in new BETA ROMS?
Message-ID: <1144@atari.UUCP>
Date: 30 Aug 88 16:37:04 GMT
References: <447@forty2.UUCP>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Atari Corp., Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 54

in article <447@forty2.UUCP>, poole@forty2.UUCP (Simon Poole) says:
> In article <3446@druhi.ATT.COM> med@druhi.ATT.COM (Myron Drapal) writes:
> [Description of a bug in the beta test version of the new TOS deleted]
> Now come on, what do you expect from a version of a OS that is in beta-test?
> -> It has bugs! <-
> (why would one do a beta-test otherwise?)
> What you should do: is to make sure whoever told you, reported the bug
> back to Atari with their new SPR  system (which incidentlly works very
> well, a lot better than a few other companies I know about....).
> 
>>P.S. Has anyone else heard of any new bugs introduced in the BETA ROMS?
>>     Are there any (real) BETA testers out there who would like to comment?
> 
> As you know beta-testers are NOT  allowed  to  comment on the testing,
> while I did not   sign a formal   agreement,  I have  no  intention of
> breaking my promise to keep my mouth shut.
> 

Thank you, Simon, for making two points in your (unsolicited) posting:
a) The SPR (System Problem Report) mechanism, part of our PTS (Product
   Tracking System) database is the vehicle we have put in place for ALL
   bug reports, enhancements requests etc. for software and hardware. It
   will be available to all registered developers as part of the Developer
   Release of TOS 1.4 (and other products). It has been put together with
   considerable thought, and is a vehicle for mature and professional
   reports of problems with Atari products. Details will be in the 
   Developer Kit update package. Its primary aim is to provide continuity
   of problem tracking, and to prevent reports, which have hitherto been
   verbal, written in various forms or posted on BBS etc (sometimes buried
   in profanity or similar abuse), from "dropping through the cracks".
b) I had requested that Beta sites be asked to sign non-disclosure 
   agreements during Beta test, with other conditions including no rights
   to copy or distribute unreleased products. Some subsidiaries insisted on
   these conditions, for which I thank them, others did not. Nonetheless,
   the spirit of a Beta test must, of necessity, be one of mutual trust
   between Atari and the test sites. Simon Poole falls into this category.
   Others who post to this net do not, and are therefore not considered
   acceptable sites. I fully intend to formalize the procedure for becoming
   a Beta site, in order to cut down on the amateur (in the sense of not
   being professional, rather than of being a "lover") attitude of some
   responses. We have several new products in development, hardware and
   software, and I have every intention of being more stringent in the
   conditions for being accepted as a Beta site for these than I was for
   TOS 1.4. It would be perfect if all registered developers and selected
   end-users could Beta test all products. Not only is this economically
   unfeasible because of support and product costs (especially with hardware),
   but it is also impractical to manage. These considerations, in addition to
   the need for a mutually beneficial relationship, of necessity limit the 
   number of potential test sites.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roy J. Good
Product Development, Atari Corporation
Views expressed are my own. Atari may agree or disagree; they have the right.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------