The first 105 boards are nearly here

July 13, 2009
Posted by: gruso

ED gives us a short but good follow up to the recent Short But Good blog post. There’s more on the forums, where context is king, so hit that source link!

The next really interesting thing will be next week – when the first 105 mass produced boards should be finished 😀

Then the moulding company gets a PCB so it can optimize the case to make the PCB fit perfectly – well, and then it’s all set for the mould production and the real real REAL mass production run 😀




  1. Great news! But too late… I have gradually lost any desire to get a Pandora.

    Just kidding! 🙂

  2. Woohoo!! Just 2 More Months™!!

  3. /* It’s actually looking a WAY farther out than just 2 months at this point. Since it takes 7 (conservative!) days here at the beginning, for the first 105 boards to be made. (iSx) days to ship one to the plastics company. (iPx) days for the plastics company to tweak the case design to fit the production boards. “45 days”® to create the case molds. (iSx) days to ship everything back to Texas. (iMx) days to put it all together. (iSx) days to ship to England. (iSx) days to ship to you.

    void wait(int iSx = 3, int iMx = 1, int iPx = 2){
    // iSx = 3 Conservative Default!
    // iMx = 1 Conservative – Based on the assumption that
    hundreds can be made per day.
    // iPx = 2 Conservative Guess!

    int iDays = 7 + 45 + ( iSx * 5 ) + iMx + iPx;
    printf (“Days until you might see the first Pandoras
    arrive on doorsteps: %d Days.”, iDays); // %d = 70
    if (iDays => 7) {

  4. The very definitive and exact release date is n+2 months time.

  5. It may be “two months” for 100 lucky customers. More than two months for the remaining customers.

    But probably not really. I predict that the “fun” of testing and packing these things into boxes with their manuals cables, packing material, etc, etc, etc, will be a much more time consuming task than estimated.

  6. So, someday next week the boards are supposed to be finished… then one of them will be send to the other company… followed by some guys who’ll take a look at the board to optimize it again, even though this has been done the last months (cnc case, crystal case, prototype case and so on …)… and then they’ll somewhen begin doing the moulds which will take about 1 1/2 months… oh well!

  7. so next week we’ll get the real real real +2 months?? or is this the real real real real? maybe it’s just the pre + 2 months for the real real real real + 2 months??

  8. For anyone who doesn’t know C, Mindlord’s calculation gives 70 days (i.e. 10 weeks, i.e. 2.5 months) based on his “concervative” (I think hopeful) guesses.

  9. Bah, I can’t spell “conservative” in a hurry. Anyway, 2.5 months minimum means October at the earliest, and probably much longer in reality. November is starting to look like a good bet (not the first time that month has been suggested), and even December given this is all in Open Pandora we are talking about. Well, let’s just hope it arrives by Xmas this year…

  10. Love it.

  11. Maybe it arrives in my birthday(4 Nov) xd

  12. M Weston said 8 days ago “Based on these calculations, it looks like the end of August to start seeing fully assembled units and then shipping to customers in early September” So I’ll stick with his guestimate until early september comes and goes. Let’s hope it just comes 🙂

  13. September comes but never goes? Like “Groundhog Day”?

    I really hope I have my Pandora when my eternally repeating 24 hours happens…

  14. In the interest of global optimism, I propose that we revise the de facto standard estimate down to “n+1 month”.

    Whilst the Pandora will not arrive any quicker, this will allow for greater granularity of hope as we deliberate on the plethora of minutiae that is slowing delivery down.

  15. Maybe it arrives in my birthday(3 Nov) xd

  16. Nearly… 😦

  17. I will have moved to a different country by the time it is released. I was really hoping for this for the 24 hours of flights. So close, yet so far. SNAFU.

  18. I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again: “Christmas Present” (if we’re lucky).

  19. I don’t really understand how things are going this way… Every month or so the timeline expands “ad infinitum”. I can’t understand how the hell did they say December when they did it… maybe it’s just me but, being honest, it’s strange.

  20. … At the beginning, when pre-orders were originally taken …

    OpenPandora LTD. had in it’s possession almost 1 million dollars of capital with which to attack the process of finishing it all. Contracts were lined up. Manufacturers were standing at the ready. Plastics manufacturers were holding for the final case design to create the final molds. The nub manufacturer stood poised to crank out thousands of nubs. All was right and just and good… THEN! Catastrophe!

    The evil BANKER overloads rejected OpenPandora’s claim that they were a legitimate company bent on bringing open technology to the good people of the world! Assets were frozen, contracts were nullified, all the capital was snatched from OpenPandora’s reach. What they thought was going to be a giant lake of liquid assets instead turned into a trickle of funds. Nightmarishly dangled in front of them like a golden carrot they could not take. All the while the good people of the world cried and screamed in hopelessness.

    Contracts had to be renegotiated, former business partners faltered. New sources of parts had to be attained, and thrifty, and stringently economical methods of moving said parts had to be negotiated. Oh, how things would’ve been different had not the evil BANKER overloads interfered!

  21. why don’t they just say it comes out next week? 2 months just seems like forever, it’s all just made up anyway. next week just sounds better imho. When it doesn’t arrive that week, just blame it on the factory and push it out another week. The two month thing just isn’t doing it for me anymore. blah

  22. that code looks weird. Your variables are not descriptive at all. Why iSx vs. ship_delay? Also is => actually valid syntax? I’ve always used >= in every language ever. Also, I’m officially guessing christmas and that’s what I’m telling my friends now. It’ll be incredibly lucky for September. It’s just like when Craig was prepared to say July. Christmas is fine. I just want to be one of the first to bring a pocket-sized full featured pocketable computer to class to take notes, that’s all. So when my kids are college aged i can be like “i was hip once too, ya know! I only had to wait 12 months for mine, and walk 2 miles uphill in the snow both ways to get it!” And I’m not graduating ’til May next year. Delays after that and I may have to ask for a refund.

  23. http://whenisthepandoracoming.wut.bz

    that is all

  24. I don’t know why the short variable names, lazy typist maybe?

    It’s considered good form to prefix variables with their type. You know, i for signed integer, f for float, c for char, s for string. Just to remind you, and help people who look at your code later. At least that’s what my Pascal teacher told me long long ago in high school. One letter is enough to differentiate the different phases, and x… well.. I like x. 🙂

    => might be invalid syntax… I seem to recall using it without a problem, but my befuddled memory sometimes remembers things that weren’t there. I think some compilers might complain.

  25. >http://whenisthepandoracoming.wut.bz
    >that is all

    haha! It’s written in black and white on the internet so it must be fact!

  26. Mindlord:

    So you’d write prefixes on every variable with their type – an act that is absolutely unnecessary in this day and age, nor is it considered good form (rather, it’s a naming convention. Hungarian Notation, to be specific) – supposedly to help others read your code, yet you’d obfuscate them with undescriptive and short names?

    Don’t program without thinking about what you’re doing.

    Also, => IS invalid syntax.

  27. Well hang on their. Hungarian Notation isn’t completely depreciated. Sure developing a program with a modern IDE will take care of that stuff for you but it does help when your developing in an environment where no IDE exists and syntax highlighting is a rare feature. Visual studios isn’t all their is my friend and some IDE’s still don’t even have variable watch.

    Do I use the notation myself? No. Do I think it’s useless? No.

    and yes just to reaffirm, => is complete gibberish in just about all languages.

  28. When defining local variables in such a short routine, I’d say yes, it is unnecessary. Why would you use a variable at all if you didn’t know its type, anyway?

  29. There is a not-insignificant number of languages where => is valid. One that comes to mind is Prolog, where it’s the comparison.

    How many Prolog programmers does it take to screw in a light bulb? ;


  30. Why so serious?

  31. Why not?

  32. @Soulkiller: depreciated means to lower in value, not remove from common practice. That’s deprecated.
    @Kyo: mine’s better, it updates in real time:

  33. You know we need a new blog post when a satirical piece of code starts getting dissected.

  34. Ehh it’s something to talk about 😛

    Of course it wouldn’t be expected to prefix a local variable such as an iterator variable, but if you have many global variables or a fairly large stack with many levels of access it does help quite a bit when you don’t have to go back and look at the type, or try to remember it. It is also a good way to catch yourself from making a dumb casting error and it gives you more naming options. For example if I had some object and a pointer to that object it might be nice to just prefix the object variables name with a ‘p’ instead figuring out a new name for the pointer.

    And I would argue that Prolog isn’t exactly as widespread as you think it is. You want to name another language that allows such a terrible operator that looks a lot like C dereference operator?

  35. I said nothing about Prolog being widespread, just that it was one of a number of languages that used it. Scala uses it as well and it could be defined trivially in Haskell. But if you want something more common, both Perl and Ruby have it.

    Also, it looks nothing like C++’s dereference operator: * .
    Perhaps you’re thinking of “member-by-pointer”: -> ?

    If you find it hard to tell the difference between => and ->, perhaps you need a bigger font. That’s like saying == and -= look similar, so both shouldn’t be used in the same language…

  36. Sorry, ‘->’ is still a form of dereferencing a pointer so I tend to call it that sometimes. I stand corrected, the “member-by-pointer” operator. So maybe I have bad eye sight. Still makes no sense, we don’t say “equal to or greater than” just sounds funny.

    Also I was completely unaware that it was valid ruby or perl syntax. Would you mind linking to an official example that uses that form of the operator because I’ve never seen it used like that before.

  37. [pointing to a man wearing Spock ears]
    William Shatner: You, you must be almost 30. Have you ever kissed a girl?
    [the man hangs his head in shame]

  38. “You want to name another language that allows such a terrible operator that looks a lot like C dereference operator?”

    PHP… I think it inherited it from Perl, it’s useful for dictionaries/hashes.

  39. Example: http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2004/03/25/dictionaries.html

    The symbols themselves are just a placeholder for what the real operation is. In Pascal or basic, do you pronounce (not-equal-to) as “less-than-greater-than”, or % (mod) “percent”? What about ::, ?:, >>, <<, |, ||, just to name a few? Don't get me started in on other languages.

  40. Doesn’t seem to want to let me post a link to an example, so just search for “perl dictionary”. The first link is to the the perldocs about dictionaries, which has it there.

    The symbols themselves are just a placeholder for what the real operation is. In Pascal or basic, do you pronounce (not-equal-to) as “less-than-greater-than”, or % (mod) “percent”? What about ::, ?:, >>, <<, |, ||, just to name a few? Don't get me started in on other languages.

  41. I’m nearly 10 feet tall. Almost out of patience…

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: