Re: antennas
- From: Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 10:07:28 -0700
Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> hath wroth:
And sometimes it is the final daft last minute cost reductions that
contribute to the most annoying product defects and excessive infant
mortality. Don't you just love beancounters...
There's much more to the problem than just rush to market. Product
life cycles have decreased sufficiently that often several generations
of future replacement products are being designed when a product hits
the market. The incentive to fix any defects in the current product
is lost if someone decides that "we'll just give them the new version,
which will be out next month". Why put time and money into fixing a
product that obsolete on introduction? (I've seen this happen several
times).
Note: I am not a programmist.
Time to market and first mover advantage is viewed as far more
important than stable or fully functional software. Excel 2007 is a
fabulous example right now.
Nope. Bad example. Excel is a classic example of my software axiom
"Functions and features get added faster than bugs get fixed". The
inevitable result is a bloated monster, burdened by useless features,
and full of bugs. I haven't actually tried Excel 2007, but if it's as
bad as you suggest, I'm sure it qualifies.
The effect is understandable. Functions and features sell products.
Bug fixes do not. I haven't seen any retail software package display
on the box "Fewer bugs than previous version" as a product feature.
Well, actually MS did that when Windoze 2000 was introduced and
proudly proclaimed that "it crashes less often". Anyway, if you have
limited time and resource, and you have to choose whether to allocate
them to new features or old bugs, the choice is obvious. Bugs can
always be fixed after product release.
But so long as consumers
accept having defective new products shoved down their throats that is
what will happen.
Mediocrity sells. What I find fascinating is that buyers often cite
the vain hope that the new version may have fixed some of the bugs as
a reason for upgrading. That's also my main reason for upgrading.
However, when I find something I like, I stay with it. I'm still
running Office 2000 and not having any major issues as compared to
those running later versions.
There is an interesting corollary to the software game. Unlike
hardware, software does not wear out with age. Your requirements may
change until it no longer does the required job, but so long as it
does what you need you are much better off with an established
trustworthy application than the newest gee whiz flash bang premature
release.
Ah, but there is also "software rot":
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_rot>
Old software just looks old. The surplus stores are full of perfectly
adequate, shrink wrapped software, that would totally functional were
it kept up to date with bug fixes. However, that's rarely the case,
so toss the old bugs, and replace them with new bugs. It's so bad,
that at least one company had released new product disguised as an
older product in order to convince consumers that perhaps the long
history might yield fewer bugs. Free Lotus Symphony:
<http://symphony.lotus.com>
I haven't tried it but I smell a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Antenna design has other important advantages. You can't see it work.
You can't tell how it works. Product comparisons are almost
impossible. Nobody understands the numbers. RF and antennas are
indistinguishable from magic.
Some are. I have met a few antenna designers who really know what they
are doing. Large phased arrays have to be exactly right or they don't
perform anything like to specification.
Agreed. I'm a mediocre antenna designer and have great respect for
those that understand the technology. I read some of the IEEE Antenna
and Propagation Proceedings and am often lost in the math and models.
However, I was referring to the average consumer of antennas. TV
antennas are again a good example. Look at the variety offered and
try to distinguish by either observation or specification, which are
the best antennas for OTA TV reception. Most consumers can't do that,
so they purchase the biggest, weirdest looking, and most gold plated
yagi, that's really a fairly rotten antenna compared to a simple bow
tie array, backed by a large barbeque grill. Same with the rabbit
ears, with the tiny parabolic dish in between, that sits on the TV.
The dish does absolutely nothing and is there strictly for looks.
The problem is that sometimes, such weirdness goes too far. I once
designed (on paper) a TV antenna consisting of a helical spiral array.
Lots of gain, lots of bandwidth, polarization insensitive, but really,
really, really big and ugly. It looked like a giant conical ziggurat
on its side with a giant barbeque grill base. I didn't have to build
one as it was obvious that nobody would want one on their roof. Ugly
and fancy sell, but there's a limit.
Regards,--
Martin Brown
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@xxxxxxxxxx
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
.
- References:
- antennas
- From: RichD
- Re: antennas
- From: Rich Grise
- Re: antennas
- From: Jeff Liebermann
- Re: antennas
- From: CptDondo
- Re: antennas
- From: Jeff Liebermann
- Re: antennas
- From: Martin Brown
- antennas
- Prev by Date: Re: Multicolor led with 2 pins
- Next by Date: Re: Which university produces good analog EEs?
- Previous by thread: Re: antennas
- Next by thread: Re: antennas
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
