[R-390] R-390A Cost Reduction and Improvements (was dead horse Hi)

[mikea]

On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 11:00:50AM -0400, Todd Bigelow - PS wrote:

[snip Barry Hauser's good stuff on cost-reduction]

> This is more accurately what determines the 'best' radio to an 
> individual. After all, if you 'cost-reduce' a viable product into 
> something less, is it not 'cheaper' by intent? When writing it all up, 
> you pretty much have to justify your decisions to change this or remove 
> that, in a positive light (of course). Otherwise, who'd agree to the 
> program/plan?

Not always. I've seen cases where the thought that went into knocking
the cost down also resulted in a better product. Admittedly, the
product wasn't a radio, but I think that it *could* happen there, too.
"Cheaper" and "less costly to manufacture" don't always go together.
And there is the old software writer's caution to the boss: "Smaller,
faster, more reliable: Choose any two."

> The "A" model is certainly more plentiful and therefore, more popular. 
> Familiarity has alot to do with it, but it's just a great radio 
> none-the-less. Still, you cannot beat its namesake, the good ol' R-390, 
> for overall performance and construction. Comparing the "A" to the R-390 
> is a lot like comparing a Bentley to a Rolls Royce. It's not a case of 
> comparing a Toyota to a Rolls or even a Lincoln (I feel a car thread 
> approaching!).

> Solve the great debate of R-390 vs. A - drive both!!   (o:

I do. And I like 'em both. Got four of the newer ones, and one
great example (All-Collins, from Rick Mish) of the older. 

73s, folks.

-- 
Mike Andrews
mikea@mikea.ath.cx
Tired old sysadmin since 1964