[HPCC-Conf] Conference Report

[Richard Schwartz]

OK, OK, I have it all figured out:  there should not be any more conferences
because somebody will be unhappy about something.   That is a solution HP
can live with.

. . . Richard

----- Original Message -----
From: "Philippe J. Roussel" <Philippe.Roussel@imec.be>
To: <hpcc-conf@lists.handheld.org>
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 2:37 AM
Subject: Re: [HPCC-Conf] Conference Report




Tony Duell wrote:
>
> [I am not sure this should be on the mailing list, but as Richard has
> made some unpleasant and IMHO incorrect comments here, I feel I have to
> give my version as well]

> I was against inviting _anybody_ from the start!. I don't feel it's
> necessary or even desirable. Unless your idea of the conference is to
> have the same old crowd meeting up each year at various places. But then
> again, at least one of the conference organisers has admitted to me
> that's precisely what he wanted.

I attend Scientific Conferences regularly,
and even rigidly organized conferences (e.g. like IEEE International
Reliability Physics Symposium)
do have invited speakers, clearly mentioned as such in the conference
timetable.

And yes, I am glad to meet some familiar faces at IRPS ;-)
I's not the goal of the conference, but a pleasant and non-neglegible bonus
of conferences
held for a limited size interest community.

> I'd rather have people coming who _want_ to come, talking about what they
> want to talk about. That way you might at least get some presentations
> with content...

That's up to the conference organizing committee to decide.
Were you in it?


> This does not mean you can't lay down some ground rules that would apply
> no matter who was coming and what they were talking about!
That holds for ay conference.

> I am assuming you've never tried to run a conference where everything is
> rigidly defined in advance -- no last minute talks, full ground rules set
> out. I haven't either.
>
> But I have been to several 'proper' conferences (not HP calculator
> related) where the timetable was rigidly defined in advance, where there
> were clear conditions placed on a presentation, and so on. And I can
> assure you I enjoyed them a lot more than this HPCC conference, for all
> the subject matter should have been less interesting to me.

The conference timetable was on the Internet afew days before.
You did not have to cancel any flight if you decide not to come after all\do
to lack of interest.
Even invited speakers sometimes (but seldomly) leave a conference after
their talk!

> Perhaps an HP calculator conference run rigidly would be a disaster, I
> don't know. Perhaps it would be a great success. But the only way to find
> out is to try it. And that will never happen if all the major conferences
> around the world are essentially organised by one person.

> > but still there are reasons to consider HP's needs.  We all want the
same
> > thing - the best possible machines.
... manufactured and advertised in a commercially viable way...
A constraint we (and HP) have to live with.


> > Will you donate five HP49's to the next conference?  Check with Wlodek
> > on what was gained by HPCC.
Touché!

> Oh, this is pathetic! The reason to keep in with HP is so that we get
> free machines to give away as door prizes ?
No, but it is a nice side effect appreciated by most attendees
(I did not win one of the door prices AFAIK ...),
and most are willing to live with the few extra considerations
necessary to keep a proper balance between freedom as a Users' Club
and dependence from HP.

> I was against the whole idea of prizes at the conference, BTW. I have
> never been to any conference other than an HPCC one where there are
> prizes of any description.
You should have been at the Zaandam conference in the Netherlands a few
years ago...
The prizes I won there balanced the whole cost of my trip in shop value.

> I am not at all convinced that anyone attended the conference so as to
> get a chance of winning a door prize.
Of course not!

> I know it didn't affect my decision
> to attend _at all_. Most (all!) people came to meet others and to listen
> to the presentations.
At least one thing we all agree upon ;-)

> Just let me indicate why I am worried about the club becoming too
> closely connected with HP :
>
> A few years ago I was involved in a club project called the '42SV
> project'. AS you doubtless know, the HP42 has an 8K RAM chip in it, a
> standard low-power 6264 chip. After cracking a machine open and examining
> the PCB, I realised that a 32K RAM chip (a stnadard 62256) would also
> work if you changed a solder-blob configureation pad. So I desoldered the
> 8K chip, soldered in a new 32K chip and moved the blob. The internal
> software was clearly designed to work with such a configuration -- it
> recognised the extra RAM with no problems (FWIW, the firmware in the
> 17B-II will not use more RAM, even though it's trivial to fit the 32K
> chip to this machine also -- it's actually the same PCB). We named the
> result the 42SV for the obvious reason. Please note that I had no inside
> information from HP to do this -- I just took a machine apart and probed
> around inside, like I often do.
>
> So, if it's so easy and cheap to fit the 32K RAM (I think the chip in
> 1-off quantities was around \pounds 10.00), why didn't HP sell a '42SV'.
> One reason suggested (I have no idea if this is correct, but assume it is
> for the moment) is that it was a marketting decision so that the 42S
> would not overly compete against the 48SX. If that's true, then HP might
> have been unhappy with us for making a couple. Now legally there's
> nothing they can do about it, but if the club was not totally independant
> of HP, then they might prevent the club from discussing such things, from
> printing photos of the modified PCB, and so on. That's something I would
> not want to happen.
I think this is a good example of were the boundary should be.

> IMHO the ability to discuss what we like is much more important than
> getting door prizes.
If HP imposed harsher conditions on the release of NOMAS information, but
have they?
HP knows very well that only a very limited fraction of the buyers are even
dreaming
of opening their HP42 to convert it into a HP42SV.
Well, let's push it a bit further:
suppose you would have started a company offering that kind of surgery at an
affordable price,
would HP have opposed? Richard?
If there was even the slightest suspicion that there would be
a sufficiently large custom base for something
like an HP42SV, it would have been out there, sold by HP!
On second thought, I think your argument does not hold at all:
even at the conference, several comments from attendees made me experience
again
how large the threshold is for moving over from the HP41C* system to that of
the HP48G* series,
which I embraced to the extent that I prefer translating an HP41* program
into H48G* in stead of running the original on the old hardware
whenever I need the code. A recent example is that of my linear programming
utilities
(HP41C* code published a long time ago in PCX Journal)
I am planning to write an article about it. Hope you'll enjoy reading and/or
using it!
So I think there was still room for hardware based on the HP41 system
with sufficient RAM resources, without competing with the HP4SX.
Simply a different target: old, accustomed users vs student buyers that
still
have to learn either of the systems anyway.

> Quite honestly I find your continual comments that I do nothing to be
> insulting in the extreme. For your information I put a lot of time into
> HPCC, not necessarily in 'visible' ways.
Richard, don't forget there is a silent majority
that appreciates the time and efforts spent to keep the whole thing alive!