Re: Desc. for "functionally incomplete" ?

Subject: Re: Desc. for "functionally incomplete" ?
From: "House, Barry" <BHouse -at- LRS -dot- COM>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 07:15:51 -0500

> How would you describe software that is in its v1.0 release and bug-
> free, but "functionally incomplete"?

I would do exactly as Apple Computer did about nine years ago when it
introduced System 7.0, a version of its Macintosh operating system that
delivered about 70 percent of the functionality Apple had promised users
for something like two years. By the time Apple shipped 7.0, it was
telling users that System 7.0 provided "core functionality" or something
like that, and enhanced functions could be expected in subsequent
releases.

Now, I would follow that path if I'd spent a year or two whetting users'
appetites like Apple did. If you're releasing new software that has had
little or no advance publicity, call it 1.0. Call it software which
provides the following functions . . . and when you're ready to release
1.1 or 2.0, call it the newest verstion of your software which gives
users EVEN MORE functions.

Barry House

From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=




Previous by Author: Word to FrameMaker conversion
Next by Author: Re: Value-add: Thanks for your help
Previous by Thread: Fw: Re: Desc. for "functionally incomplete" ?
Next by Thread: Re: Desc. for "functionally incomplete" ?


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads