Re: Pace Pvr1 ok now
- From: David Taylor <davidt-news@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 12:37:30 +0000 (UTC)
On 2006-07-03, Jomtien <jomtien@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Anthony R. Gold wrote:
If a sufficient number of wild guesses and assumptions gets you to a
budget for compatibility testing of £10, why stop there? Make a few more
and surely someone with your talents and anti-Sky grievances can turn it
into a real profit centre.
And again I will explain that one only needed to test the new firmware
with one single machine containing any non-standard drive in order to
find this bug. Total time: 10 minutes, if that.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Do you really beleive it is worthwhile
to perform such an inadequate test for problems caused by non-standard
configurations? Just because _this_ bug would have been caught doesn't
mean any of the numerous other potential problems would be detected
by your suggestion.
To _properly_ test such configurations, they'd have to repeat all their
testing on a modified box. To be really conclusive, they'd need to repeat
it with numerous replacement drives, on numerous models of box.
So you've probably just increased testing costs by a factor of 10.
--
David Taylor
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Pace Pvr1 ok now
- From: Jomtien
- Re: Pace Pvr1 ok now
- References:
- Re: Pace Pvr1 ok now
- From: Jomtien
- Re: Pace Pvr1 ok now
- From: Jomtien
- Re: Pace Pvr1 ok now
- From: Jomtien
- Re: Pace Pvr1 ok now
- Prev by Date: Re: Multiroom - poor signal
- Next by Date: Re: Pace Pvr1 ok now
- Previous by thread: Re: Pace Pvr1 ok now
- Next by thread: Re: Pace Pvr1 ok now
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|