Welcome

[Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller]

Am 16.04.2009 um 18:49 schrieb Joerg Reisenweber:

> Am Do  16. April 2009 schrieb Gerald A:
>> I know at the prototype stage you
>> are looking at limited yields and so forth, but from what I've  
>> gleaned out
>> of the conversation it might be possible if one of those protos  
>> turns out to
>> be business infeasible we could see if community hardware guys  
>> could re-work
>> it into something better?
>>
>> My line of thought here is having more options to choose from is  
>> better,
>> although everyone has to understand that "working" doesn't mean  
>> "viable to
>> be mass produced".
>
> Actually OM was about to EE a device codename GTA04(I) maybe  
> 12months ago,
> then when it became obvious it's some duty and some time to finish  
> the task
> of creating a whole new better design, OM downgraded to GTA03(II)  
> which was
> meant to be a very cautious improvement based on GTA02. (Later Steve  
> and I
> started work on a different GTA04(II), but that's a completely  
> different
> story) Anyway we kept the case (ID) of GTA04(I) for GTA03(II).  
> Eventually it
> came down out of blue sky to whole OM EE stuff GTA03 is now using 6410
> instead of 2442. We restarted development again. We kept the ID.
> Around 2008Dec there were first (semi)working prototypes(!), but  
> they had some
> minor difficulties with stacking of all the antennae. This made ME  
> (Tully)
> suggest a minimal change in ID. We kept ID, we kicked WLAN, GPS...  
> dunno what
> else instead. We restarted EE.

That should not happen of course. But it happens...

Generally, the hardware architecture (i.e. which CPU) should be one of  
the freezed features...

> Now we are about to discuss how to cram all the stuff already there  
> incl
> schematics and all into a GTA02 case which never will work anyway as  
> we
> needed some mods to the case no matter how hard we'll try to do the  
> whole job
> of last 12 months once more. The big mistake hs been and still is  
> trying to
> do EE for a sacrosanct ID that's not taking care whatsever about EE
> prerequisites.
>
> I'm really puzzled why we (OM that is) don't just publish the schem  
> as of
> 2008DEC (before crippling) and start our discussion from there,  
> instead of
> thinking about doing the whole job (and same mistakes) once again.
> It wasn't a big deal to finally get out GTA02 schem, once OM made up  
> their
> mind. I could do same job for GTA03 schematics as well, wouldn't  
> even need to
> visit TPE this time.

Good proposal - so that the GTA03-WG could continue there.