From: olson@anchor.esd.sgi.com (Dave Olson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sgi
Subject: Re: Complaining about 4.0.Xx
Date: 30 Sep 92 02:05:40 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In <32814@adm.brl.mil> andersen@marvin.ama.ttu.edu (Kim Andersen) writes:

| In article  <1992Sep25.112238.856@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>,  Rodney Hoinkes
| <rodney@dgp.toronto.edu> writes:
| 
| >  When is this crazy state of affairs going
| >  to end?  Will there ever be a 'stable' version of 4.0 without
| >  grand new additional features in minor revisions?
| 
| Hear, hear!  I have not yet upgraded my machines to 4.0.Xx (where X is
| today's number and x is today's letter) because I don't know which
| version I'm supposed to have for my machines or which one will work.
| I thought 4.0.5 was supposed to solve all the problems caused by rushing
| out this OS, but there are now (by my count) at least 7 versions of
| that (a,b,c,d,e,f, and mm)!  And the SGI guys won't TELL us what
| we need until we call up with some bug we've been fighting with for
| WEEKS and they tell us that "Oh, all you need is version 4.0.9bfk12
| to fix that."

b & c were fixes that affected relatively few people.
d & e were shipped to very few people (early shipments only),
and f is the "final" (I promise!) release necessary for 
r4k indigo and Reality engine, and r3k Indigo starter video.

d,e, & f only run on restricted hardware, 'c' is being shipped
only on an as needed patch basis, so almost everybody should
find 4.0.5B usable and sufficient for the hardware that was
released by that time.  Some things are hard to control, such
as a part (DUART) going out of production at the wrong time
(which was the major change for 'f'), and then the replacement not
being as compatible as it was supposed to be.

| I am not at all impressed with the way SGI has handled this new
| release and I am not going to be installing it until a stable plateau
| has been reached.  3.3.X may be old, but at least it works.

Well, 3.3.X wasn't all that stable for a while either, as those who
got plain 3.3 will remember...

Basicly, the problem is that we keep coming up with all these wonderful
new machines and configurations, and our testing hasn't kept up (in
my opinion, I don't speak for SGI officialy, etc. etc.).  If 3.3.X
fills your needs, and the programs you want work on it, by all means,
stick with it.

If you aren't happy with our release quality, cycles, etc., then by
all means, complain to your sales reps and support folks.  If the
quality is seen as "good enough" (based on field feedback from customers,
reps, etc.) then release cycles, etc. probably won't change too much
in the way they are done.  If it is seen as "NOT good enough", and
that might cost us current or future sales, then things will probably
change.  Of course, this has the downside that you might have to wait
longer for new features, bug fixes, and new hardware, which is why
things happen the way they do.  You can't just throw people at quality
problems, you have to commit more time as well, and early enough in
the development/product cycle to make a difference.
--
Let no one tell me that silence gives consent,  |   Dave Olson
because whoever is silent dissents.             |   Silicon Graphics, Inc.
    Maria Isabel Barreno                        |   olson@sgi.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sgi