|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
chris@xxxxxxxx (Chris Norrie) observes:
>
>I do not know Omega's reasons. I presume they have them. However,
>in absence of an explanation from them, I am confused. IS TS5.0 a
>next generation product or not. If it is, why is it not designed
>from the begining to be a next generation product.
>
>If TS5.0 is next generation and it has non-y2k compliance designed
>into it from the begining, it is a bug. Furthermore, development
>effort will be spent to design in and test this non-y2k compliance bug.
>
>I am stupified if this is the case...
Chris, from what I gather from the odd comment dropped by folks that
have actually peeked inside, Omega doesn't have a "development process"
as we would understand it. The System-Writer MS Basic code evolved
into TS, which evolved into v3.0, 3.01, 3.51, 4.0, etc. I understand
TS 4.0 was done mainly as a scramble to get compatible with Win95,
though remaining a sixteen-bit program. TS 5.0 is a scramble to get
to thirty-two bits.
At each evolution, a few new features are thrown in, but I seriously
doubt that anyone has ever done a rigorous, ISO-9000-style requirements-
through-validation process for Omega's software. Quality is tested
in, not designed in. Tested by the customers, of course.
One reason I'm so fond of TS 3.5 is that it had fewer "new features"
thrown in, and seems to have had more of its bugs tested out.
Can you imagine being the lead programmer charged with releasing
Omega's next product, working for Bill Cruz? The mind reels...
Good luck to us all,
Jim
|