CONFIDENTIAL - Sriram K · MS-PCAIA2 000000461 CONFIDENTIAL In [he summer of 1~89, at a poini wher~ it seemed we might never converge, a program emphasizing qual~ of changes inslead

MS-PCAIA2 000000455CONFIDENTIAL

Microsoft Memo

~’0: Bill Gates, Mike Maples, Jeff Raikes, Chris Mason

FROM: Pet~ JacksonDATE= December 17, 1989RI~ Opus Developmem Postmortem

CC: Adrian Wyard, Bill Bader, Laurie Bochme, David Bourne,Chi-Chuen Chan, Brad Christian, Greg Cox, Judy Crichton, Phil Fawcett,Cha~. Franklin, Jodi Green, Sylvia Hayashi, Anne Hayes, Doug Klunder,Tony K~eger, Laurel Lammers, Jurgem Lesehner, Bryan Loofbourrow,David Imebbert, Brian MacDonald, Ford Martia, Komel Marton,Bob Matthews, David McKinnis, Dave Moore, Krishna Mukherjee,Jeff Muzzy, Chuck O’L~ary, Len Oot~uy~ JohnParkey, Rosie Perera,Chris Peters, Diana Peterson, Glen Poor, Tom Reeves,Darren Remington, Rick Saada, Jeff Sanderson, Tom Saxton, Doug Scott,Mark Seamau, jeanne Sheldon, Greg Slyngstad, Marshal Smith,Brandy Thorp, Doug Taupe, Brad Verheiden, Paul West (file),Greg Whitten, Bob Zawatich

1. Attached is the Development Postmortem for the Opus project.

X 501571CONFIDENTIAL

(Plaintiff’s Exhibi~8875


Opus Development Postmortem

Petcr J~]cron

Table of Coateats

Introducfio~ and Summary .................................................................................-1

Pro~ext and Sd~¢dul¢ ]-Iisto~ .................................................................2The Dew~lopmeat Tram .................................................... 2

Bag Statistics ...................................................................................7Scbed~g Ax~17ds .............................................................................. 9Summaxy ............................................................................ ll

Toots .........................................................................................................12

Tcctufical I, mues ......................................................................... ].2

Im~actioaWith 0¢b¢~ Groups. ................................................... 15ProsC~m Managcz~¢nt .................................................. 15Te~ ,.--~Iatez~afiov~ ...............................................................Us~¢ Exlucetio~ ........................................................... 16

Pr~ Su~. . .............................A~d~ I: A ~dd~ of~ ~/~� P~ .................... I-1

X 501572CONFIDENTIAL

I. Introduction end Summary

The Op~ DevdopmeJxt Postmortem was lmld Ttr.aday 12 Deo~ber at the Beltewe Red Lion Ltm. Iaattemtanc¢ wex¢:

David Beurac Doug Klmxltr David MciV.m~ Mark SeamanChi-Clrtmn Clmn Tony Kcoe.Bcr ~ Mukh~e¢ BrandyTliorpBrad (~ri~[iaiz J~ Leschner Ro~ic P=cra. Doug T*tmpcSylvia I-~yas3d David Luebbe~ Tom Szztoa Brad V~-helde~Petex Jackson Chris Ma=~ Doag Scott Bob Xawalida

After Word for W’mdow~ was released to manufactaHag a questiomzairc was dlst6buted to ag d~vdopets andgome other parties to collect opiniom and issues for ~ at the postmortem. The r~spons~ to them: questions

MS-PCAIA2 000000457CONFIDEN’rlAL

w~¢ di~h--ibu~cd ~o all of the att~adees in sdvanc~ and sexP..<l as ~ ~da f~ ~ m~t~L ~ d~t ~pr~y ~ on ~ r~ and ~ ~e ~o~ d~ ~ ~l~

~� Op~ p~ has ~n a ~g ~ M~y t~ ~nt ~o~ ~d ~y ~ wear ~ ~ ~� ~

hop~ ~ ~ 1~ ~ ~.

Ii. Project and Schedule History

Th~ Opus project sunted ia A~gust 1984 as the C~mcr~ pro~cct. Tim pro~e.~t shartexl out being the ©ad-allWindows of Bc¢, but eventually ~¢am¢ a Windows word processor ~,¢d oa Mm: W~L Prototy~g work staxt¢4 inAug~ 1985 and read de~lopmenz in November 1985 with sevea de~top¢~. Code ¢a~aplet¢ was dexlared in October1988. The product went to mauufactuzing on Novembor 30, 1989. A moz~ �omplv.l~ o~line of the proje~’s hiszory isbzcluded as Al~cudix I.

the Development Team

The followi~ ~abl¢ lists the 1~1� assigned ~o ~ 0~ ~ ~� ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r~s t~y ~ o~’ I ~ ~ud~ h~e o~ ~ple ~ ~ ~ ~ (~) ~ I ha~ ~ ~d~p~ple or ~fi~ s~t ~ on W~e ~ ~e ~/~ ~ (~ ~ ~ap~ ~ ~).

~/~n/~ SDE

...... ’ ’~ D~]o~ P~m X 5 015 7 3 r~ 2~oj~ a~ s~le ~o~ CONFIDENTIAL


~/~/~ Proj¢~ ~ad~/~.n/~

~ C~ ~/8~11/~ SDE~ev. M~.

~, ~ i0/~1i/~ SDE

P~, D~

~o~ Tom ~/~11/~ ~E

~%o~, B~dy .... ~/~-11/89 FA .... ~m~a,..r~ Do~,,. m/~/~ PA ~k~~, ~ ....V~d~ ~ad 10/~-~/~ ~E

Y~ Y~ito ~/8~ SDE

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ & ~r t~

~ ~mpt to m~e the ~ ~�~ of ~e

Furl Time En~neem on Opus

131211109876543

1

X 501574 ’"Opus D~lopmem PostmortemCONFIDENTIAL Pag~ 3Pro~ec~ and Schedule H~story

MS-PCA|A2 000000459CONFIDEN’flAL

Management of ~ deve.]opment team, f~om .,vlt~i~ md from a~ h~ ~n

B~ Mat~ tho ofi~ ~oj~ ~ad ~d on~ of ~� ~y ~i~n=d ~to~rs o~ ~� ~oj~ w~siphon~ offv~ ~ly to ~rk on ~md~ ~t ]¢R ~� d~l~ment t~ ~r~

~ntn~d to t~ d~ d th~ ~ he ~ not ~age &e l~ ~g ~d he ~

m~m~em~l ~t t~ tone f~ the a~ ~ ~.

D~ of Appfi~ ~~ Jeff ~ $~ff ~ ho~ Ford for ~tter ~s ~d mor~

~ow w~ ~ ~d not E~ up to o~ end d the ~. To m~ ~ d~tion w~,

apathe~c ~d b~t out.

la Apr~ ~ B~ ~nt on a m~ ~ o~ ~n~ ~ f~g t~t ~ ~d no ~ r~ Jeff ma~

n~ at ~ ~ ~en ~ ~ her~

sh~ed by at l~t ~ ~d on~ ~ ~e ~= ten m~ Pe~ ~~ ~~ ~ s~t~s to

other ~u~..x 501575

Op= D¢~pmCnt P~m~m CON FID ENT IAL


,Pro!ect Statlst!cs

The following charts show t~ g~owth of the debug and non-debug Op~s exe~rabl~s and of th~ ~mber of lh~esinOp~.

Growth of Opus Debug and Fas~ ,EXE Size

1,000,000 ¯ db~exe

@

oQ3- Q4- Q1- Q2- Q,3- Q4- Q1- 02- Q3- Q4- 01- Q2- Q3- Q4-86 86 87 87 87 87 88 88 88 88 89 89 89 89

Growth of Opus Soorce Code

C 100,000 [] asm50,000

0Q3. 04- O1- Q2- Q0- Q4- Ol=o 02- Q3- Q4- QI- Q2- 03-8686878787878888888889898989

C~le �o~npleJ~ was declared in October 1988, Subscqucn~ to ~ m~ ~ ~ m~ ~ b~ f~g ~a~ ~~ ~k ~� d~ ~ f~ ~ ~ ~ m~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ pre~l at

c~ ~m~


In [he summer of 1~89, at a poini wher~ it seemed we might never converge, a program emphasizing qual~ ofchanges inslead of q~aafity of ¢hang¢~ was hstituto~L This program i~cluded code reviews and cod~ owacrship as w~11as a so, its of rcmind~s gad discussions to eaco~age people to think about and to be careAd ~tlz the cha~es theymsde. This program was aa attempt to instill some of the ~s of zero-defe~ts i~to a p~ojcct that had gone a longtim© using an infiifito-d~fects methodology and was too far in its deve~opmeut to �o~dca" starting flora scratd~

It is reaIly hard to draw any conclusions about the ¢ffect~me.ss of this program. It is true that th~ bug countdropped dr-~matically, regresslo~ ~at© decreased aad we did fumllg ship four mouths later (we did not ~emeasur¢injection rat~ to detea~ain~ if it charted), but that probably would hav~ happened any~. y, if you believe tha~ the produc~was ready to ¢onvexg¢. The only ~¢al metrics w~ hav~ are from the statlstic~ gathered during the rode ~tiews.following table shows the a~cas reviewed3, the time spear on the r~w (’mcl~des preparation, review anddocumentation), the amount of time malting �orrcctlons and the number of "items" the review found (~ugs and otheritems).

l~ewed Tol~� ’ Hours Hours Bugs Other¯ ’ ° Review Correction

Tables:. FormaRiag 673 26 14 55Mac~o gxec~tloa 62~ 3 3 37

Prht ~t~ .(w/o Layout). ~2~.5 40 36 ~46

Table Primitives 111.25 30 26 203

C~r¢ Edit Routines 88 8 I1 39

Oaflin~g 55 12 19 73

Toted 660.55 362 L31 699

Average 83 20 16 87

In addition to the 131 bugs aad their solutioas (~r at least their caascs) that these cod~ ~ found, theyprcndded a ~ educational b~ne~ The developcn who 1~rticipated in the reviews te, arned mote about how Opuswoxh aud alx~ut better coding practices. Th~ te~c~s who aa©nded gained a better appreciation for the �omplc~’esthe Ixroduc~ and ideas oa the Hnds og things that can go wrong,

Most of the non-bug findings were performance reJated. If code reviews had be.on ~ all along o~ the Opusproject, it is eatirely posed’bit that oar final product’s spc~d could have beea dgaifi~an~y better.

The followhg tabl~ ligs somo statistics about the Ol~m project for comparison with othex proj~Is.

Size of ~ executab~ ........ 85~76 I~es ....Hand-native �od¢ as pm:eCt. �~ ea~catab~ 7 %

Numbe~ ofbu~ rci~rtcd 12,511 bol~.,,Fmble bags repor~.d ......... 93"n

3 F’~ other ¢odo r=vlcw~ wore held or started, b~t no data is available for them.

opm ~)~Jo~,;~ ~’~mortem X 501577Project ~ud ScheAule History CONFIDENTIAL

M S-PCAIA2 0000004~2CONFIDENTIAL

Fixable bugs per KLOC 38 bugsiKLOC,

Percent of fixable bugs report.ed afte~ Code Complete , ,62~ .......e~rccnt .complete at Code ComplexeL’by fast EXE size) 91%Percent complete at Code ComFkte ~by KIX}~) .....84 %

P©rccnt o[ t’mble bug~i’~ix~ted ~r ZBR 9 %Total bugs fixed aR~-r Z~R ..... ,, ¯ ’"’" 5~8 bugs

Raw data for many of th~.~ statistics can b¢ found in A# IL

The Opus bug database was am started tmtil Janaary 1987,-yet nearly thirte~m thom~and bugs we~ reportedduring the subscqmmt thirty-five mottths (about 370 bugs per moath).

The foBowing drafts show the aaiw bug ilst a=d th~ rate of bugs bdag reported and re.solv~ (all bugs and fix-

ab~4 bugs).

Active Bugs

Jan-87 Apt-87 JeI-B7 0ct-87 Jau-88 At~r-,~ Jul,88 Oct-88 Jma-~ Ap¢~9 Jul-~9 Ck~-~’

" J’ A’f~xable" tmgis a bag which is eventually retohcM FIXED or/K)STPONED.

Opas De,2r.lopmoxt Post mortam X 501578Proje~ct aad $~edul= History CONFIDENTIAL

MS-PCAIA2CONFIDENTIAL

- Opened Fixable Elugs Opened vs. Bugs Fl~ed per Mo~lh-

~0

~ ~ _-~ ~

e~ during the pca-iod from Apr~ L088 to Septemlx’r 1988 (tl~ was the period of the final code merge andc.mapletioa of featn~). Dm’ing t~ period before Alail L~, relatiway little v~ lml~g on th~ bug li~deveIo~n¢~i was basy working on featnres (and iatrc~ktcing ling0 and testing had act yet geared up. During S~tember1988 a cross-owr occurre.,d and from Iher~ on~ fox the most part, development kept up with or tmeeeMed the f’md ratv.The turnove~ of lmgs during this ~ was very high (abo~t 600 tm~ pex month fonnd aM fxxed). Ia Jume and Julythings tapered off as 6evelopment turned it’s att~mtio~ to �ode rt~i~s. Then in Aagu~ wi~ the anaouncement of theCancun incentiv~ thiags took off ~ F’ttmlly both th~ find and the fix rates botlomed ore. in Octobe~ a~d Novemberas evta’yone decided it was time to ~p.

The following graph ~ows the average timber of be~s ~ par FIE per week by moatk These numbers mesomewhat lower th~u the stone figttres f~� Mac Word 4.0, which ranged as kigh ~ 25 mtd seemed to average betweenten and f’fftr.~t. I don’t have any etplanation lo~ why Opus is so mae.2t lower.

Bug Fixes per FTE pe~ week

20.00

15,00 ¯ "

..... ,_ llllllllll i!,..... IL.;, I,d_..,1111111111 ,!.1.,

s Iadudes only bu~s resohved FIXED.

....... ~,, ........... ’, X 501579 l~’/~st~’~p~ De~l~m~t P~ CONFIDENTIAL P~, 8~oj~ and S~¢dule ~

M S-PCAIA2 000000464CONFIDENTIAL

caused by ~nt~actions betwee~ multiple featurcs (such as tables a~d fields). A goodlater ~n the proje~ are cauaed by ~uc& interactions.

Area 1 2 3 4 Total % of TotalAN~Tt~ON ~ ~6 , .. 26 s ~6 0.7BOOg2’~IJ~ 14 1~ 17 2 48

C’~ON~G 34 21 , ,29 21 10~COh~i~SION 145 589 174 22 ...... .93~ 73

DDB $3 25 2? 7 . , 1~ o0.9

DEBUG ’ 27 9 $ $ 46 0.4

EDIT~ 424 267 311., L 68

1070]~ Tt~ 99 I19.., 123 37 378 3.I

FOOTr,’O’rES 51 2~ 48 ~4 ~39FOP, MA’ITIN0 1~ Z~ 1~ ~ ~Gt_O~ ,., ~3 22 ~.,,.., 1 78 I~ ,6

HELP 87 89 63 20 259 2.1

F[~ ~ ~ ~ ,.. ~ ~3

T~L~ ~ ~ 161 ~ ~

Scheduling A~alysl$

¢stlmated ship date as a function of ~ ~ ~t~. ~ ~t o~ d~ ~ ~ oat ~ ~ ~� y~ d ~e

- ........ _ ...... , X 501580Opus Develop=eat Poslmort~ CONFIDENTIALPro~ect and Schedule YY~story Page 9


Est~nated Shtpdate vs. Date Estimated

Jarvgo

Jan-E9

Jan-B8 ’

J~n-87

Jan-86Shlp Date . Days unt~1 ship date

Jan-85 0

Oct-84 Apt-85 Oct435 ApI’-86 Oct436 Apr-87 Oct-87 Apt-88 Oct.88 Apt-89

During the early phase of the InO~W.t (uxttil mid 1986) theze was no formal schedule, Lustcad just a list of taskst]zat had to be �ompleted~. The W..xc¢! ModeY sr.hed’01ing was started abont Angusl of 1986. Many of the Op~zs ~reports betwe~ mid 86 aad early 88 are simply ~ of these schedules with justification for the changes. $~vc~al ofthese schedules axe attached as Appeadlx I]I (8/25/86, 3/16/87 and 3/21/88). APacz Aprg ;[988, development switch¢dto the "Block ModeP r~hedale~ One o[ the~� is also included in the appcnd~

The met~ds of schedulhg used w=e fatally flawed. A sd~lule should be ~¢d a tool used to predict aship date, it should ~ot be considered a ceatract by dcvctopmea~l. Becau~ there was so much l~essure to meet th~sche.Jiule, development got into a mo<ie which Chr~ Mason refe4~ to a~ "infinite defects." Developers 8¢t ~edit ¢v=rytime they caa check a feature off, so t~ey are mo~ indin~ to mark off their c~-reat feature and go oa ¢ve~ toush itrcaJ]y ~s not done. There was a ]~rcvail~ attitude of ’t}m tc~.x~ wz~ ~UK! it" Whe~ thitxking aboat ~ ~ ~ ~~ de~-JopeA. In ==zy cases they did 6nd it, axed thai i~ wl=t causea our stabgizadon phase to grow fro-, theexpected tlzrc¢ months (which is a pre~ random nmnber =myway) to ~ months. Because. eveJ-y task was cut toba~ =dnknua~, l~rformanc¢ woxk thut shoald have be=t do~ wa~ neglected uutit the very e~d of the project, r~l~ci~whst we could do in a resumable amout~ of fim~.

made by a developer was challenged, firat by th~ maaagex thea by his mam~ee then by P=~p~am ManagemenL Thiscansed the initial e~t~mat¢= to ah,ays be far short o[what wo~ld Ix: ~r.alistic.

the revi=w ~a~ to ~=t= a scheah~ ~ w= ~ be~L-v~ in. To do this w~ spear sevcxal w~ks inwstlgar~ all

that got burned out becaose they were bnsting thek b~tts to meet a schedule that was too ambitious auyway aud

to be even more burned out[

wer~ developed by the Mac Word te~m and were ~ to be nearly free for Otms. Tlzat prowl to b~ compl~tdywroag.

6. The ship dates dining this Ix~od am based on various sow=s ~uch as note~ from staffmeethg~, after hte 1986 periodthey are based on ADL reports.

Opus D¢~eut Postmartcm X 501 581 12115/89]~ and ,S~.o’~ ~_L~o~ CONFIDENTIAL ]’a~= z0


made as a feat~e is dcvelopod and major chaages such as th, addition of a new feature. Tlms¢ changes arc incvitabloa~d be, come all the more so as the pxo~ect drags o,~

The bigger4 question ¢v¢ryoue will ask about Opus is why did it take so long? Ia the sccdon above why we didso poorly at estimating how long d~volopment would take is disctcss~ but obviously this project took a ]or longer tb.an itshould have. The followhag pohtts summarize the main reasons as we see them.

Lack of an early, clear direction and s_vc, dlicafion, Early oa the product was to be the end-all whdowsLater it was toned down to a¢¢ord pro~J, sor. Changes in direction like this caused us to waste a lot of effort ia thewrong direaio~. The ideas for Cashmere that Richard had never got written dowel It was not mafil mid I987 thatthe.re was anythi~ approadfiag a spec. Even them many areas of the produr.t were wide open. The macro hmg~ge wasnot wen Sl~.ed lmtil mid L988. I’m aot suggesting tlmr a projeces spec be frozea early oth siac¢ that would severely limitour Iloa~ to respoad to now iaformatiou aml market dmag~ but from the time dcvdopmeut work he#as th~featares should be domx

h _experien~l. te~m. lae, k of le, adersh~_. Very f~w members of the early de~lopment team had mu~experience. W’tth a ~ of this magaitud~ aml apparent imlmrtane.�, 0tin woukl expect it to be trotter gaffe& Asdiscussed in tim section ou the development team ~ the coastant changes aztd other problems with theon the Opus proj¢~ cost us a lot ia ¢ffiden~ aad mora~

~ ’I~� ~ciple, of imqalt¢ ddects vmre instillod ia the project from the begitming. We staxtedout by building a prototype and on top of that prototype w¢ tried ta ~ a prodncL This started us out On a veryunstable foundation. If you are gobag to bxild a tm3totYim (which is written quickly as throw awsy code) then throw itaway before yo~ start working ou your real la’oducl. We thea proceeMed to add [¢at~¢s as quickly as we could (becauseof our seJ~lufiv8 methods) which contributed more bugs tlum it did stability.

Redesi_~m¢& re]rnt~k~ented, re-_tmrted oxIe. ~ and over. Them are very few areas of Op~ that were

Mac Word code me~es (there were at teast five fifll ~ ot~7) camod m mine delays titan any tXhex factor.the taerg~ ~.re ~,a#ete aad w. were a~al]y dmlng coae (through tl~ WORDTECH SIaM proper) the paia wasmo~e spread oat, but wm ~ thea’~ The Opus projr~t would have been much better off if it had t~ot done those merges(beyond the first one) and if it had never uied to share ~d~ Anoth~ reason for the continual ~¢de.~ign work were theco,tautly dmnging platforms (especially W’mdows 1, 2 rhea 3). This is in part a re~It of our being so ktt© but it didhaw it’s own impact oa our schedule. Having to rewrite featmes (such as the soxt tables) to sati~ International alsotest m. they should haw bee~ wri~m ~ the l~rst time.

SDM. The Staadard Dialog Managtr is ~Xhet exampk~ of a rdm#tmeutatioa, hut it was a prob~m even

But in the mmtmex of 1987 Jeff Hatbe~s dictated that we talte a aew dialog mana~r to be provided by the tools group.The itmallatio~ bug fixing and pedormance wink re~tuired m SDM was probebly the sco3nd biggest eanse of delays fo~~ pto~.~ Evea today we a~e not coavlnce~I that SDM mtmts our ~ or tlmt it is pox’hie for aa shared h’brarythe seal~ Of SDM to m~:r be suoeasrJ~

To,much seh~e~ vres,ure. The idea that a schedule h God leads to infinite def¢ctt, a~ emplained above.Also the pfiatple that a sche..dul, must be amlNllot~ so that the d~Jopmeat team w~ work hard is to,’ere~ misguided.By working tb¢ devdopme~t team so hard for so lm~g, we barued out the team amt k~t more inth¢ long rim. The totallo~w~ from this mismanag~ne~t are not evea lmowa y~t sh~ ~ will affect tim productivity of the team membe.rs fo~years to oume~ as well m alfe~&~ who tl~ choose to w~k forin the ftmtre.

Depe_ udo~cle~ on o~her team~. Whea we m’e dependeat on anotim, team fo~ some eom~ anytheir se.h~lule or the qmdity of tNfir Product dnaS~]y affe~ us. Olin wa~ d¢lx.adeat oa tvo many teams fo~ too ma~yo~mpot~mts. The tools group sapplied m with SDM amt ~e interpreter. In both cams w~ vould ha~ do~e much bettea

¯ 7 Novr.mber 1985, Jtmttary 19~, October 1987, AprB 1988, June 19~8.

Opus Develop~mentPost~ortem X 502:~8~ 12/15/89CONFIDENTIAL Pag, 11Project o.ad Schedule I~tory


developing them o~rs~lvr.s. We were dependeaat on Mac Word fo~ table~ APOs, pag~.vi~v a~d other te~.knology. Whenr2tey slipped, so dltt w~.

Ancient to~Is. D~’~ssed below, but o~ tools are o~t dated and not up to the task of develOl~ag an applicationlike Opus.

Ill. Tools

The tools we ]~tve today are way out �~ date with the platoons we ar~ working on and the pr~lucts we hoI~ tobuild. Many tim~ duti~ the Opus project we out grew o~ toots ~ we had to work around them c~ tW to ge~. themUl~raded. Ithak was mosOy inoperable for at>eat a year. We exceede.A the defined symbol spac~ and had to get mauytools patched or had to str~ symbols out of out map file~. Spe~al ver~3~ of the debugger had to be developed to allowus to even run, r~e there was not enongh room in memory to fit ou~ aFplkation, the debugger and our symbols. Oa apretty regular basis one o~r more machhtes woc~kt n~t be able to compile ~ or more mod~e~ beca~ of iusuIficlentmemory, we would haw to try [o increase the available m~mory o~ ~ down ~ome haader t’des. Mov~g to OS/2 Forbuilds will help nat situat~on.

After much debate, all of out davelope~s finally got f~..cond macHaes. E,,~yo~who has the~m levis tl~t hay:ragtwo mach~es heaps their prodtu:fivity, R ~ tmfortxma~e it took so long and so much begging to get the~

Our debugger sad the problem~ o~ mixing PCODE sad ttative code are a big handicap. M~t developers debug

~h~g a vernon ot~ Opus which does sot hav~ ~S Nati~, That �ombineA wi~ the ability to dynamically turn off the ha~native code (replacing it with PODDE) made deterging m~ch eatsi~r sines you could stay ~n tiaz PCODE debuggeralmost all the time. Several people have complained about the failure ol the P(~ODE debugger to show proper stacktraces w~n there is mixed PCODE and native on the ~tack. Future toots shotdd make using m~A PCODE and native

W© ne©d a tool that will gg.aerate dkectly u~abl~ native structtLre declarations from C he~er files. Tim CScoml~r ha~ an option that tri~s to do ~ but what ~t gr.~.rate~ for bit EtAds i~ not ~eable. Wc would have av~dedserial hard to track down bug~ if o~r .INC ffl~s had been generated automatlca~y wi~ such a tool.

Tim �ompile.r d,~ld be more st~gemt (or hav~ the option to be) about im~ casts and other type probluns.A ufifity h~e I2NT or a �omIa~ex option of that sc~t would have ~aved us some pain, especiatly dmlng the many MacWord ports.

The~ haw also been many reqae~ts for a tr~e soutce ~ debugg~ or a debugg~x with the eapabitities and/o~

IV. Technical IssuesWith a ia.o.]oet of this size, there are gc~,ng to be thix~s doue w~Al and thing~ do~ poorly. Tha genea~

Selec*able Native. P~!~. Verlfv ~ Oae o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~ Use C V~ ~ ~~ ~ ~r, at me, to ~ ~ to ~ ~e C ~DE) ~ ~ a m~ ~e ~-~ ~ d~e r~e ~ to~ ~h~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~f~ ~Y t~ d~ to

(M~ ro~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ C ~r~on ~; ~h ~r~ ~~d ~to the d~ ~).

F~ a~ labs. ~ i~ wm ~ ~ ~ ~d ~ o~ ~e~ ~ ~ ~r ~d

~s ~M ~ ~d t~ th~ h~ ~y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~n W~. To m~

Op~ D~]opment P~em X 501583 P~e 12T~h CONFIDENTIAL


bug~ reportM ~ A~o~Fali easiex, a D~u~r~0 ~d ~ ~ for~ ~ on a m*s ~b~ prefc~)�~ ~e ~ ~tion w~ f~d to f~, By m~ ~a~ ~ t~ tern h~ ~n Opt’ ~t~f-m~o~ r~

Mem~!~eD~ea us~ ~ 1 ~ ~y ~t Opm ~es t~ ma~ m~o~, ~t i~� I ~ to ny ~t ~�

but ~ ~ a "~ app." ~ ~m ~ I~ ~� mm~ M~ f~ ~ ap~ We ~y a lot of ~ ~

for o~ s~s ~d h~ mu~ to ~vc ~.

Failures

~_ve lo~s uf ~ Having Bryan ~ick or not in the office most of the tlmc throttgh the last two years ofthe project really hm u.~ Bryan tmder~tands the ex~Ie we ~re wo~ldng on a~d the reasons for the deem be~tcramjone else. Nothing cmld,lm~ tzen done about t~, but it b im~ to acimowtrag, bow fltis aJtec~ed theof th~ product.

Jj~_Lc~[m~ This ha~ bcen dlseus~ eltewhet~ It h ~ to stress all thz way~ our d~ent andscheduling methods cost m because of sloppy and inefficknt workaaanship, Ia the ratine z~ay line of code ~mldunder go a code review at least ooce trod every new major data structure should under go a dmlgn

~ Merging code with Mac Wo~d and latex sharkg stone code with Ma~ Word was a dear ~for Opm. Only about ~ of our code was ~ (dlghtly higher for M~c Word since they wet© a smaller projm) andwv~a that code wa~ full of #ifdeYa. The ~ that wa~ ahaxed wa~ not really the "¢x~r# off either product, mexely acollection of modulm that at ene pcAnt had seemed shareable. Tim ammal~iom and featm’e set~ in the two producttwe.re different enmtgh that any chang~ they madz was likely to break us, and any chang~ w~ made was likely to breakthem. At least once a we.k, our buikl~ would be cempletdy hosed (or theirs wm~ld) because ~ d~ang, they (o~ wmade wmdd not even comi~ o~ link in the other project. Lad~ ol~ �ommumi¢~ bete/cen the teams that arewas o~ ¢ff tl~ m~or problems. A number of bags that ~ wad~ dow~ in O~us wldle we we~ sharing were fouml tohave already been fixed in Mac Word, smnetimei the Fr w~ in dinted code but had been placed uader #1fdef MAC.(be code t:bat was slmM ~d a ~ defined ~�~’a~� (lJk~ a ~) then d~� psocess n~,b~ bare v,~ked bext~’.

~Jrm¢~ssmy de~atlon~ :rrom Mac .Word. Made worse became wo wero trying to ~ar© �od~ tl~ minordiffereno~ betm:zn Opus and Mac Word (headers knplmenmd diffexeatly, CaT, LF Imirs, rttk~ working differc~Jy,~c.) caus~xlalot ofpabl. Code that wodmd fine for them would not wo~k ln Opm- Fmtlmr theted~exenr.~arcgo~gto caus= probkm~ in the future since we will lmve to resolve them in the use~ i~terface for Pyramid.

Interactions of featares. Th~ bi88~t sourm of b~gs ~ras not any one feature of Opus but tl~ intra-action, of twoor more features. Table~ and fie3ds, disctmseA below, is a prime example. Not enough thougkt weot into the d~ ofth~ featnres to assure ~ they woukl work well with each other. Desigu reviews in the future will attempt to addressthis.

Over s~ei~li~aon of deve~ _opera The dewlope~ ~ this projea were too �ompam~ We each bad asct of f~tnres we really Imew (ff.aeral~ ~ we wrote it or l~rted it) or that we at least knewbe~ter than anyoaeelse. This might have been an anavoldabl~ ~ of the size of ~ team ~md t~ duration of the ptoje~ but ~t�~taialy ~tn’Imted to the problems wlth featme intm~tiom aml tire dmatim of oar sta~ phase.

Memory_ �~mum~tion. Opus it a hog, Low memory mms~cs are go’x~g to be mm of th~ things users run imothe most and they ate not going to understand8. We have too much that m~As to grow that we keep in the near heap0ilm fist box entti~) attd ]D, tM lma m too comm’ained by W?s I6K ~ Oettiag away from Real mode ~ help ttdsr, itnaliou som~, bnt work aeeAs to be done in the ftttm~ to md~ratand where ~md why we uso m~atory and to determineif there are way~ that mag~ can be reduced.

8~ For more hfformation ~n how Opus does ~ memory, you may want to refer to tl~ Ou~s Memory Manaeement

document of 19 September 1989.

...... ’ ....... ’ ...... X 50.1584op~ D~Jo~,~,,, P,~em CONFIDENTIAL


~ Opus, dcspil¢ all of our efforts, is still mu~ dower titan w¢ wou/d like. Our code reviews s~owed thatw~ can g~t minor spc~d ~nprowments out of just about any s¢cti~ of the cod~, w~ jus[ nccd to review more of ~ torP.jdiz¢ those hnprovement~. We wrote a ~ot o~ l~d native code, wh~ helps ~ speed, b~t a~gorlthmic ~nprowmentsare mn~ better

Tables. fieI~, tablc.s & fields. Tables w~rk by o-~ pa~aBraph properti¢~. A bit indk~ates whirler aparagraph is within a t~bl~ .,~J~other bit indicates the ~railer paxa~raph (where the row properties arc held). End ofi~ d©tcrm~ed by a ~ c~axact¢~ ~s end of paragraph.

]’roblen:s: Cell markers and tragex prope~es mu~t agree o~ yoa die° Tkls ¢ba~g~s so~¢ very basicdo~ at low lcvch i~ Word (you can~ just delete aa-yt~a~o It~ ~Iow to de~tennlnc the boar~l~es of a table and ksyou have to find paragraph bomtds fot~waxd a~d backward a~d you have to fetch the ¢nd-of-paragrap~ characte~ k~Eagf~ the ¢e2] marker. You can ovexflow the row width which is stored as aa iatcge~ in the trager. All the~ p’operdes are~ckcd onto tl~ end of the par~,aph propeaies strum~re, mal~ng ~t bi~r (d~esu~ affect f~ s~, but it does increasethe largest possible PAP, which forced Mac Wo~d to eha~e the file format).

l~ ~u~y condst of two.text u~ons (~xies an~ r~t~) tnmcta~ed by ~t~ selnntor.s. A fidd.mayconsist of just one t~t sc4~ti~n and the outer separators. Ead~ separator has a PLC eutry.

Opus had many problems became of the ~ aatu~e of 6�lds (they wi]l jump and altow the vL~’bl¢ textstream to appe~ to start at a latter Ix~nt) aad the paragraph a,~twe of tabk~ If a field wanted to skip iato a table orout o~ a table from ~ the display code woald choke.

S¢l¢ctio~ a~d cur~yr key~. Pagcup rhea pa~dow~ you’~e ~ guaxanteed to be wh~e 3~J ~arted. Cursoringthxo~,h a document gives unprcdlct~l¢ rcsulL~ Some ope~atio~ caa only be performed on some ~eIection types (e.g.you can’t operate on d~contiguous text). Arbitrary operations peffo~’mcd by Word in response to usex commands can~ult in illegal sclccdoa states. HigldiShtin8 r,c~cc6oas in the macro pane has hnmmcrabl¢ bags. Mac and Wht disagreeon the ~ model for =nsuri~g that the sctu:tion is vLstble.

.p _~,e view ~_ola_v model. <~-rently all text ~n page view is drawa oa ~� sa~e layer, ~vea i~it overlaps. Whereoverlaps do occur, the dr~v,,ing order can be ra~m, resoling in garbage. We tt-y to avoid ow, dal~ ~ ~ ea~s byrcstri~ing the rectacgks of the header/footer ~d near APOs, ~ ia elJppe.d t~X. This is overly ret~’ktive.

~ In Opus paragraph ~ar~ a~e repre~.atul by two ~aract~,,s (carriage return-line f~l) e~ept fo~

Mac ~ with only carriage retta’ns). In Mac code all l~Wagraphs cad wlt~ a t,~agl¢ chaxac~ex. Our model caused ma~yproblems and compllcatcd ¢od¢ on top of lla© ¢omplkutions ar~ng.from being d~ffc~eut from Mac Wo~d.

Mac~s. The macro language became hmcfional very ]ate in tim tm~ject. Tlds ca~,ed Fr0b]ems fordewJopment since the neces~ry hoo~ had ~o b~ rel~ofitted into ~ �omma~ (a very error prone prof.,s). ]tprobtcnn fo~ testing dace d~ey ~>~tld n~t me the macro ~ to automate tesL~ untg the ~ year or so. T~i~©rweter we have now was orig~na~y wrlttca by the too~ g~onp, bat was turned ov~ t6 ~s to maintai~ becaw,~ ~oeJ~ wanted to u~ it. Both toket6zafion and t~ interpreter conld beaefit from an ov~haul.

Outlining. Outlining and rcnambea’~g X~lUb¢ an entry ia the PLCPAD for each pagaggal~ For ow~iniag at

Format &dlsplav. Tbe~eneed to be made reeatrant. Very lam in t]~ projeo~ (one of the last two bugs fi~md)we discorded ~ we could cra~ beeans~ of our failure to be reaatrant. Appat-e~ Write Earl the r~ame probk.ut (~ow~y didu~ we know about it?).

Screeu vs_ nr~zt~ units. On the Ma~ a ux¢¢a mzk equa~ one printer uuit. This mak¢~ layout, dlsptay andpriming atl ~c¢ly ~terchangeable. Under wiadow~ IEey a~¢ not the same unit and you have to de~ at rua timewhat each unit is (the printer unit may even cluing� du~ a session). Th~ differgazc.¢ caused many bu4~s and ~L~ shar~g

op, D, , "opm=t i; t ort m X 501585T~_~ ~ CONFIDENTIAL Page 14


V. Interaction With Other GroupsIn the following sections I try to~discu~ b~oth the ops ~ad down of o~ idt~ractious with flmse g~ups and way~

in which it scans these groaps could imFroc¢. ~ is not mc~.nt to be a bashing or an attcmt~ to focus blare©/’or Opus’.

probl¢ms on others, w~ all have t~m¢ problems ~md have room for improvement.

Pro_oramMana~ement

ReJafious with Program Managemtmt have Senetally be~n way good, Adrian was alway~ available and willingto discu~ fcatar©s and impl~mentatien~. I-Iis method of polling whm he wanted something was effective.

The Opus specification really tmvex was. W¢ ~ould have bad a rca! spcc ~oonea and it si~ould have been morecomplete and better malnlained. The addition of features and the mo4iFw.atio- of exiting features is insvitabieco~dering our mafl~©t a~d tha n~i to do mabt-~y teai~ How~zr, whan ~di~ thiags m making"impo~ant fliat we c6midet whcth& the chimg~ i~ w~rth the delay it" will muse k~d we n~.*d to be realistic about whatthat delay is going to be.

The attiPad~ that ’program managers do no work" is a bll dangerous. ’l~re v,~e often prt~ems arising fromprogram managem=tt dictating tasks, ~s~dally to dm PA~ i~ d~wJopm~t. If Program Managem~t has a let of non-d~elolxnent tasks ~ need to g~t do~ (bendm~xk~ di~ ima$r~ ea~.), perhal~ th~ should klr, their own ~ todo them. Development kas hlrcd PAs to do ~ent related

In order to keep the entire product te.~m better informed, it was suggested that it would b¢ great ~ ]~ogramManagement would keep and ~te weekly minutes from the leads meolings, instead of relying on the individualleads to pass that information on to their people.

It was also ~ugge~ted that d~e.lopta’s ~ould R~md mo~e tlm~ ~ othex Mitax~soft l~Odu~ts (wiLh whichneed to be �ondgent) a~d with our �omlw~tltors prodncLs. To keep ~ from being a tim~ ~ it was st~ggested tl~more product pr~entatiom (like tim om do,,e for Wordl>err~ct 5.0 sewral years a$o) be dora and ~en video taped. Apossitn~y would b~ to haw diff~ent peopl~ (both domlope~ and Program M~¢rs) btw.ome tmperts on different

FinatlT, it is ve~ important that Program Mana$-,anent continue to talk to tt~ indivld~at developcr~ aboutfeat~. It is importam to remmb~. ~o i~ $oin$ to be wtlt~ the cod~; dmy ar~ the on~ who r~atly ow~ tl~Through the �our~ of thc Opos proje~ I think Program Management did very well in tl~ rcgard~

Testin _~ .:

Owrall tl~ t~tin$ team did an ¢~alcat job ~ ~ sonw.~n¢ under v~ tryi~ ~a~mmmom. Th,

opm D~mnt e~t~m X 501586 "’~/~Int~aa~ Wi~ ~ G~u~ CONFIDENTIAL P~� ~


Another suggestion [o improy¢ {¢stex-dcvcioper relations would b¢ to team tcdvr~ a~d developers up 1-1 or 2-2to work on featm’es (po~stq31y with one o~ more PAs also working on ~he teams). This w~uld ettkance communication,re.am spbit and hdp test important featares..

Testing of the pcxipheral parts of the product was lae.ki~ Setup was not really tested mtil the la~ minute andthen by oaly one tester who was not availab1~ at stone crucial times. The sampler was mostly ignored by testing d~p*ttepleas to have it testul. Desplt~ it~ being in a TRD, th~ DEMO ~ersion did not ~t any atlenfioa until after we shipped(which w#s real~ too late if anything had to be changed). Tec, ting thocld think more shoat these items and schedulet~ne for them.

Ther~ was also u)me concern aboat the t~sdng effort at the end of the project. It seemed h’ke everyone (teahgand dew, lopmeat both) had decided it was time to skip the prodna. This dida~ appear to b~ a conscious dedsioa or aaattempt to ship by a date, it jnst seemed that ¢mayo~¢ felt it was ready (and petha~ it was).

Overall rdatious between international and dev~pment w~nt ~ though them ar~ som~ things let~ to bedesired.

Ideally an iatcraational eng~’, e, er would he put on a project like Opas from the begitming. Tl~y should have ahand in the spe¢, whir.h should idemily e~actlywhat h going to have to be locatk~ It wm veq. mfftrtunat¢ tha~ by thetim~ Jurge~start~ lookiag at Opus, ~eq~hing had baslcalb/been d~n~. ]twas also utLtommate that very few people ~aOpus develotnnent tern had any feding [o~ what intea~atioaat would aeecL In tke many areas thai" Jurge~ founddefu:ieat from his p~t o~ view (both fro- the Z w.rsion and for ~ ve~kms), w¢ either had to stop and redosomething (as ~ under re, clinical ~) ~ v~ had to say "NO," making th~ Im3daet less haternational-fricttdly.Comidcring the amount of sales we can expea from iaternational soareeg this is a crying shame.

Flas~ag Jurgea working in the same buildi~ with as has beam a grit help. This has both made us more awarothat iate~atioad is thexe, so w ~e morn liltely to do thiass ia ways that mak~ their life easier, and it iseonveaieat to just drop ta with q~estio~ alxmt kow they woeld h~e ~ done or other issaes.

The size ~" the iatexaatloaal bail~l kit fi~ Opus (o~ e.atire source h’ee and tools) aad the amount of timereqnired to build a localized veaslon (3-4 ho~) is a major IXa3bk~ Ior kttexuational. This makea it impractical to lmveany localization done~ off site. (i.©~ Ireland) and the marghutl eape.nse d adding an addltioaal lang1:ta~ is far too high.Development, intemafio~ ~md the tools group aeed to work t.e~elher to make this ~no~ reascmabl~ forprod~ds.

Our dealings with other facets o~ ~ernational were aot eatirely rewarding. Sometimes tho~ w0~king oasamp~r and on the i~teraafional disk images re.[iod too hearty oa our r~ourm ( ..eape:~ Laurel aad Brandy) andseemcA to make no attemIX to solw l~Oblems for themselves. This has caused sem,~ hm’d feelings, lntea’national shouldlook at the t~anieal kaowlr.~© of their tmople, especially a~ o~r products become mor~ aad more cemple.a, aad shouldtake the tim~ to ~’y to solv~ iaotdems ~ lmf0¢e falli~g back oa as.

User Education

Pr~t ~

~ ~e~ v~oaem X 501587 ~/~ht~n wi~ ~r ~rou~ CONFIDENTIAL P~e 16


D~velopmeat ~hould schedu]© mor~ time to coadua [edmical ~i~ of do~um~atatioa. A prctly ~ood review.v~ done on a~ early draft of the tts~r’s r~r~.ncz by all of d~elopment, but h~divldaal developers did not have anysubseqt~nt chance to r~oiew it nor did t~ey have Ihe opportunity to ~view aay o~ the other documentation.

The te.~mlcal refer�nee was a big dlmippO~LmcuL lit took mlmy, many revisions before aa3edd~ resembling anaccurate document was produced, and that was attex Brad Christian a~d Adri~. practlcaIly wrote it them~lv~. U~r-edd~firdtely needs to laaw writers wtm are more tedmic.al.

On-Line

In g=aerai, eommunlcatioa between the on-iia¢ usex-ed groups sad Opus dcwJopmeat went very wall. Therewcr~ time, when aser-ed seemed to tean too hearty oat developmc,~t. They would assume problems they were~ncountering were our l~obtems without fdly ~ve, sti@ling them (attd oft©u tlmy Froved to be probleam on thek ride)and they would often ask for changts in Opt= without ~ea]iy tkiaking about their cost and beae.fit. Along the same lin~,many members of the CBT group were sot good about using the prescribed communication path (funnelling evc, rythlng

¯ tkr0ugh David Innes).an~. wo.uld. Jastead go directly toRosie,. This .was.very di~ul~tive, of Rosi¢’s,.work,.~Sl~eiah’y sin~David could have rcsol~l ~ good portion of the igSues without ¢vrx involving dew, lopmenL

It wmdd have helped a lot to have uad~rstood tim hooks reqtfired for CBT much earli~ in Opu~ developmenta~d fo~ those hooks not to have had to _dmnge so much. Changes of this type were more complicated since they wotddoften re~tuire daanges by four differe=t groups: Opus ~em, CBT amlzod~ DOT development and SDM.Coo~dltmfiag these changes and makiag them work dida’t go too smo0tkty.

A RAID databa.s¢ was set up to track ~ and Hdp problems, but they were not rea]Iy ~ tmtll the end ofthe Froje.a. Maki~ better use of th~ stamlards would have kept problem z~ports from getting Iost and simplified

The biggest problem with th~ on-llne products was file lack of testing ~pl;mct. CBT m~eded a Iot more testingtlum it ever received and a lot of what it did receive was dtmo by ot~ of our d~v=lopeax This is a bl$ area that seeds a

a lot of teaing. User-ed should either arraage with testing to have a tot mor~ tealng do~e for f~ra~ products or theyshould provide the maa-powr.r thean.selves to do it.

. ..Wi_. ndows Development

O.r im~’acdom with the W’mdows deveJopm~-t team va:r¢ w,~ mix~.

Direct ~tcractions with devdope~ (e,~edally Da’dd Weise and Bob Oundersoa) were lamaS:. David wasvery responsive to our Ideas fro" hdp when we were numing iato bugs that seeaned to be V, rmdows related that w~~ot tra~ dow~ He spent so~e late sights ami king hours tracking back in forth between our code and Iris. The resultof ~ atteation was fixed ~ in W*mdows aad ht Op~ and not a lot of ~mger pointin8 and ~aylag"it’s not my bug."

Our e~aSenee tryi~ to relma bu~ against W’mdows 3 lm been quite the otYix~. Our d©vdole, n w/todr.aermine if a bug i~ in out code or in W’mdows �od~ before tho/ever o~msider assignin8 a bug to W’mdows (though w~

¯ are wron$ sometime). The W’mdow, s tToup wa~ ~tet ve.xy coop~ati~ at a9 abom those b-~$s that w~ mat thcan. A v~ry

what was golag ou o~ any advice about what w~ txmkl do. Another large pot’tkm of t~ bt~gs came back NOT REPRO,

deve.Jopmettt team has a rule: you cmt here, resolw a bug NOT REPRO wit~ut gettia8 the coment of the penoa whorepot, ted the bug, It is, after all oft~ the case that some comlition aeeds to be sali~exl to r~produc~ the bng that mayaot be tisted ia tke actual report. After seehtg I~ew they treated our Ixt~ I ant worrlul ahoy. the quality of the

We had a lot of problems with printer drivers with Optm W© de, signed out printi~ around the I-IPPCL driverand the features it rapports. We were surprisex] Io discover, late ht the project, that m~y drivers do uot ~plxxt m~ythln~ that the HPPCL supports or, worse, supports them in dlffere~t ways. Wh~ w~ rct~rt~l bugs agaimtin~o~isteades we were usually told that they were by desiga or that they were ~ot iaterested in fixin8 them. I think it is

Opus DoP.,1opment Postmoxtcm X 501588interaction With Other Groups CONF ID ENT I AL


importamt that a platform like Windows try very ]mrd to make all o£ t}~� drivers present a uaiform appearance to theapp]icatlons.(itm’t that suppos~ to.be on~ o~’..t~� .g~’cat advan .rages of W’mdows?). ’. ~

¯ Develo_oment Su_Doort

Overall dew.]opmcm supiK)rt has tried to b¢ v~j ,espon~3v~ to our nez, ds, though it has s~ 5l~ ,w~ oft~had ~o escah~© fl~ problems T~ore we coukl ge~ that respoz~. ~ is probably attritmtable to tl~ many clients thedifferent groups have m serve.

One ~ez~ral eommea~ about D8: the ~ of flze prodaet often ~ much to be desired. Fr~uently what

shonkl k~ok hard at ~he pfi~cipl~ of ze~o-de~ aml tryto detezmi~ how they C~La b¢ applied to their products.

Th~ SDM ~ w~s ~t~ good ~bout ~g Io o~ ~ though it did ta]~ ~ z v~]~ to ~ outdmpcdo~manm w¢ m~lcd. We we~m also vc~y caodom aboet ac~eptieg any ~]eases shu~ for moot of the. t~e ~m ~

r©ltabl¢ rekar~, it also seems h~ it was a poo~ idea that SDM, which is suppsut to be shaxed by aZI of o~

DOT dcve~pmcm see~od way aack:r sta~ but des#to that ~ we~ very respomiw

Help develol~ncnt, by contrast, was aot at a~ ~�~ooasiv~ We found that we had to d~ a l~t o~ thr~r d¢~for them and e~.n when we po~t~d oat their b~gs they dktn’t fix them. We fmaIty l~d to go flxrough JeJ~ P.J~e~ to Betthem to fix a number of ]~oble~$ that were holding us up.

Product Support

I-Ia,Ang Mkh¢l Gkaxd ~orId~ with m ~ v¢~ytmlL Mir.hellearnod Opus qaicldy aad uow~ q~te ~.

Opm Developmmxt Postmortem X 501589 ~/z5/89With Other Groups CONFIDENTIAL P~, z$


Appendix I.

A Brief Hi(story of the Opus/Cashmere Project ,

Moath Corr~t I~venta FactsAUG ~ M~o ~itt~ ~$

CO~ ~ N~em~rPat ~ md CM.~u~

SEP~ B~Gat~a~sR~B~tojoM~e~*rot~. C~er,~p~to~p s~at~sep~

Ca~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ss ~t ~der R~ Br~. ~ 0

O~NOV ~ R~ m~ ~ offi~.

R~ ~ ~* ~g on ~~ion mme~ ~d re~ d~ ~p~ SDEs: O

d~lo~d ~ ~d ~ J~. ~ 0

DEC ~ M~y m~ held ~

3~ M Bob Ma~ j~ ~ Proj~~pm~ w~k ~ on W~. SD~ 0

~enta~ ~t~ to ~ ~ ~ ~� m~ger ~ ~ ~y ~app~)

~R~~Y ~ M~c S~ sm ~k oa ~ W~ ~o~ SD~ 0

~ ~ jo~ ~ W~ tern. ~: 0Mere: 1

JUN ~ BBI ~je~ the ~ere te~ to ~k on ~. SD~ 0~: 0~�~: 1(~:

~ Y~oY~cj~� ~t¢~ SD~ 1

(m~:

AUG ~ ~ P~ j~ ~� ~e t~ ~ 3Bob ~ ~m~ ~m W~m to~ on ~ ~: 2

Appendix I: Project Hkstory CONFIDENTIAL Page I-1


SEP 85 ProtoOypeA d~mo~d..... " -" Da~e~rad~~~t~. " ’

H~ ~e ~ #Vdef MO~ (for ~ot~), ~M~ (for Mac ~ - S~ (~ 1)

~ ~ Work ~ t~d Pr~o~

[nte~(~:

~OV ~ Wmd~ L0 ~s! SD~: 7

" S~r~C~t~.’ ~ " ’ " " ~ " ~ ~ ..... "

Bob M~ ka~ to~�~

S~ 1.0 ~ ~d for ~�~ ~ ~ ~t MacWo~d m~.

DEC ~ ~� ~ to ~ SD~: 7

B~ ~ M~W~d ~ ~ to ~. ~: 7

~ ~ ~ AT~O.

~R ~ ~ ~ m~ to ~s. ~ j~ 97

~ Werd 3 ~ ., (~ 2)

~y~ ~~ ~e: a~

~~to~~

~N ~ P~r Ja~ ~ ~�~ SD~ 8

Opus D~.Jopme~a l’ostm~e.m X 501591 Page 1-2Appcadix I: Project ~istory CONFT-DENTZAL


O~ Developer eO~ ............. X 503.592 x2/xs/89Ap~dix I: Projec~ I-Iistory CONFIDENTIAL e~-3


Headersfl~oot~;s work~g. FT~: 9

D~¢ ~p~ ~ m~e ~e ~ e~ ~ s~t ~g b~ ~r Re~e C.

GI~ ~ a~be sav~.

Re~ s~ ~ ~ 9

M~ ~ ~ f~ ~ ~/~ ~~

N~ OP~ ~ ~ 9

DDE ~ri~ ~ ~: 9

.... _ .......... , ,.:~ X 501.593Opus DMopm~mt Po~tmortm CONFIDENTIAL t2#5/s9Apptmdix 1: Project History Page I-4


OCT 87 Verf, lo=s 0700 (~ attd 0800 (FI) r~lear~I, sHpdat¢: mayPC W~d 4 ~S~ Ad~d~ ~tr~med ~: H~eff R~ jo~ Op~ t~. P~ 2

F~d w~ on W~ b~.

Op~ uol ~n m~ ~ ~m~ M~ .......

D~ P~ j~ ~m ~ P~ 3

New SDM ~t~a~n ~

Tab~ P~ 3

I~oWord g~ ~d ~ a ~ ~ew from ~e

~,~,~o~,.~- --- ~Po~ " ....... x s01594 .... ~/~/~CONFIDENTIALAppendix I: Project H’~tmy Pag~ 1-5


Op~ De’~lopmcnt Postmortem X 5 015 9 5 22115189App¢ndk n Pxoj~ ~-~o~, CONFIDENTZAL rage ]-6


SEP 88 Version Lq00 r~as~:t, shl.’pd~t~: jaa 89.-_ " , Anthony [cages Opus to w~rk0on’3Armd~ws. Wo .P~s.

Mayo ~ ~e ~. P~:~ ~y ~ ~ ~t~ (~ ~ ~d~ ~ F~e ~p~te).

~ m~ to m~ mo~ ~ ~m ~ to F~ ~mo~.U~s R~ g~ to ~ ~.

T~y ~ ~ re~ to

M~o ~ ~e ~ up.

~� ~mp!~e! SD~ 9~ d~ at ~mp~y m~ (d~ ~o).~a M~ jo~ O~ t~. P~: 5

~ov ~ v~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.

P~:

SHp d~ to ~ b~ ~d ~� ~ to ~ ~ ~. ~ 9

D~t ~ ~ b~ ~ ~ (~/~k)~en~ ~ ~ SDM ~

M~Wo~ d~ ~ ~ ~m ~ SD~ 9P~~ Re~w m~ ~id ~ B~G.. ~ 9Ad~ ~t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ an ~L date of Scp 5. P~: 5OBU m~ to b~ 5.

~ ~p ~ to ~ ~ ~ ~; ~ da~ ~ "a~y ~~." .. ~ 9T~s Io~ to ~Wmd. ~ 8

D~ P~ I¢a~ to ~ fm ~ SD~: I0

St~ M~ ~ ~ ~ SDM

M~Wor~ 4.0 ~ps[ SD~~ Word 5.0 ~[ ~: 9Bug ~p~ I ~s a~ ~ ~t ~ow

, ,, Da~ L~ Da~c~ ~d Tom ~

X 5015 6 " v.ps/ 9


MAY89 Vex~ions 3400, 9~00 and 3600 rdeas~d, ddpdat¢: a~. 89¯ . . Most o~MacW~d ~.am joi~the Oikts e~..ort .... ".:.o . - SDF..s=.13 ." ."

~ r~m~d:~om o~ r~. ~ 10J~ff Rut¢~ ~ to ~ a~ ~ CoW.do. P~: 6~ M~ ~ Ha~i ~d Do~ ~t ~m¢ ~ ff~ MacWo~. ~te~: 2Da~ Da~& ~d T~go to ~ ~Br~ ~ j~ ~ OpmS~ ~d ~p gm ~ s~ ~~Lr~ ~ ~/+~ ~ ~ on the ~ ~.~on made to ~d~ ~me ~ ~ t~le ~hy ~

~ ~ V~ 3~ ~d. sMp~t~ sop ~

~d ~ ~ ~m~ ~ f~ ~ ~ to qu~. ~: ~. ~m ~ D~y ~ ~ ~t~. P~ 6

-’ " "- K~~~~me~to~s. " "’ ht~:~" ’

~ ~ d~ to ~

Ja~ Oay ~ Jo~ ~ ~ ~e~ SD~ 14

~mW~d 1A p~ ~ P~ 5

~ ~ ~~ SD~ 14

RCODE ~~ ~ ~d~ W~ 3D for ~e ~t ~.

T~ ~~ ~ a~t~.

S~ ~ V~ ~ ~ 4~, ~, 4~ ~ ~d ~ ~R) ~ ~ate: ~ ~~ ~ ~s ~ up. ~ 14

P~: ~

~~~. ~14T~a~ ~b~. ~ ~WmW~ ~o~ P~: 5

~ov~ v~~ ~),5~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~mW~d ~ ~ ~ ~~ S~ 14

P~: 5

’c~ r~e~lop~ent ~c~mort~n .... X 501597 z2/zs18~Appendix Z: Z~e~t I-ti~ory cONF SDENT T.AL Page 1-8


Appendix IF .

Sep-84 Sep-85i 365 (] 0 0 0

Jan~ Ma~ ~ 0 0 O 0Fe~ Ma~ ~4 0 0 O 0Mar~ Jun~ ~7 0 0 0 0

Jun~’: J~ 395 0 0 1 0

A~ ~g~ ~ 3 0 1 2

J~ N~ ~ 7 0~ 0 7iFe~ H~ ~ 7 0~ 0 71M~r~ D~ 275 7 0l 0A~ ~7 ~5 7~ 0 0May~ Apr.7 ~5 7i 0 0 7Ju~ ~8y~7 ~ 8~ 0 0 7

Se~ ~? 4~: 10 0 C 8 ~ 3 241

N~ Ja~ 4~ 10 0 0~ Ja~ 3~ 10 0 0 9 ~ --Ja~7: D~ ~ ~0 0 0 9 ~ 14 ~4 ~4 t4’ 2 0 0.~F~7 ~ ~ 10 0 0 9 4 4 18 1~ 0 O~ 0.~

Mar~ Aug~ 1~ 11 4 OI ~0 ~ 219 327 1174

Appendix II: Project Statistics X 501598 Page I1-1

COHFTDENT][AL


AW-88 Sep-~8 15,3 10 4 0l 9 138 20 837 ~577 346 ~8,5 ;~17 1520 357 "’308 7~9~

Jurv88 Oct.88 122 10 4 2 9 ?i3 521 513 241~ 659 51~Jul,-~ NOv-88 123 9 Zl 2 8 330 228 682 2748 161 10:

AUg-88 Jan-89 153 9 4 2 8, 28 1002 713 787 566 772 3535 697 564 16.~Sep-88 Jart.8~ 122 8 5 0 ~] 166 27 1003 714 739 475; 809i 4274 702 423 12.3cOct-88 Feb-~ 123 9 5 0 e 536= 380 741 48l~) 804 408~11.8~Nov~8; Feb-89 92; ~i" 5 0i g 208 36i1097 77~ 648 436 658 5458 73~’ 478 12.35Dec.8~ Mar~9 9~ 9 5 0! g 529 369 601 5987 584 388 10,0,3Jan-S9 May-Sg 12(] 9 5 (~ 9 558 416 638 6545 520 325 8,40Feb-89 Jul-8~ 150 9 5 (~ 8 215 3~ 1139 799 558 408 689 7103 507 348 10.i2Mar-89 Jui-89 122 i0 4 (~ 8 47~" 342 584 7581 583 420 12~1A_pr-ss J¢-~9 91 la 4 0 9 678 4.q0 583 825~ 6~0 452 1i.68May~fl9 Auo~B.9 ~ ’92 13 6 2 10 238 47 119; 817 730 592 610 8~ 703 44110.2(Jun-89 Sep-89 92 13 6, 4 i2 518 415i 186 9507 941 54(] 10.47Ju~-89 Oct-89 92 14 5 7 12 404 30~ 330 9911 260 141 2.73

Aug-89 Nov-89 92 14 5 3 13 247 50 1228 844 724 55~ 27210635 782 540 9.66$.ep-89 NowS9! 61 14 5 1 t3 787 531 99, 11422 964:542Oct-~., Nov-sg 31 14! 5 I 13 75~ 60~ 70 12181 785 410 7.33Nov~9 Nov-Sg o, 14 5 I 13 ,.249 5211260 853 33O 268 0J12511 ~ 133 2.38

Man Months: 506 115 34 455 I% of total; 38% 38%IManYears: 42.2 9.6 2.8 IPostc.c.: 770! 5831 Bugsf]xed: 8180 5~58~i%po tc.c.: 31% 57% 56% t%o(total: 6;2% 62% IPo~: 1197 67|

I% of bugs fb~ble: 75%

X 501599Appendix t1: Proi~ Statistics CONFIDENT~’AL Page 11-2


This fs the fir~ "excel model" schedule for Opu~ that ~ been located.

the m~e o~ ~e greut code merge ~ut ~ us ruble# wuI jmge~few.

........ X 501600 z~/~/89Op= D~e,,loVm~_t Post,-,,oam CONFIDENTIALAppendix 1II: Sele,¢red Sehe.dules Page IlI-1


~.;.o -

,..2,~:..~,


M~PCAtA2 000000487CONFIDENTIAL

~/ ;

App=n~ HI: S�1~ S~edu~cs CONFIDENTIAL va~


MS-PCAtA2 000000490CONFIDENTIAL




MSoPCAIA2 000000495CONFIDENTIAL


Opus ~)�’~¢iopment Postmortom X 501612,A.ppemilx IlI: Selected Schedul~ CONFIDENTIAL Page Ii]-24

MS-PCAtA2 000000497CONFIDENTIAL



M S-PCAIA2 001)000500CONFIDENTIAL

MS-PCAIA2 000000501CO N FIDENTIAL

Op~,~ D~,,~lo.,:,mmt Po~tmort,~m ~ X 501617 L~/~/~Appcud~x Ill: S~l¢cted Schcd~l~ C0NF/D ENTIAL Page 1~I-29

Documents

CONFIDENTIAL - Sriram K · MS-PCAIA2 000000461 CONFIDENTIAL In [he summer of 1~89, at a poini wher~ it seemed we might never converge, a program emphasizing qual~ of changes inslead