1  |   Order by index

Jan 16, 2001, 10:19pm

I've decided to post my monthly article here in the newsgroup since
there's no feedback feature at AWNews.com yet. After all, what's the
point of stirring the virtual melting pot if you can't hear the screams?
:)

------

Testing Beta

beta n. - Mostly working, but still under test; usu. used with `in':
`in beta'. In the Real World, systems (hardware or software) software
often go through two stages of release testing: Alpha and Beta. Beta
releases are generally made to a group of trusted customers.

Recently Roland, COF's lead programmer, decided to officially "close"
the closed beta test of AW 3.1 by restricting use of 3.1 to only those
people who were registered for the closed beta. Why? It was because
apparently a number of people had gotten their hands on 3.1 without
actually being in the beta program. And how did Roland know this? These
same people were bombarding him with emails and telegrams as to why this
or that didn't work properly!
My only question here is: What did these people expect? Didn't they
know what "beta" meant? Didn't they know that 3.1 wasn't a complete
program? Did they somehow think that "Oh, I know there's bugs in it, but
they won't happen to me"? Or were they simply too impatient to wait for
a full-fledged, working version of the program just so that they could
"see all the pretty lights"?
When I was first introduced to the concept of "beta", I learned that it
was something to be feared. If someone had told me they had a copy of
something like Photoshop 7, but it was only the beta version, I would
look at them as if they told me they had contracted leprosy. Even though
it may have all sorts of cool features, I would still avoid it like the
plague. Although it may have all the goodies, it also has the potential
to do damage to my system.
The possibility of a beta program permanently damaging your system is
higher than you may think. Just because the program works on the
in-house systems doesn't necessarily mean it will work on all systems.
This is the true purpose of the beta test. Not to give a select few a
sneak peak at new features, but to make sure it works on all systems!
Beta testers actually take a small risk in deciding to test a product,
because there's no real way of knowing how it will act. It may run
smoothly without a hitch, or it could do something horribly wrong and
the damage couldn't be undone.
Thankfully, I think Roland did the right thing this time by having a
closed beta. This not only guarantees that less people will be affected
if anything goes wrong, but also these are people who actually know what
they're getting into. Not only that, but Roland can now actually find
information fast and get things done in a timely manner, instead of
having to sift through a million pointless posts and redundant questions
by people who don't know any better.
But some people never learn, I guess. The addition of lighting and
moving objects was just too much for some people, and they had to have
it now! So they cheated a bit and were able to see AW 3.1 in all its
glory. Then it got yanked away from them, and they cried "What's the big
deal? We weren't hurting anything!" Unfortunately, what you were hurting
was Roland's ability to help those who were actually supposed to be in
the beta program by flooding him with your inane questions and
repetitive bug reports. And now it's been taken away from you because of
that.
I hope we can all learn something from this little escapade: Patience
is indeed a virtue. Yes, AW 3.1 may be the next greatest thing from COF,
and it may bring so many more possibilities to the virtual world. It may
even be, and dare I say it, a step in the right direction for COF!

But I can wait

------

Goober King
"Oh, no! Beta!"
rar1 at acsu.buffalo.edu

Jan 16, 2001, 10:57pm

Um, COF no longer exists; it's AWCI now.

And not everyone with AW 3.1 reported bugs...directly anyway.

[View Quote] > I've decided to post my monthly article here in the newsgroup since
> there's no feedback feature at AWNews.com yet. After all, what's the
> point of stirring the virtual melting pot if you can't hear the screams?
> :)
>
> ------
>
> Testing Beta
>
> beta n. - Mostly working, but still under test; usu. used with `in':
> `in beta'. In the Real World, systems (hardware or software) software
> often go through two stages of release testing: Alpha and Beta. Beta
> releases are generally made to a group of trusted customers.
>
> Recently Roland, COF's lead programmer, decided to officially "close"
> the closed beta test of AW 3.1 by restricting use of 3.1 to only those
> people who were registered for the closed beta. Why? It was because
> apparently a number of people had gotten their hands on 3.1 without
> actually being in the beta program. And how did Roland know this? These
> same people were bombarding him with emails and telegrams as to why this
> or that didn't work properly!
> My only question here is: What did these people expect? Didn't they
> know what "beta" meant? Didn't they know that 3.1 wasn't a complete
> program? Did they somehow think that "Oh, I know there's bugs in it, but
> they won't happen to me"? Or were they simply too impatient to wait for
> a full-fledged, working version of the program just so that they could
> "see all the pretty lights"?
> When I was first introduced to the concept of "beta", I learned that it
> was something to be feared. If someone had told me they had a copy of
> something like Photoshop 7, but it was only the beta version, I would
> look at them as if they told me they had contracted leprosy. Even though
> it may have all sorts of cool features, I would still avoid it like the
> plague. Although it may have all the goodies, it also has the potential
> to do damage to my system.
> The possibility of a beta program permanently damaging your system is
> higher than you may think. Just because the program works on the
> in-house systems doesn't necessarily mean it will work on all systems.
> This is the true purpose of the beta test. Not to give a select few a
> sneak peak at new features, but to make sure it works on all systems!
> Beta testers actually take a small risk in deciding to test a product,
> because there's no real way of knowing how it will act. It may run
> smoothly without a hitch, or it could do something horribly wrong and
> the damage couldn't be undone.
> Thankfully, I think Roland did the right thing this time by having a
> closed beta. This not only guarantees that less people will be affected
> if anything goes wrong, but also these are people who actually know what
> they're getting into. Not only that, but Roland can now actually find
> information fast and get things done in a timely manner, instead of
> having to sift through a million pointless posts and redundant questions
> by people who don't know any better.
> But some people never learn, I guess. The addition of lighting and
> moving objects was just too much for some people, and they had to have
> it now! So they cheated a bit and were able to see AW 3.1 in all its
> glory. Then it got yanked away from them, and they cried "What's the big
> deal? We weren't hurting anything!" Unfortunately, what you were hurting
> was Roland's ability to help those who were actually supposed to be in
> the beta program by flooding him with your inane questions and
> repetitive bug reports. And now it's been taken away from you because of
> that.
> I hope we can all learn something from this little escapade: Patience
> is indeed a virtue. Yes, AW 3.1 may be the next greatest thing from COF,
> and it may bring so many more possibilities to the virtual world. It may
> even be, and dare I say it, a step in the right direction for COF!
>
> But I can wait

Jan 17, 2001, 12:37am

Heh, you of all people, should know why I still refer to them as "COF".
:)

But, for the benefit of those who may not know: Until they can prove to
me that they truly are a different company in the way they act and in
how they treat their customers, I shall always refer to them by their
old (real) name. A rose by any other name still has thorns.

[View Quote] --
Goober King
Starting to think he needs a new line for that...
rar1 at acsu.buffalo.edu

Jan 17, 2001, 5:48am

AWCI is no rose, but it IS a name of an incorporated company (even if in the pathetic state of Delaware). You refer to AWCI incorrectly as COF--period. Feel free to come up with your own version of what "AWCI" means but to refer to them still as COF is just confusing to most people who don't know what COF stands for. You'll only serve to confuse people even more than AWCI already confuses them.

[View Quote] > Heh, you of all people, should know why I still refer to them as "COF".
> :)
>
> But, for the benefit of those who may not know: Until they can prove to
> me that they truly are a different company in the way they act and in
> how they treat their customers, I shall always refer to them by their
> old (real) name. A rose by any other name still has thorns.
>
[View Quote]

1  |   Order by index