Slashdot Mirror
Software Version Numbering After 2000?
apsmith asks: "As I just heard that Microsoft is naming the next version of its database SQL Server 2000 it got me wondering - what happens to all these software products with big "version numbers" in a couple of years when 2000 seems like ancient history? Will we see more factor-of-20 leaps to Office 65535, Windows 1048575, etc? Merely modifying the fourth digit of the version number seems too insignificant to make upgrading seem worth the hassle - does Windows 2008 catch your eye any differently than Windows 2005?
It's not just Microsoft products that seem to have written themselves into a corner with high version numbers, though they are probably the worst. But even Emacs is up to version 20. Sun pushed Solaris from 2.6 to 7. RedHat at 6.1 is somehow way beyond the Linux kernel. At the other extreme is the model that Donald Knuth took for TeX, with the version numbers slowly approaching Pi (the latest teTeX distribution has TeX version 3.14159) but TeX hasn't changed much in the last 10 years either, so a lot of extra pieces have evolved around it to keep it functional.
In the real non-hyped world it seems any version number over 5 or 6 implies it's about time to switch to a new product or start over from scratch. There are countless examples - from recent history think of libc6 -> glibc2 (a bit of a mess there), HTML 5 -> XHTML, or perhaps even Netscape 5 -> Mozilla. Or is that just a geek's view of the universe? How should we be numbering our products these days? And what is Microsoft going to do after 2000? "
oracle is in what, version 9 or 10 or something? people still buy their stuff. i don't think people are all that concerned with versioning. besides, thats a job for marketing, isn't it?
If your product has a single digit version and you're running out of integers, switch to hexadecimal. You can say you were using hex all along. Or do what Apple is doing, and move to Roman numerals.
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
Where are all of first posts?!! Damn script kiddies arnt Y2K compliant i suppose... :)
:)
I HATE version numbers based on the year of release.. It doesnt make any sence... Look at Windows 95, there are like 5+ 'sub versions' which the average tech doesnt realize there is a difference between... Why cant all software vendors use the Linux Kernel numbering scheme?
Cybie! aka Ralph Bonnell
Cybie! aka Ralph Bonnell
Slackware just recently jumped from 4 to 7. Here's their explanation why. Personally I think its peer pressure... RedHat is in the 6.whatever tree and people look at Slack 4.0 and think, perhaps even subconsciously, "Hey this RedHat thing has a bigger number... that must mean it's better!" It's all a matter of marketing and psychology.
;)
I'm just waiting for the day where version numbers skyrocket into absurd numbers. "Yeah I installed Windows 2010 the other day.." "2010 as in the year?" "No, just version 2010."
Adam "Fogie" Fogler -- Professional Paid College Student
It's just Centry 21, 20th Century Fox, and Century of Progress productions that are in trouble. Version numbers are completely screwed. Everyone knows it doesn't matter. Photoshop 5.5 is not a worthy upgrade from 5.0, Mac OS 9 is not much different then 8.6. Dreamweaver 3 is a great improvement over 2. People will still upgrade based on reviews, features, and advice, not by number. REAL computer users know the difference between hype and reality.
I prefer ignoring the calendar for version numbers, and eagerly wait for the end of testing and appearance of:
I started out thinking "hey, this is a nice sarcastic remark" but, uh, well, it kinda works, doesn't it?
I don't think there's a problem with increasing from 2000 to 2008. After all, if there was a program I liked that was in version 3.1, I'd download the 3.2 version when it comes out. Microsoft has been increasing Windows versions like that for a while; Windows 95 -> 98 -> 2000. It was just an amazing coincidence that we approached this age in the history of computers just when Y2K hit - and Microsoft and others benefitted from it.
Also don't forget that software becomes obsolete after a while. Eventually, someday, somewhere, there won't be Windows, but an operating system (produced by MS) that replaces it. Look at NT. Maybe they'll make something else like that.
Remember Windows 95? Windows 98? Windows 2000? Seeing a pattern? What's wrong with just naming the software for the year it's released (or close to it)? Of course that makes it difficult if you have multiple releases in a year, but who cares? You call the second version released in 2000 "Product 2000, release 2" or something. I don't see how this is a big deal.
Well, better don't switch to Roman numerals! Or are you able to read the last line at the end of those elder movies (MCMCMMMMMVIII) or do you just believe that the first are ok and just look at the last few? ;-)
Well, FYI....
In the windows nt series, next is windows 2000, so windows 2000 is basically NT 5.
As for the windows 3.1, 95, 98 series, next will be windows millenium. Although, it will be called windows 98 millenium edition. So it will be first release, second release, the millenium, of windows 98.
Originally, windows 2000, was supposed to be windows nt and the other series (95,98) integrated, but that didn't work out... i'll find an article in a min and probably reply to my own for it...
This is all great, except for the fact that windows kinda sucks... oh well.
What will happen to Century 21 (Real Estate) in 101 years?
I'm sure there are other companies with names that have expiration dates...
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with versioning based on the year, with subversions and revisions on each major version change as long as the versioning system does not affect the quality/timing of releases, encourage unneccesary releases, AND each release is clearly and unambigiously distinguishable from each other, with the chronological progression and extent of changes between releases obvious.
I think that basing the main version number of a piece of software is sometimes a very logical idea. It gives an intuitive understanding of the time period in which a software release occurred, unlike, for example, the Linux kernel versioning system.
Which is not to say that version numbers based on years are always good. Witness Windows 95 and 98 and the games MS played with OSR releases, OEM versions, Second Edition, Retail releases, etc.
After 2000, it could change it to "Windows Future" than "Windows Future 2" or "Windows Future ++".
Just an idea
I think year versioning makes sense, especially since software revisions tend to be every year or every couple of years. It is easy to pinpoint exactly which products go together, and how up-to-date your package is (which is good from a marketing standpoint). On something like VMS, the current OS version is 7.2, the current DEC C is 5.6, the LSE editor is something like 11.2. The version numbers are all out of sync. A number like 7.2 is meaningless. With Linux it is even worse, especially with the kernel version and distribution version out of sync, and all other product versions out of sync. For Microsoft products, it is obvious that Windows 2000 is the most up to date version, that Office 2000 goes with Windows 2000, etc., so I think that's good. I hope that VMS and Unix products go towards year versioning. The bottom line is that a year version means something, while an ordinary version is meaningless and arbitrary.
I also hope hardware goes to year versioning also. What does 21264 mean? What makes Pentium II newer than Pentium Pro? It would be much easier if it was "Pentium 2000", "Alpha 2000", etc.
Cars use that convention. As computers become consumer type appliances, it makes sense that they use the conventions also.
I like the way many Linux distributions code name releases. (Manhattan, Slink, Potatoe, etc.) Why can't we do that more often? I think it's much easier to remember Cheese vs Potatoe rather than say 5.1 vs 5.0.1. I'm not saying loose the numbers altogether, but just emphisize the code name more.
Either code names or we can use another industries system... (GT, VR-4, SX, GS, etc.)
Spice it up!
-- The intelligence on this planet is a constant, but the population is growing. --
Chessmaster once had versions based on the chess engine's play rating. Up to about 2100 or something; after that, 3000, 4000, ... 7000 (or whatever it is now), the numbers were merely marketing hype. This inspired a competing product called 'Chess Maniac 5.1 Billion' or some such which was just trying to have the ultimate version number.
Does 'Windows 2005' really make less sense than, say, 'Mandrake 7.0'?
"I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
I dont know about the rest of you, but my software has a new version every couple of days, so version years would not work. Even windows has real version numbers.
Fractint (currently on v. 20.0) and Emacs (currently on v. 20.5) have historically been in competition for the largest real version numbers. In response to apsmith's assertion that large version numbers imply obsolescence, Emacs is an obvious counterexample. Fractint is a little more dubious, but it remains very powerful.
Switch the . and the @ to email me.
Its futuristic alright. Its designed to confuse. From a company that spends more money on marketing and legal than development, you have things like NT3.1 (pre alpha,) NT3.5 (alpha,) and NT4.0 (beta,) and a new rewrite 2000 (?)
From the same company that brings you the MSCE (MicroSoft Certified Enemas,) you have versioning that includes an unordered versioning scheme of all encompasing "service packs," "hot fixes," and obfuscated "registry entries."
I want nightly builds.
Access to the bug database.
Browse the source.
My advise to software marketeers?
Release early and release often, and above all, be open.
_________________________
Yea but can you imagine if Microsoft had continued down that line Windows 95 then Windows 98 then . . . Windows 00 ?
I used slaskware when I guess versioning was a bit more sane 3.4 and 3.5 and 3.6.
Why do people get so irritated about being hassled via e-mail? If I get hassled via e-mail I can just ignore the more innane e-mails and go on in life. What would be more irritating would be personal harassment via face-to-face communication.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
Who the hell cares how they decide to label a new version of Windows? I mean, Windows is Windows, stuff is stuff, and a logical person will read a review instead of saying "ooh, 2001 > 2000, must buy!"
----------
"They misunderestimated me." --George W Bush, Nov. 6, 2000
Why do all marketers and programmers screw up with the version numbers? The first tends to jump from 1.0 to 2000 in just one version, while the latter seems to like endless sub-versions a'la Linux 2.2.0-pre30-ac5...
I think i't all about what the swedish word "lagom" means - not too much, not too less, not extreme in any direction, not even extreme in not being extreme.
Why can not everyone settle for versions that are just integer numbers that increments by one for each new version? The numbers does not matter anyway - they only serve to enable us to see which of two versions is the newest. How much newer or cooler it is can not by any means be read out of those numbers!
Anyway, I've described another version naming system here. It describes a system that provides information about who is responsible for which version, and backward compatibility. If you wish to comment on it, drop me an e-mail!
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
Year-based naming may be nice and easy to follow. But you have to remember that when you say Windows 95 it "feels" old. Tieing the name to the year the software was released is just a way of making sure people remember how old their software is.
I like the way the Linux kernel does its version numbers. major versions first, minor second, and bug fixes.
However, unless you know Linux a person purchasing a boxed set may not understand the odd number in the minor version column means "development".
Or they may be confused when the see the ac12 stuff as well.
Going by year probably makes the most sense in a marketing situation. It would be the least confusing for the customer.
On the subject of where Windows could go:
Windows Googol
Windows Googolplex Back Office Server.
Then of course: Windows Infinity
They will have to by a speaker manufacturer to get that name but that should be pocket change for them. Then again maybe they could convince us all they thought of it before Infinity did.
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
Sorry, my fault... your right... its spelled millennium but, its windows millennium and windows 2000. So,
windows millennium is 2001,
windows 2000 is 2000.
Therefore, there is a way to differentiate... just watch your spelling. =P
Don't believe me that 2001 is the millennium?
Go here
I have had various problems with some packages in debian unstable. Because of ongoing levels of development substantial changes can occur from say
package-1.0.4-45 to package-1.0.4-46 with various security fixes and improvements etc. Upgrading to the newest version will often times allow you to use the latest features that the community around you uses. If you don't upgrade I think that some people are just afraid or clueless. Just like some idiots who still run dos version say 6.0 instead of 6.22 despite various changes ( I have seen them). Running say kernel 2.0.33 differences from 2.0.34 may not be in the actual changes to the kernel but from various contemporary changes in patches and add on features that the community will add to 2.0.34 and not 2.0.33 because it is the latest thing.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
Microsoft already has a new name for thier products after 2000. In a press release (I cannot find link) Microsoft announced the merger of the NT and Win95 lines with 2000 partialy and a full merger in there next OS (which they said would be called Nextel).
I am amazed that many people think Microsoft will make Windows 2000. NO, they will change the name because Windows is getting a fair amount of Negative publicity and it is time they start a new product line (even though it will be based on the old product) They also have been pushing NT a fair amount, because NT is more stable than Win95 (98 also) and overall is a better OS. Even though you can upgrade a Win98 machine to a 2000 machine, they push it as the upgrade for NT. This should tip people off that they are going to eliminate the Win95 (98) based line of OS's and go with an entirely new one that is based on NT and has version numbers like NT.
Is it progress if a cannibal uses a fork?
Ever look at the System Properties app in Control Panel? In Windows 98SE it says version 4.10.2222A.
I think that does something in APL. Does anyone remember what?
5 years later, it seems as if Microsoft succeeded in doing things their way, and now everybody is wondering whether this is where the industry will be headed.
I for one think year versioning is stupid. It doesn't, as Microsoft and others claimed, help customers unambiguously identify a product's latest release. Take a look at the (at least) four different versions of Win95. A major.minor versioning scheme would have been better for identifying the latest release.
Then you have the "year" releases of other products, and then you see the "clearer" year versioning scheme fail as you see people talking about "windows 97" (since a big "97" pops up when they run Word or Excel from Office97) or Windows 2000 (same thing, except they bought Office 2000). It makes knowing *what* version people have a nightmare.
Also, as with cars, you have year-named stuff being released before the year. How does a common mortal know that office 2000 was *not* released in 2000? How will it help when, in 2001, say they release Windows 3500 and Office 16384? And since they are no longer sticking to the "name it for the year it was released" scheme, how do I know whether my version of Office 2000 is the latest, or has been superseded by "Office 2048", released by microsoft heralding the coming of power-of-2-based versioning schemes?
I say just use the tried-and-true major.minor.revision scheme.. it has worked well for years.
Exactly. That's why I think people should use negative numbers for things like that. So it's obvious that -2.3.8ac77 is not something a random newbie should mess with.
:)
Either that, or make all developer releases "Version 666.xx.xx" or something. That'll keep em away
~~~~~~~~~
auntfloyd
People who sort their messages in any order but TIME POSTED should NOT be given access to the redundant score. This calls for a new version of the moderation FAQ. What version are we on now, anyhow? Hmmmmm, CmdrTaco?!?
I hate the way that sun versions their product. SunOS 5.7 = Solaris 2.7 = Solaris 7
This becomes worse when you are also dealing with people running different verions of both Solaris and SunOS.
What seems to have happened with both MS and Sun is that the marketing people are now controlling the versions, not the developers.
Solaris 7 sounds (at least in their eyes) more mature than 2.7, and microsoft follows the same logic with with windows 2000 over NT 5.0.
I think that microsoft will stick with the year system at least until the two braches are merged, which was what was supposed to happen with 2000, oh well.
btw, unlike what some people do, the name only shows up in marketing/documentation/logos. With 'uname', the OS reports itself as being SunOS 5.7! (Solaris 2.X is SunOS 5.X) Backwards compatible with 2 levels of marketing re-branding ^-^
I don't particularly care what Microsoft do... btw, The Register has an amusing article on "Microsoft Year 2000".
In a recient conversation with a Microsoft employee he mentioned something about the "NT 7 team" doing some really cool things... I'm not too sure about the 'cool things' part but he did say NT 7 .. anyone else know anything about NT 7 ?
Tieing the name to the year the software was released is just a way of making sure people remember how old their software is.
...and then of course buy the newer version.
What is this /. that everyone talks about...? See it often times on Slashdot and I'm wondering what exactly it means. Also, (slashdot staff) if there was some kind of section that would define these terms (or if im just too blind to find it), it would be great.
If someone says they are using Windows 2000 what does that mean? Windows 2000 is a designation for a series of products not just one product. There is Windows 2000 Professional, Server and Advanced Server. And probably more to come. Now what will they call the next version of Windows 98? They can't call it Windows 2001 or 2002. Or how about Windows 01 or 02? Most likely they'll called it Windows 200x Standard or Home Edition. Also when making subversions can be irritating. There were 4 version of Windows 95. There was 95, 95A, 95B and 95C. And there is 2 versions of Windows 98 which is 98 and Second Edition. This all leads to a lot of chaos in technical support. But because Microsoft has to focus more on marketting and fooling the customer then on producing a better product. Which I think is the first sign of a company faultering.
Think of the name of this page: Slash-Dot...Get it now?
What's the big deal? Windows 2000 is just as in intuitive as Solaris 2.6, or actually probably more. If Windows 2002 won't be as eye-catching, then they will come up with something else. They do market studies and try different names with test groups. It's not like someone is just throwing dice or anything.
Why not do what Intel did with naming their CPU's. 286.. 386.. 486.. Pentium.. Pentium II, Pentium III, Itanium. *shrug* Switching over to names instead of numbers is just fine..
Personally, I'm waiting for the next MAJOR release of a Microsoft OS. DOS -> Windows -> ??
I couldn't care less what the version numbering scheme is.
While year versioning makes sense (as was explained in a prior post), I believe most companies are just cashing in on "The Year 2000." A version number is arbitrary, whereas to say that this product is the 2000 version of it, it's to say that it's the most up to date without having to look up any other version numbers on the internet.
You should never take life too seriously - You'll never get out of it alive.
XHTML is NOT HTML 5. While HTML is a SGML application, XHTML is a XML application. XHTML is the XML equivialent of HTML 4, probably created so that one can transform all HTML documents into XML with minimal effort.
-segfault
I heard that Windows NT was getting Windows 2000, and the Windows 9X series was getting Windows Millennium...Don't quote me on it, though. I don't remember the source.
There was never a DRDOS 4 - either because DR wanted to keep their version numbers one ahead of MSDOS (DRDOS 5 was released against MSDOS 4, DRDOS 6 against MSDOS 5 etc.) or because MSDOS 4 was so horribly appalling that any "DOS 4" would have a terrible reputation.
I think there are a couple of issues here that are being confused. The first is the versioning system we hve for differentiating between different releases of products, internally. The second is a "name" for the product, used to promote and sell it, hopefully with some semblance of what the product does in the name.
Some quick comparisons:
Windows 4.00.950 = Windows 95
Redhat 6.1 = (based on Kernel 2.0.13 or so)
for the "internal" numbering system, this seems to have reached a pretty stable system throughout the development world, with major revisions being whole numbers, minor revisions first decimal place, small fixes etc after that. This would go from the Linux kernel to Windows (as illustrated above!) and most software packages!
then there's the "marketing spin" on it, where the product has to seem to be new, improved, is so much more advanced than the competition, will do your laundry, shopping, talk to your girlfriend, etc. and this is where the marketing people come in with their names and numbers and everything that make no sense other than for product recognition. examples that come to mind are Intel (...386, 486, Pentium, Pentium Pro, Pentium II, Xeon, Pentium III, Itanium, etc), AMD (Athlon), Macintosh (OS 7, 8, 9... X?) and so on ans so forth. the list goes on.
As long as both are available, I dont see this as being a problem. The internal numbering system is useful for developers, of course. They might be able to tell the differences between Kernels 1.2 and 2.0, which would be important for them. On the other hand, a user with no development skills or designs in that direction, would rather know the differences between redhat 5 and 6, such as what WindowManagers it gets shipped with, what the installation is like, and so forth.
Fross
I'm going to get a lot of argument for this but I think in certain situations that year versioning is a "Good Thing (TM)"
:)
Any product that has a built in shelf life or has major changes that are tied to the year of release should have year versioning. Mostly this is for financial software such as TurboTax (TurboTax 98, TurboTax 99, TurboTax 2000) TurboTax is useless for the most part the year after it is released, due to changes in the IRS tax code and the forms, and the calculations etc (You can bet Intuit is NOT a supporter of the flat tax. TurboTax is a little cash cow)
But I agree that for things such as Office and Windows, we should see an actual numbering system.
I like the way that BeOS does it RX.Y.Z Where X is the main version release, Y is the minor upgrades, and Z is little updates like drivers and bug fixes (very similar to other companies use of the "SE" title
TC
Mozilla offers:
1)Nightly builds.
2)Access to the bug database.
3)Browsing the source.
4) Milestone releases.
These features matter, because the next time some overstuffed suit walks into my office and starts puking out buzzwards and promising pie in the sky vaporware, I can confirm of deny the claims with the above tools. Agreeing on a perticular piece of software is an intelectual partnership that needs be bolstered with cold hard code in order for a purchasing party to reach "buy in" on the concept.
These tools cost very little to open to the buying public (considering they are already in use in-house) and should be a standard selling tool in this century.
Moreover, if you notice the tree forking in a direction not to your liking, it gives you time to look for other sources for that solution.
So in summary, name it whatever you want (2000.1.1 blah blah blah) but follow mozillas' lead on opening the tools.
_________________________
It's just Fox now. They changed it pretty recently. Besides, 21st Century Fox is a tacky name. As for Century 21, they shouldn't care becuase none of the people who are working at the company, or any of their succesasors, will be alive to see the 22nd century. So what, anyway. I'm sure Century 22 Realty is not a taken name, and if it is, they can buy it.
Oh, but the roman numerals are a bit easier now, you know... 2000 = MM.. and 2001 = MMI and so on.. :=) Will look pretty unusual :=)
BTW:.. the unstandard MCMCMMMMMVIII would be something like.. 1000-100+1000-100-+5000 + 5 + 3 = 6808 ?
Stain, vel! - http://stain.portveien.to/ Stian Søiland - stain@nvg.org - Trondheim, Norway
...from a marketing standpoint. It reminds people how old their software is, and invokes a need to buy a new version after a few years have passed. Lets face it, OS 3.11 sounds up to date anytime, but OS '89 sounds plain old. What could be better than to release a product under a name that sounds nice and new and have the name "magically" change to something old as the time for a new release draws near.
Ever notice how console sports games get released year after year (madden '97, madden '98, etc) with virtually no changes? If they called the games madden 1 and madden 2, people would expect major changes and be dissapointed. Release it as '98 and '99, however, and people just eat it up.
I think the key part that is being missed is that parts have versions, but systems have names. This is particularly true when the systems have interchangeable parts. I think the car analogy was a good one, so I will go with that.
When you design a part, like a spark plug, you give it a version number. These probably are some take off on the traditional software scheme, with "major" and "minor" revisions. The first three copper ones are 1.1 1.2 1.3, and the first three platnum ones are 2.1 2.2 2.3. This makes a lot of sense, and tracks the evolution of a spark plug nicely.
When you use those parts in a system, there are a wide variety of version numbers, and they don't mean anything relative to each other. Version 2.1 of the spark plug was not designed at the same time as 2.1 of the muffler. So, you name the system (or version it, if you must) as a whole, and leave the individual version numbers as something to be droned on about in the detailed spec.
This works out nicely. I go buy a 2000 Viper (hehe, i wish) and it comes with version 2.3 sparkplugs. Later, when they make a better one I can go to 2.4...or I can swap out for version 1.7 of another manufacturers design, which are better. It's still a 2000 Viper.
Software works too, Red Hat "6.1" (a name, not a version) is made up of parts of all different versions, and that's ok. We also all know you can interchange at least some of those parts, and update it individually.
So, I expect all "parts", eg software components to have monotonically increasing versions numbers like they always have. I also further expect marketing types to come up with cool names for new products that let me know one is better than the next. Cheetah is faster than Baracuda is faster than Wren, you know... but all those disk drives are made up of many versioned parts.
I think the "2000" name is a fad, and will quickly fade now. I expect the next name to appear equally stupid to many of us, but the lemmings will buy it anyway.
I believe microsoft is planning to release a version of windows called "Windows Millineum" after they release 2000.
These nightly builds turn me off. It's worse than seeing Suse or Redhat come out with 3 to 4 releases in one year. And, this did happen last year. Why can't software producers release once, not so often, and provide a non-crashing quality product. That's what the end user wants. You can get away with nightly builds with developers, but the public-at-large won't be pleased.
Actually, the way you broke the MCMCMMMMMVIII down isn't quite right either. Trivial as it is, and right as your answer was, it would actually be...
M + CM + CM + M + M + M + M + VIII = 6808
I guess everyone uses their own way of doing Roman Numerals, but if you follow a standard then you can break any long string of numerals down into their correct decimal equivalent.
Trivial, but thought I'd add my 2 cents worth.
www.piffy.org -- me.
When I buy new software, I should know how stable it is going to be. If I can assume that as the version number approaches pi it becomes more stable, then I will always know how well this softare release is going to be.
If we use this method, we will either learn the true value of pi, or have perfect software. Either way we win.
Need a website host? Try out http://WebQualityHost.net
What needs to happen quite soon is consistency between these minor versions every year. I worked at a large manufacturing corp, and they don't move quickly to the next version of something like MS Office. But, they have to deal with small businesses around the world which don't see any big problem buying 5 boxes of Office 97 (or whole new computers from Gateway, which always force the newest junk) for their computers.
Anyway, at this corp, I was always battling with people when they received an email attachment from someone with Office 97, while they only had 95 (or worse yet, Lotus Smartsuite and no Office). I'd say maybe 0.01% of the people with '97 understood what a version is and were thus capable of changing the file type to save. What was it, Wordperfect maybe, that had the same file format for several versions, like WP6 and up? Maybe with XML and such, things will improve a little.
Of course Microsoft (and others) love this confusion, as the only solution is for companies to spend thousands or millions upgrading their entire joint. Naturally, by the time this company I worked for moved to Office 97, Office 2000 was released a few weeks later. I got out before too many bought it. Of course, the fanciest things used 99.9% of the time in these programs is bold AND italics. Yes, we must spend $500 (for many thousands of employees worldwide, and MS does not cut any decent contract for them) on a new office suite when there isn't a single new feature needed. Yet, if they were ever so kind as to not change the formats, several businesses would be shut down. There are third-party programs to view/convert/etc files just because of this problem. Just as if Windows had a decenet security model, all those anti-virus companies would be left out in the cold. Ultimately, I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't want to do that. So, being the kind, benevolent souls they are, we'll endlessly be left with this chaos. Oh thank you wonderful Microsoft (and everyone else)!!
After this is in place, then they can come out with "Whatever 526.0 2038 Edition, now with two new toolbar icons!!"
Two problems I see: 1 - Newbies would forget the negative sign, 2 - You couldn't easily do maths on the version number.
They could always follow the path taken by AT&T (SVR4 = System 5 Release 4) and Apple (starting with the next release, it's Mac OS-X). Until the years get unwieldy, they could go by year, still (Windows MMMII), or they could recognize the aversion to minor-number releases (MSIE 5.0 really should be MSIE 4.5; Solaris 2.7 became Solaris 7.0; despite six updates to NT 4.0, there was no NT 4.1-4.9; similarly for the updates to Office), and make the next release Windows VI. MS Office, of course, would be Office IX (I think).
Christopher A. Bohn
cb
Oooh! What does this button do!?
I think Windows 98 is technically version 4.1 or is it 4.01? What is Windows 2000? Windows 4.2? Windows 5?
If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
Windows 2001: An occupies-too-much-disk-space Odyssey
Windows 2010: Odyssey Two (Bugfix release to repair our malfunctioning OS that's stuck at Jupiter!)
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Windows 2000 will be known as "Classic Windows." Microsoft's newest OS will be "New Windows."
When people realize they liked Classic Windows better than New Windows, Microsoft will discontinue New Windows, keep Classic Windows for the diehards, and furnish a new OS based on Linux, shipping under a made-up name: BGsani.
I think numbering your versions by year is awkward. You end up having Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows 98 Second Edition OEM, etc.
--
WorldServe Consulting
Branding software (and anything - cars for example) with a yearly release version instantly makes that product have an effective 'expiry date' - that being the next year. Imagine if cars had 2.3.34 (change log, improved transmission shifts) rather than dates, their resale value would be higher, you could tell what the difference was between different versions and in all you would have a more valuable product. Completely different body stylings could just be major numbers.. manufacturers update their products almost daily in the case of vehicles - you will never see two cars alike, ever. procedure changes all the time, and the only way to check is by serial numbers and doing lookups, where a proper revisioning system could immediately tell you what 'patches' and 'upgrades' you would like to have for that datsun b210 you just bought.. if you know there was a problem with the exhaust on 2.2.14 you could make sure to go to a wrecker and find an exhaust from 2.2.17 and upgrade your 2.2.14 datsun with the improved system - making your car more valuable, and safe and useful. i think a new car company should be started that does this.. it would be cool!!
I suspect that, as the century progresses, we will see whacked-out stuff like "Windows 2000" replaced by "Windows NT version 6.0" (or what have you) when the time comes to replace them. Sort of like how "BRU 2000" became "BRU 15.1" when it was upgraded (grin).
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Well, Word 6.0 can read Word 5.0 documents. Not sure if Word 6.0 can read Word 95 documents.. or are they the same thing? See.. it's too confusing. :-P Should be major.minor.revision. i.e. Word95 would have been Word 6.0.0, the first hotfix would be 6.0.1, second would be 6.0.2, etc. The big service pack would be 6.1.0, next would be 6.2.0, etc. Then the next "major" release like Word 98 would have been 7.0.0, etc. Simple, effective, and VERY easy.
Is it just a case of yet another millenium tie-in, or is just the cost per license.
It's a stupid, confusing way of numbering your releases. Everday I see hapless consumers telling each other that they use Windows 97. Sometimes they're typing their letters in Windows Word 98. In short people have focused on the damned year instead of the relevant information that the year is supposed to represent. NEVER did people think they were using Word 3.11 or Windows 6.0. Who ever came up with this numbering scheme needs to die. Mac OS "X" ---- now thats a kewl numbering scheme. 'Cept the maintenance releases might be X.i.iv or something stupid like that.
Be not ignorant of the Truth.
This is something that I have wondered about in passing. Names like Gateway2000 and 20th Century Fox are going to start looking a little pale... On a side note about the next "version" of a product, take a look at the Microsoft Visual Studio suite. Officially the latest version is 6.0, and all the programming packages are version 6.0. However, ever notice the folder that Visual Basic is installed into by default is VB98? And before VS 6.0, the suite was called Visual Studio 97. Marketing...
"Who is your user?"
Year based versioning is perfect from a marketing standpoint. While its difficult to determine if logically numbered products are outdated (linux 2.0.38 vs 2.2.13), Windows 98 is definately old news and you should slap your money down for the 2000/2001/2002/2003 upgrade immediately.
NaCh0 -- too lazy to login
And both run on top of DOS 7.0.
Type ver at the command prompt to see the Windows version number.
Hands in my pocket
Use the __DATE__ and __TIME__ predefined preprocessor variables.
Use them, and versioning is a zero effort process, which is fine with me. However, I still put version numbers in stuff, simply because I know people want them. I increment major numbers and zero the minor whenever a change is big enough to require that all the documentation needs to be redone. I incremeent minor numbers whenever a new release comes out. If I forget to change the numbers, correlating the version to the time/date stamp is easy enough--just look at the time/date stamp on the last versioned release and count.
When I have done tech support work I find that getting the 'real' version number of some (often Microsoft) products takes longer than it should.
Apart from that minor problem I don't realy care what numbering system people use as long as it is simple and there is only one number per product -- having two numbers for a program is bad (eg Office 95/7 and Office 97/8).
Mom: Yea, our office has the Microsoft 98
Me: Mom, that's the operating system, What word processor?
Mom: Word? yea..we use Word. Word Perfect 98.
Me: Is that Word, or Word Perfect?
Mom: I don't know, it's the one with the little squiglies.
Me: They both use that interface for spell checking, could you just copy and paste the text into the email?
Mom: huh? Why don't they all just use one system.
And in one bright, shining moment in my mums 'puter understing and growth, she wraped her mind around the value of standards, and open documentation, and I wanted to jump for joy.
In summary, Year versioning is a confusing marketing ploy that's not good for developers or end users.
_________________________
Picture this...
Fairly mission critical application (Jail Management Software). Major bug in said software that requires a new client on most all of the client PCs.
(Don't get me started with on the fly code fixes on a production system. Is this the norm now? Most vendors I am dealing with do this and I expect that they end up with custom code for each customer site to maintain. Not good.)
Put new client on a test desktop and do a help, about. Hmm... Vendor didn't upgrade the version number (Major #, minor #, a,b,c nothing).
Call vendor, say this is unacceptable, how can we easily tell. Vendor tells us that they arn't going to change it and for us to check the date and time stamp on the executable. Yeh, right. Just what I want to talk my users through.
Pull up file manager... Go here, look at this... Talk about a major mess waiting to happen.
-eddy
Do you think in the 23rd century anyone will really care if it is 2356 or 2355?
I dunno how many of you play pinball, but I remember games where a score of a million was a huge result, and I vaguely remember games where a score of 100,000 was impressive. I saw a TV show once where a score of 45 was pretty good.
:)
By contrast, there's periodically speculation about what kind of changes would merit a major number change in NetBSD. 1.0 was released in 1994, just over a year after 0.8. 1.1 was a little over a year later.
The most recent NetBSD release is 1.4.1; -current
is called "1.4P". Somewhere in there, my i386
converted to ELF, got CardBus support, got a complete rework of the concept of console drivers, got a framework for multiplexing input devices (to make USB keyboards and mice relevant), and got soft updates. None of that justifies a bump to 1.5, apparently.
The bump from 1.3 to 1.4 was a *COMPLETELY NEW* VM subsystem, new compiler, and a dozen or so other features.
I guess it's just an island of sanity.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Perhaps we should convince our favorite distro's to release their software based on the year it ships. Patched/updated versions would have the month prefixed to signify that it is newer and has new features and/or fixes. Ex. "Brand X Distro Febuary 2000" This would reduce confusion. Personally I would like to see a particular commercial Operating System keep up with a similar system.
...to correspond to whatever version number of Windows MS happens to be shipping! Just think, we'd be living in a new era, starting with the year 1 MS, or perhaps year 1 AB ("Anno Bob"). Major upgrades could be leap years, service packs in alternate years. Of course, one of the many problems with this scheme would be that New Year's celebrations would be delayed every year until some time in February. :-)
Only Microsoft would still be using the name Windows in 2008. I would believe that by that time, either the would finally start from scratch(goodbye legacy code), or finally realize that not every computing enviroment lends itself to a Window and desktop interface. And god willing they will have gone out of business and we will finally achieve true innovation in the software consumer marketplace
1) Look at the properties for My Computer (hold down the Windows key and tap Pause for a shortcut)
2) Type ver at the MS-DOS prompt
Hands in my pocket
Just a whimsical thought. :-)
Happy Antemillennium!
Now that I have your attention :-)
;-)
Redhat Mother's Day release +0.1 -> Redhat 4.2
This happened in the same amount of time it took to go from Slackware 2.3 -> 3.x.
So, of course, Redhat had managed to get up to 6.0 by the time Slackware hit 4.0... Jumping 4 whole numbers, while Slackware went up < 1. Then going up two more, while Slackware hit 4. Sigh. Where's my Bob Young voodoo doll?
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Darin Adler, one of the best visionary/programmers that ever lived, and eventually head of Apples elite Blue Meanies OS hacking team, in 1988 wrote a perfect document on what software versions numbers should represent and how they should be incremented. The Mac OS pioneered Version number resources, and although Apple's own products never seem to heed logic or reason, and violate the spirit of the meaning of version numbers, the VERSION NUMBER tech note should be followed religiously by good developers. Regretably i cannot seem to find the orifinal 4 or 6 page 1988 technote, Darin Adler wrote. I think Apple is embarrased by their lack of compliance to it. A heavily doctored modern version of the 1988 technote is on Apple's website and is at : http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn/tn1132.htm l you should read the older one if you can find it anywhere. It even defines the meaning of BETA, ALPHA, and DEVELOPMENTAL versions, from waht i recall. Every time an angry client recived software from me labelled "version 1.0b3" and gave me any complaints I explained that beta meant "NO KNOWN BUGS" but not fully tested, and that there is no shame in selling beta software, but big shame in selling buggy dangerous untested software that ought to be clearly marked "beta". The term ALPHA is known buggy or known incomplete software. Maybe most sotware needs to be labelled Alpha! he heh.
Yes, large version numbers are mainly an Open Source problem (before you reply that Windows 2000 is big, remember that that is not a version number it is a product name, the version number is something like 5.0.00.98.0.5.65.998.321 or something). Think about it, if you're a big company and you only release stable and significant upgrades to your software instead of piling bugs on bugs with occasional bug-free features being added like you do with Open Source, you don't have to jump version numbers as much. Who really cares, though? Windows 2005 will probably be called Titanium Windows or something, they'll just copy from most Linux distros and give it a name instead of a number (now just start thinking of the trillions of more significant problems THIS causes)
oracle is in what, version 9 or 10 or something?
Back in the {good,bad} old days of DOS-based, dial-up local BBSes, one very popular package was called PCBoard. They were up to Version 15.9 or something before BBSing really started to die out and I lost track. Nobody thought PCBoard was {older,newer,worse,better} because it had a higher verison number.
Ultimately, it reflects the intelligence of your user community. Maybe your users are so dumb that they need to be told what year their software is from. Maybe they can figure out what "Version 3.1.4, Released 5-APR-2002" means.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Microsoft will tell the public what they want... they wouldnt want people thinking for themselves now :)
I need to do my laundry
Please send $3 to:
Jon Allen
p.o. box 308142
Quick, which is newer, version Rockhard or Egghouse? What about sub-release Eggplant? Falcon? Trapese? How the hell are you going to have any clue of the chronology of things? You'll have to create an entire website just explaining the differences, how significant they are, which one is newer, etc.
Solaris 7 is the environment.
Solaris 2.7 was the prerelease name given to Solaris 7 environment.
For more information, check the Solaris FAQ.
For something with frequent builds, but usually only one per day, I prefer something like this:
prjname-YYYYMMDD
If releases are more frequent than daily, add the time of release to the end, as in:
prjname-YYYYMMDD.HHMMSS (using UTC, of course!)
Seems simple; at least I think it is. It makes file sorting work out very nicely, and keeps grouping by prjname. On the other hand, this will only work for another 8000 years or so. Go fig.
However, this scheme should not override any other scheme. Perhaps the 20000104 build would be considered a more stable release, and thus be named 1.0.0. And perhaps there would be a third name for marketing purposes, like '2000 Super Deluxe Edition'. Not every build would have a X.Y.Z version number, and not every version would have a marketing name. Usage of symbolic links and such on FTP sites makes this all much easier. Helps with organization, provides a definite date for each build, still allows for denotion of stability, and keeps the marketing droids happy. We all win. (Note that I do realize that this is already in use in many places. I just happen to like this scheme.)
It was recently discovered that research causes cancer in rats.
However the 'webiness' (using hex values to choose colours), improved typographical control (3 different anti-aliasing methods, etc...), and other features make it worth it for those that use it for the better part of the working day.
Year versioning might be OK for "mature" products - products that have been around for awhile. But it would be very confusing for "young" software. Suppose I have a "new" killer app. Which is more informative to you? "Try speaksh 2000 Alpha today!" or "Try speaksh 0.0.1 today!"
These features matter, because the next time some overstuffed suit walks into my office and starts puking out buzzwards and promising pie in the sky vaporware, I can confirm of deny the claims with the above tools. Agreeing on a perticular piece of software is an intelectual partnership that needs be bolstered with cold hard code in order for a purchasing party to reach "buy in" on the concept.
This _IS_ a joke, right? "In order to comvince me to buy it, you have to let me download, compile, run, test, and use it on a daily basis.... for that matter I'd like to run it for 60 years before paying you.... did I mention I'm a smoker?"
Give me a break.
and I have the install disks to prove it :P
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
for you people to remember the difference between Win2k and Millennium? Windows 2000 will run off an improved version of the NT kernel, hence making it technically NT 5. Windows Millennium will be the last version of Windows running off the NX kernel, hence making it the successor to Windows 98. I'd really like to see the OSes numbered after what kernel their working on and for people to make the distinction between operating system and operating environment. The operating system is enough to get the sumputer running, most likely a kernel and a shell. The environment is all the extra programs that allow you to get stuff done with that kernel and shell. If you ever see the packaging for Solaris it says it's the Solaris Operating Environment (which is correct) since it in an environment of tools and apps. The naming convention for Windows is mostly for marketing purposes as so many other people have said. If Joe Average is sitting looking at the Windows 95 boot up screen and sees a commercial for Windows 2000 he is most likely going to realize his system is MUCH older than the current ones. If Joe Average sees Slackware 4.0 and Redhat 6.1 he is going to think Redhat is SO much newer and more up to date than Slackware, when in reality they are basically running off the same kernel. Major releases (in my opinion) are probably going to be following the yearly naming scheme with "Release 2" or some such for minor improvements. Look at the way Win 98 works if you use the web updating, my Win 98 box has basically all the same bug fixes and components that a Win 98 SE box would have. When Redhat really goes balls out against MS you'll probably see "Redhat 2001" or something like that. It looks alot cleaner on store shelves.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Windows 1900
At a certain point, such as above 5, the company should realize they need a revolution, and need to start from scratch on a new more enhanced product, which would naturally get a new name.
When Microsoft comes up with an OS that works using 3D visualization, along with futuristic interfaces, then we shouldn't call that Windows 2008 or Windows 3D, rather it should be MS Reality v1.00...
Anybody notice the software market isn't as revolutionary as it once was! Is that a sign of a maturing industry? Which is bad! Or, that corporatism has taken its toll, and we're only going as fast as the big companies want us to.
They are all the same, arent't they ?? Still going down for reboot _NOW_
void windows_in_2038(void) /* will GPF */
{
time_t t=0x80000000;
localtime(time(&t));
}
At least in Linux (glibc) you get 1901...
What I want to know is, what's wrong with the old boring v1, v2, v3, etc - with sub-revisions if you really need them?
I mean, I can't see the point in using years - even if the software is released in that year, it's more than likely going to have updates outside of that year; so the name become irrelevant.
Let's face it, Windows doesn't actually use years for the version number - if you ask Win98 what version it is it'll give a number like 4.10.1998. Windows 98 is just its name, not its version number.
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
What in the fuck does that post have anything to do with a troll? What's wrong with you, moderator?
Year versioning shows how slow your development cycle has become. Naming the kernel by year would be worthless, since we have development/stable branches - not to mention production is so fast we'd need versions like YEAR.QUARTER to keep up.
Most 6.0s are really 5.3s, but if you want to date version like a nightly build why not stamp the entire date?
Windows 19950525
If my companies existance is based on NT running on a certain platform, having as much information about that platforms stability and continued development is extreamly valuable. When changes happen to the code base being used to develop my platform of choice, I want see it in the dev. tree so I can make educated decisions on the direction of my company. This is why Open tools are not only needed, but it's downright suspicious when they are not employed.
The fact that the list of boxen that NT runs on changed show much in only 5 years (how many platforms for 2000?) is another reason why an open development model should be adopted by all.
_________________________
There more or less is. It's called paradiorthosis, which is defined as an improper or false correction. By analogy with mitosis, osmosis and narcosis, I suppose that could produce words such as paradiorthoses (the plural), paradiorthotic, paradiorthoticism, and paradiorthotically. I'm not sure what you'd call the particular idiot who customarily committed the foul act. A paradiorthotician or paradiorthotist, perhaps.
But I can virtually guarantee you that having a word for it won't make the problem go away. :-)
What does 21264 mean?
It's leetspeak for TITGA.
Don't ask me what TITGA means.
1. If there are more than one release during the year, name it after the month: Windows 95.5; Windows 95.11.
2. No release unless there's alot of new functionality present. Bugfix does not deserve a new year version number.
Microsoft messed up this convention for all of us. They use years in product names for marketing purposes and that leads to pushing out bugfix releases named as major versions.
Free programs on the other hand can use this convention responsibly.
Giving a new name to each major release is ok as long as it's accompanied by a version number. I can imagine a newbie wondering if he should get slink or potato. If you go to debian dists site you'll see 2 directories for slink and potato and also 2 links to them called current and unstable. It's entirely possible and sensible to combine this approach with year versioning.
I think year versioning is bad for companies but good for Free projects cause a company will *have* to release new version when new year begins, and this would suck. MS can pull this off cause they're a damm monopoly, and they don't have to worry about 'corel windows 2000' coming out ahead of their own. As for free projects, they can have no-bull versioning if they want.
But it won't happen cause the first Free project to have year versioning will be dubbed MS wannabe. Sigh. Thank you Microsoft.
-- ATTENTION: do not read this sig. It doesn't say much.
1. If there are more than one release during the year, name it after the month: Windows 95.5; Windows 95.11.
2. No release unless there's alot of new functionality present. Bugfix does not deserve a new year version number.
Microsoft messed up this convention for all of us. They use years in product names for marketing purposes and that leads to pushing out bugfix releases named as major versions.
Free programs on the other hand can use this convention responsibly.
Giving a new name to each major release is ok as long as it's accompanied by a version number. I can imagine a newbie wondering if he should get slink or potato. If you go to debian dists site you'll see 2 directories for slink and potato and also 2 links to them called current and unstable. It's entirely possible and sensible to combine this approach with year versioning.
I think year versioning is bad for companies but good for Free projects cause a company will *have* to release new version when new year begins, and this would suck. MS can pull this off cause they're a damm monopoly, and they don't have to worry about 'corel windows 2000' coming out ahead of their own. As for free projects, they can have no-bull versioning if they want.
But it won't happen cause the first Free project to have year versioning will be dubbed MS wannabe. Sigh. Thank you Microsoft.
-- ATTENTION: do not read this sig. It doesn't say much.
M&M Mars will sue anyone using the roman numeral equivalent for 2000. So much for my idea of year 2000 button sized chocolate candies...
I'm really pushing for Windows double-ought, just like hillbillies would say.
So what happens after Solaris 9?? what the next version.
It seems to me that the importance of version numbers is simply to distinguish between versions. Any and all information that they carry should be documented as appropriate for those concerned. It is this meta-data that can ultimately be related back to a single version. I would see very little benefit in encoding any information into a versioning scheme, simply because there is so much information possible to put into it -- not much is relevant by itself. So long as the developers can manage changes, engineers and users can install correct versions, and marketing people can invent new product names and numbers, it simply works.
Solaris minor versions are dates -- "Solaris 2.6 11/15/99" and the like. Confusing at first; you have to read a little more carefully before knowing that the "2.6" disk you've got is *really* the latest 2.6.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
public class Roman
{
static final cha[] NUMERALS = { 'I', 'V', 'X', 'L', 'C', 'D', 'M' };
static final int[] TENPOWERS = { 1, 10, 100, 1000 };
public static String arabicToRoman(int i)
{
String s = "";
for (int x=TENPOWERS.length-1;x>=0;x--)
if (i/TENPOWERS[x]!=0) {
s+=constructNumerals(i/TENPOWERS[x], x);
i%=TENPOWERS[x];
}
return s;
}
static String constructNumerals(int n, int p)
{
String s = "";
int x = p
switch (n) {
case 1:
case 2:
case 3:
for (int c=1;c break;
case 4:
s += NUMERALS[x];
s += NUMERALS[x+1];
break;
case 5:
case 6:
case 7:
case 8:
s += NUMERALS[x+1];
for (int c=5;c break;
case 9:
s += NUMERALS[x];
s += NUMERALS[x+2];
}
return s;
}
}
Woop!
Man, that looks like shit. Please fix your formatting.
Versioning should achieve these goals:
a)resolving backward compatibility issues
b)resolving subsystem changes
c)a way to determine different custom builds
d) a way to safely replace buggy programs with improved versions with bug fixes
A way to do this is to use a convention of versioning: a.b.c.d where:
a represents the program's main functionality
b represents the programs subsystems
c represents customized builds
d represents minor bugfixes.
We would follow these conventions:
if the programs main functionality is _not_ backward compatible then we increment a.
if a subsystem is changed such that it is _not_ backward compatible then we increment b.
if a custom build is created we increment c.
if bugfixes are applied we increment d.
This way we know a program with version 1.2.3.4 can be used to replaced a program with version 1.2.3.3 without breaking 'formal' functionality, since we know 1.2.3.4 has bug fixes applied and functionality is backward compatible. We also know that if we replace a program with version 1.2.3.4 with 1.2.2.4 we risk inconsistent behavior because each program is considered a separate custom build. We also know that version 2.0.0.1 will definitely not be backward compatible with any of the 1.x.0.x version programs since the version jump shows that main functionality has been radically changed.
I use this versioning convention and it seems to work OK. It helps me use custom builds, reuse subsytems, and overall keep code that still work and bring new programs into the system without 'breaking' the system.Too many Foo's and Bar's... The corrected text:
Why exactly do we need to cater for all the newbies out there?
Because they are more newbies out there than there are non-newbies, and there's more money to be made and more market share to be gained by catering to them.
And all to make the newbies feel at home?
Yes. What do car places advertise to sell? They tell you about their "no-pressure deal" and easy to use price information sheets. Of course, they advertise other stuff, but ease of use (and even ease of identification) is very important.
In general, I tend to agree that year-based versioning is inspecific and inappropriate, but there is another problem with the accepted versioning practices.
I may use Foo all the time, I may know exactly how Foo's versioning system works, but suddenly Foo tells me I need a newer version of Bar, a mysterious and complicated application I've never used outside of Foo. I stumble across a link and see Bar version 5.7.18, download and use it. Little do I know, but Bar version 5.7.18 has a critical bug that was fixed in version 7.8.3. If it had been Bar '95 and 2000 instead, I would have known instantly that Bar '95 is out of date and went searching for a newer version.
Complicated, yeah, but the moral is this: we don't all spend our days memorizing the versioning scheme of every application we use, and even if we did, it doesn't help much without a reference to what's new. The year-based system goes _a bit_ further by providing that reference automatically (the current date).
Low-tech buggy American software caused major concerns for the nuclear controlsystems. The U.S. nuclear controlsystems are capable of nuking the East again, including Russia, so everything had to be handled with caution. The U.S. government had problems with their systems during Y2K. Luckily, all this was greatly compensated by superior Chinese (e.g. Taiwanese designed, ShenZhen and Beijing built) hardware. The Pentagon uses tons of these parallel x86 machines, which are all Y2K compliant, except for the software which change to January the 1st 00. Not only U.S. software-giant Microsoft is responsible for the trouble, but also the programmers who failed to program 2000.
21264 is a type of DEC Alpha processor, my friend.
"Perspective is lost in the spirit of the chase." -[I have no clue who said this]
Version numbering used to be simple and sensible, but lately -- in the Windows world, at least -- it has become incomprehensible. It used to be that you'd have the major-point-minor version. Since some minor versions amounted to tweaks and bugfixes, they would increment the version by 0.01.
Now observe what has happened with Microsoft products. Microsoft started using years instead of version numbers in its product names, but did so inconsistently. Instead of Windows 96, it was Windows 95 OSR 2. Instead of Windows 99, it was Windows 98 Second Edition. But it gets worse...
Windows NT 4.0 has undergone some very significant updates that certainly merit at least new minor version numbers. A lot of NT software won't even run without these enhancements and bug fixes. But instead of calling it Windows NT 4.3 or at least 4.06, we have Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 6.
Internet Explorer versions are the most baffling. Various schemes are mixed and matched, so we end up with things like IE 4.01 SP2, which is slightly different than the other IE 4.01 SP2 that was released before. And the version number embedded in the software is some crazy dotted quad beginning with 4.72! (I probably erred a bit on the exact version and service pack numbers in the preceding example, but I am not making this up!) The latest nonbeta IE is 5.01, but when I check its version number, it says 5.00.2919.6307! Why not 5.01?!
I suspect that this confusion may ultimately be part of a long-term plan of intentional deception. From Microsoft's point of view (as I see it), users should be kept out of system internals. In fact, operations should be so transparent that one will not and should not know whether something is coming from the local hard drive or from an Internet connection to Redmond. Both good and evil updates will be quietly slipstreamed through users' always-on broadband connections.
Already, Microsoft Outlook hides the email addresses of email and newsgroup messages, showing only names like "John Q. Random". Though it is possible to find the return address via a troublesome multistep process, I have found no way to disable this misfeature in any of the option dialogs. Sure, these are just small annoyances. The end result is that users will have even less of a clue how the systems their livelihoods depend on works. Although I'm for intuitive interfaces and ease-of-use, I deplore the dumbing down of people.
I think the future holds some corrections. Namely, the use of codenames or other product names in place of major version numbers. It seems that at this rate, the world may see Microsoft Windows 2003 Professional OEM Service Release 2.0 Service Pack 3. But I think it will probably be more like Microsoft Windows Neptune Server, and if you want to scrounge around in DLLs, you can find out each component's version number.
Sounds like date coding for food products. So if windows gets a "little stale" people can just throw it out and get a "fresh" version. Or to borrow a phrase "eat it up" :).
So with the 2000 in Windows 2000, is Monoposoft trying to trick home users with Win98 into buying their "corpo-rat" OS or are they admitting that it really isn't much better than their consumer OS?
Dropping the "NT" seems to at least finally admit it isn't "New Technology". Should have been ST all along (Stolen Tech).
http://www.kmfms.com/
Digital Wokan, Tribal mage of the electronics age
2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004...
Year numbering rules for big software like Windows.
Should cars be numbered Toyota Corolla 15, 16, 17, etc????
While working as a developer for a company in Australia, we found that users of our Insurance software were comparing versions when they met (the Insurance industry is rather incestuous and many used our software). We wound up getting users stating that "They're on version 9.121 while we're still on 9.049 - we want an upgrade!" despite the fact that they had no idea what had changed between the versions (usually small customisations for new/changing clients, etc).
To get around this, we started to use a main version plus two letters (eg: 12 AS, 12 TC, 12 BS, etc). The letters were not allocated in any order but were different in each version. This let support staff ask clients their version to check for known issues but dramatically reduced the number of "I'm using obsolete software" calls.
Of course, we had chart to show which versions were assigned to the various letters and there was also a command line call to get the full version.
A side effect of all this was that people started to "name" the versions (eg: 12 AS was known as the "Arnold Schwarzenger" version, etc). As a new version was released, we'd go through the two letter combinations still available and figure out names to use. Sad but true...
I left my body to science, but I'm afraid they've turned it down...
I work for an equipment company that has a software department consisting of one person (me), that writes reporting software for our instruments. Our version numbers are strictly market-dictated. A typical statement is, "People don't trust version X.0... make it X.01." This drove me crazy for a while, just because it offended the part of my brain that likes order.
Nowadays I slip a build number into the versioning so it at least makes some sense to me. (e.g. Our current version is 3.02(1007))
Software versioning based on the year has been around a long time.
:)
Fortran 77, anyone?
-- BlueCalx | http://nickd.org/
Whatever happened to Battle Chess?
s/[BW]ill(y|iam)?( H\.?)?( G(ate|8)(s|z))?(,? ?v?(III|3)(\.\D)?)?/Girly-man/gi
Windows 19100 i say!
Of course the main reason Microsoft wants to give year-based versions it to quicken planned obsolescence. It doesn't take a lot of insight to figure that out. One of the reasons I hope that Intel moves to year-based naming is for the same reason. The Pentium was originally released in 1994, and if it was sold as Pentium 1994 it would seem very obsolete today (even though a fair number of people still run the original Pentium's). However, Intel also has the megahertz label which is fairly good substitute.
But, anyways, anything which helps sell new software is GOOD! Most Slashdot readers are professional software developers and/or own stock in software companies. Building the tool is only half of the job. You still have to find a way to sell it. Even if you are a Linux user, you certainly don't want people to be running some ancient version of Linux, you want them to try the latest and greatest. What better way than year-based version?
Just think of the possibilities:
Windows 2001 - an OS driven insane by it's bugs...
ObTagLine: The more you run over the 'possum, the flatter it gets.
And Microsoft may be moving away from numbering to codenames too. I believe the next version of consumer windows is called "Millenium" (isn't everything these days)
Lach
/* NO COMMENT */
I'm watching the Larry King Live interview with Bill Gates and he mentioned the version of Windows following Windows 2000 would be Windows 2001. (9:56Pm EST)
Simple!! Office 2000 will become Office 2000 version 2, yadda yadda yadda
Peace
Bullfrog
the ONLY pieces of software that should use the date-as-version system are 'time' and 'date' (im not a coward, im just lazy) nastard@SPAM-THIS.home.com
Okay, a few things to get started: in the future, the OS will be largely irrelevant to everyday use. All programs will be accessed through some kind of web browser from multiple remote servers. The operating system will not matter because everything will be run through the browser (or, to look at it from a different way, the browser will become the GUI, and as long as it at least looks and feels the same across platforms, it will not matter which platform it is on -- which is the same to say that no one will be willing to pay excessive fees for an OS).
Granted, OS upgrades will continue. But thanks to free global efforts, new updates will be available on a daily basis. Thus, you may be running "Windows" as the OS -- or "linux" or "BSD" or "MacOS" -- but they will all be essentially the same thing. And with the rapid pace of updating, the version number will actually be the release date: Windows June 8, 2012. For a small fee ($36/year?), you get daily subscriptions to the OS updates. Instantly recognizable if you're running the latest version... check today's date!
Of course, this is assuming a certain company's so-called updates don't muck up the system instead...
"I came here to kick ass and chew bubblegum. I'm all out of bubblegum." MSE USC APX AIA CSI CASp
Since Windows seems to be setting the example here's how MS handled it. When you look in System Properties A Letter is Appended to the Build. Win95 with SP1 is A, OSR2 is B, Osr2.5 is C. So if Foo came out in the spring of 2000 That would be Foo 2000. A second release in the summer would be Foo 2000A. Then you wouldn't have a problem unless you released more than 27 times in a year.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
Last year's version number just makes software seem more obsolete faster. Who wants to hold on to an OS with a chintzy title like "Windows 2000", in 2001? Soon we'll see 2003.2, and after February it's outdated.
It's planned obsolescence.
Work together for the Common Geek Good:
Check out Project Upper/Mute, an all-around awesome compiler fra
"...In the real non-hyped world it seems any version number over 5 or 6 implies it's about time to switch to a new product or start over from scratch. There are countless examples..." Windows NT 5 -> Linux 3.0
Let me just boot MacOS X vII.V.IX. Then I'll start MS Office MM revIV.XXIII.
Good thing my CPU is CDXL MHz!
Work together for the Common Geek Good:
Check out Project Upper/Mute, an all-around awesome compiler fra
Year Versioning is absolute genius marketing. If we associate a certain year with a software product, it is easier for us to think of it as old within a year. For example, think of a hypothetical software program released in 96 called BlahBlah Version 5.3. Now think of the same program as BlahBlah 96. 96 is ancient by today's standards. If BlahBlah 5.8 comes out, we're less likely to spend our jack for the upgrade than if it's BlahBlah 99. Thus, hearing "96" causes us to say "damn, that's old", but 5.3 is very much "mmmm, okay". If we think of software as old, it's easier for us to think that we need to upgrade. I have no reason to move my Winblows partition from 95 to 98 or 98 millenium or whatever (partially because I don't use it at all) because I don't need the functionality. But looking just at the name "95" vs. "98", I desperately need this new upgrade.
Do it in hexadecimal double-precision floating-point, make'em cry. v0x0 001 100000000000 == v3.0 .
Work together for the Common Geek Good:
Check out Project Upper/Mute, an all-around awesome compiler fra
Woops! I was thinking binary! That's
v0x0 001 800000000000 == v3.0,
v0x0 001 C00000000000 == v3.5.
Work together for the Common Geek Good:
Check out Project Upper/Mute, an all-around awesome compiler fra
I think this would be a good version number... think that there would be trademark problems?
Note that wherever years are being used as version numbers, for purist arbitrary version people there is always an actual product version as well:
Windows 95: 4.00.950
Windows 95A: 4.00.950a
Windows 95 OSR2: 4.00.1111
Windows 98: 4.10.1998
Windows 98 SE: 4.10.2222
Windows 2000: 5.00.2195
Here are your arbitrary version numbers. Don't complain about them not being there.
Whatever, billy-buttkisser
So we'll be talking about Millenium bugs for a while yet.
Also called Win95B it was released in 97 and was first to support USB. OSR 2.5 or Win95C was almost the same as 2.1 but with the addition of IE 4.0.
I have the install disks for MS-DOS 4.0 on 5.25" floppies no less!
Initally year versions do seem to addess problems such as compatability.. Office 2000 for Windows 2000... but it's not a real solution...
Part of the issue is just wanting to inflate version numbers... Office 2000 is for Windows 98 not Win 2k... wops... Ohh it gets worse...
So Win 2k works on all 2k machines right? Of course... so I'll just Install Win 2k on my Amiga 2k.... or not.... [Amiga 2k is like the second or third Amiga...]
Of course There is that L2k soap.. thats Win2K compatable right? I'm gona go sink my Amiga 2k in water to clean it up with L2K before I install Win2k.
It dose address version number inflation..
However Windows 95 dose not represent one version of Windows.. Every upgrade or update of 95 is also Windows 95. So when doing tech support the tech may be giving directions for Windows 95 [4.0] while the user is using Windows 95 OEM... It's still Windows 95.. right???
The problem is one version has problems the next update dose not and newer versions have features older versions do not.... if there is no way to tell how updates the os is then your fighting an uphill battle when it comes to tech support becouse 95 and 95 and 95 become 3 diffrent systems with 3 diffrent behavures and do 3 diffrent things.
Also that in no way stops people from doing year version number inflation... I have in my office right now a Gateway 2000 4DX2-66.. a 486... My first guess is it won't run Win2k very well... It's accually in the "scrap" pile.. [I get to see if it still works and can still be used] it probably got there by failing a Y2K cert...
Companys and people who year version will just continue to do so.. car companys have making model year cars for a long time and thats fine for Ford and Microsoft but like Linux who updates allmost all the time might need an year,month,day,hour,min.second,nanosecond,fork version
Also Microsoft dosn't have much of a way to tell alphas and betas from final products... other than stampping ALPHA or BETA it's pritty much still Win2K... But thats ok becouse you can tell a Micosoft beta from an offical version by just by the fact that you get the offical version from the store shelf or pacaged with your computer but to get a beta you have to be a beta tester and have Beta stamped on your CD and all the beta documentation is a pritty big clue too.
But with Linux the beta and offical versions are side by side on the FTP server.. so x.even.x is stable and x.odd.x is unstable.
Yes each product has it's own versionning system and each presents a unqiue problem.. but thats life...
Linux 2k? Windos NT 5? MacOs ZenDax Ohh yeah word name versionning... like Pentium.. Xeon.. MsWindows Duvodec... Yes I'm playing games on Duvodec... no I'm playing games on Linix dronabinol...
I don't actually exist.
Naming a product with a year in the title is NOT versioning. I'm quite sure people at Microsoft, or anywhere else, aren't version controlling using year numbers. The technical version number for Windows 95 original is 4.00.950, add service pack 1 and it is 4.00.950a. OSR2 is 4.00.950b (I believe). This makes sense because before Windows 95 there was Windows 3.1 (or 3.11 or Windows for Workgroups). The /title/ of a product doesn't have to have an accurate version number in it. Take for example Hurricane Red Hat, or Slink Debian, or Krash KDE, or October GNOME. These are just mnemonics that people can easily associate with a major release of the product. For the unwashed masses, using a year number makes it easier and gives context. It is not apparent just from the technical version number, the time difference between Linux 2.2 and 2.3.
If Microsoft wants to call it's products by year let it. At least it's not calling it's products Krash. (Yeah, I'd like Windows Krash with that. Oh, a gratis copy has been installed? Thanks!)
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Actually there are only 9x versions of Windows that are from years, 95 and 98. The next version of Windows is called Windows Millennium, and the next one is Windows Neptune (or at least code-named). And of course there is only one version of NT that is named after a year..2000.
Anyone here remembers Clipper Summer '87? It's a nice alternative on versioning... I like it, but after all these years it *really* sounds dated. Some people said "Windows 95" sounds dated, but "Clipper Summer '87" recalls me more of the year 1987 than "Windows 95" recalls me of 1995... Still, I like using seasons, sounds a bit nostalgic...
NT5 = Windows 2000
NT6 = Windows 2000's successor
NT7 = NT6 for Intel's 64-bit Merced (er, "Itanium") processor
----------
"They misunderestimated me." --George W Bush, Nov. 6, 2000
Check this URL out for Java; I dare someone to make easy sense out of this, especially to suits.
http://java.sun.com/products/jdk/1.2/java2.html
Yikes! Makes my head spin.
Paradiorthotician sounds too much like a Microsoftism.
Microsoft's next "killer OS" is code named Neptune. Right now its unknown whether it is just a code name or the actual product name. However I don't see it being such a bad idea to start clean with Microsoft Neptune 1.0
FeH!
yeah
20th century Fox has gone by Fox Films or Fox TV for maybe a year or two now.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
koff oder kopf?
what repetitive annoying shitty boring useless basless advertisements abound 3$?$%%^?%^?%?&^%?&^?&^
Probably dumbkopf.
Mein Deusch ist nicht. (Or something like that.)
Basically, I have a five word German vocabulary. Ya, Neine, Bitte, Prost.
MM is Marylin Monroe.
60 years is a little to much, but 60 day terms aren't out of the question. :) I'm not talking a bout free and unfettered use of the application( programers are people too) but what I am talking about is companies putting there CVS where their mouth is.
More to the point, the idea of reading a review, and going down to the store to buy it out of the box just doesn't appeal to many admins these days.
_________________________
Futurama has "30th century Fox" after the credits...
Even First Posts can be redundant.
Null content is redundant after nothing. Or something like that. Redundancy carries the sense of superfluous, too many words for too little content. It's like trying to hit the side of a barn wall at 20 paces with a shotgun. And missing.
If I say something first, but badly, and someone else comes along and says it better, then it is fair to mark my first comment as redundant. Best I can tell, the moderation is working fine.
I don't think so much the version number is the problem as what exactly is the content change of the new version. Thats what people are after. If the new version is somehow going to improve their computing experience then it is worth it and people will upgrade and/or buy it. Forget about the marketing aspect, thats what it is simply marketing. A new version of linux could be named "winux" for marketing purpose but might simply be version 7. No one cares about the version number just us techies.
My point is, is that quality and content is number #1. Take us for example, we offer domain name registration for $55. Its simple, to the point and what everyone wants... cheaper prices. No one could care less if we use a version 4 or version 5 template in our registration process. Version number is mostly transparent to the end user in most cases, as it should be.
Thats my two cents on the subject.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions,LL
"yourname.com for $55
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
www.haidacarver.com
C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\COMMAND.COM
MS DOS Version 5.00 (C)Copyright 1981-1991 Microsoft Corp Licensed Material - Property of Microsoft All rights reserved
Saying "2001" out loud is cumbersome -- say
"2K1" instead. For example: "Windows 2K1".
After all this inane Y2K hype, everybody knows what 2K means... even my grandma.
How about a worldwide effort to calculat Pi? I'd donate some cycles to that.
I'm going to release 26 versions, starting with 2000a and ending in 2000z. Hopefully I'll have a job and give up writing software by then.
Mustn't forget when WordPerfect went from 5.1 to 6.0, and Microsoft Word went from 2.0 to 6.0...
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
The month/year version numbering scheme was used by the Renegade BBS, I believe. Being able to get a clear idea of versions was more important when you would download your software from your local BBS rather than getting it from a store or centralized distro site, and Renegade releases were numbered "10-05" etc. This started to run into problems in a few places - knowing whether the notation was MM-DD or DD-MM was one problem, and it got even more frustrating after Renegade was around for a few years, because it got hard to tell which year releases were from. Either using MMYY or MMYYYY notation or using a system like the one you suggested would probably be the best way to number software versions.
My copy of windows 98 is Windows version 4.11.1998
For those of you keeping score Microsoft has not even come out with a half version upgrade of windows in FIVE years!
They aren't sitting on their OS trying to extend their market share in other areas or anything. Really! ^_^
I feel I've gotta stick up for the distro I'm currently using. I'm not sure of the differences from the 4.x to the 5.x series (although I do know that most packages for 4.x didn't work on 5.x), but I can say that the change from 5.x to 6.0 was very warrented. In fact, it would have been irresponsible not to change the major version number. See, 5.x was libc5 based, while 6.x is glibc2.x (libc6) based. That means that 5.x packages won't work on (most) RH 6.x systems. That last statement seems acceptable to most people, but saying that packages for 5.0, 5.1, and 5.2 won't work on 5.3 would be infuriating. So they changed the major number.
i can't believe that so many of you
;)
are so busy being ideologues that you
can't see the humour in it..
it's not 7.0 cause volderking was 'irritated'
by emails.. dah... it's a playful middle
finger aimed in the general direction of
redhat (and marketing-versioning by
extension i guess)..
doesn't hurt to smile every once in awhile
So let's guess the next version of Windows. Surely it won't be called 2001 or 2005 because 1 or 5 parts per thousand is simply too small to be of any significant marketing value.
Windows 2000 Turbo Plus Platinum Extra Ultra Orchestra maybe?
> And both run on top of DOS 7.0
Close. Windows 4.0^H^H^H95 and 95a sit on MS-DOS 7.0. 95B/C/D^H98 sit on MS-DOS 7.10. (Like I'm sure there's a significant difference.) Since the MS ver command hides the truth by displaying the GUI name you'll need to fire up a third-party utility like Norton System Info to see for yourself.
That is to HIDE the exact version of a product you are recieving. Ever wondered why people had to sign non-disclosure agreements when ... IE tied to the OS... Oh yeah, HUGE
Windows 95B ( service pack one whatever ) was released? M$ fully well knew from the experience of Winblows 3.0, that by letting people know what
the exact version of their product was inside the
shrink wrap that they would make purchasing decisions based on that knowledge. This meant that if consumer X knew that Win 4.0.1011 was out and they were being offered Win 4.0.95, they would choose the former because they know that the later product would have more bugfixes and ( you would expect ) be more stable. However, this bears unfavourably with sales figures by devaluing stock
on shelves. So to protect the price of their outdated software, M$ hides the exact version number so that the consumer has no idea of exactly what they are buying. This can also work in a second direction as well. When M$ have made their expected ammount out of their product, they can have a 'major release' by bumping the 'apparent' version, even though the differences between the new product and the old are small and trivial.
(Lets see Win 95 - V 4.0.95 ~ V 4.0.2xxx . Win 98
V 4.1.XXXX ? See the big difference here? Oh yeah
thats right
difference - NOT ). Again, the bogus version number can be used to pressure consumers into being rolled over even though there is no significant advantage in the new product. In the case of Win 98, it was to start the ball rolling on Billies evil plans for 'one world, one web, one program', that is to start foisting IE4 ( and subsequently IE5 ) onto the user base to build up numbers of IE users
( a tactic that hopefully will come around and bite M$ in the ass this year - GO DOJ!!).
In a sane world, this is called FRAUD. In the software world it is called *marketing*.
However, in the end, dont be fooled by the aesthetics of their so called version numbers. They are there to hide the one thing that hurts M$ the most. THE TRUTH.
Windows 95. Windows 98. Windows Millenium.
Windows 2000.
See a pattern? My theory? Microsoft is trying to get away from version numbers (windows 3.1 and windows nt 4.. etc), and moving to years as a way of advertising. Really, when people back to 95, people will remember windows 95. Even though people haven't used it yet, windows millennium (really windows 98 millennium edition) will probably be reffered to as windows millennium, and be remembered when people mention the millennium. A marketing ploy. Who will remember windows 4? Windows 5? Haha, no.
Fsck you, Microsoft and your army of workers. Redmond, reply to this flaimbait if you dare =P.
(Not to mention the lawsuits for mentioning your company's name)
Intel marketing types figured they could name the releases (until they went back to Roman Numerals.)
The Linux system of versioning is just about as bad as it gets... What were they thinking?
"HTML 5" was the name for the version of HTML that would reformulate it in XML. They later decided to name it "XHTML 1.0"... In either case, it's the successor to HTML 4.01 and will replace it as the current version RSN.
At the time, Cott Lang wrote Renegade, we were both in the same city, going to the same school (Georgia Tech), so I got a close-up view of its versions. It started out with versions like "1.0d" and "1.0e", then went to versions like "0.19825" or something like that. Then it switched to MM/DD which worked great for about a year, then there started being multiple releases with the same version (as I recall, there were two 12/25 releases).
The first few releases were "Alpha" but since these were minor changes from Telegard, it was quite stable. When it went to "Beta", the changes became more ambitious, so it became more unstable in the Beta releases. It proceeded to stay in Beta longer than Mozilla has been pre-Alpha.
In short, it doesn't work well, and neither does any other version system.
even if it's "just a bug fix version", you still can't safely replace one version with another in the field. Remember the msvcrt.dll update a while back that broke numerous non-Microsoft programs by aggressively validating input parameters?
Repeat after me: "Every application must include versions of the libraries with which it has been tested in order to work reliably." In the case of source distributions, that means specifying what versions of the OS and libraries you've tested it with. It's often said that a program that hasn't been tested doesn't work. That implies that a program that hasn't been tested with exactly the libraries you have on your system doesn't work on your system.
This is the solution for Microsoft :-) :-D
Then they can even say, "now it's finally stable!"
NT first came out in 3.1, not 3.51 - in fact, 3.51 was the last really stable version of NT, and even managed to run SQL Server (slowly) on a 16MB 486/33 machine. I don't recall any 3.51 crashes at all.
After 3.51 is when decisions were made to improve performance at the expense of stability, e.g. moving the GDI stuff into the kernel.
i don't particularly know if windows will stick with years anymore.
after all, we now have stuff like windows-millenium and
winCE / "windows powered"
i for one suspect they'll name it something
like "windows2" and pitch it as sort of a
'sequel' to all the older windows versions.
or perhaps they'll follow their "intel inside"
marketing ploy and simply go with the "windows
powered" theme all across the board.
but as for browsers it does raise an interesting
point...mozilla brought netscape's numbers down,
but ie has jumped almost to version 6 in under 5
years, meaning that by the time i'm 43 in 2020
my kids might be trying out internetexplorer-29?
perhaps not the easiest way, but certainly a good
marketing move
might be for companies to pick naming conventions
for products similar to servers.
windows red, windows blue (*smirk*)
,or jtk-lightroast, jtk-darkroast, etc.
hey, considering the car metaphor gets thrown
around here so often, it's so ridiculous it just
might work.
then again, microsoft seems to like
appending "explorer" to everything,
so perhaps we'll see stuff like
"windows explorer explorer 01 explorer" by next year.
_________________________________________________
Everyone knows that the current version of NT is 4.6.1 (or 4.6.). But type in ver and you get . Go to "My Computer"/"Properties" and it gives you the more detailed but equally inaccurate which is the build of the first production release of NT4.
No, to find the service pack number you have to fire up Task Manager, File Manager or any one of a dozen other apps and go to "Help"/"About". It still thinks it's build 1381.
As far as I am aware, the only way to find the build number is to reboot and watch the text on the blue screen.
--
E_NOSIG
I was using IE4.0 back in the old days of Windows 95. Well, actually, they just gave the version number of Windows (around 4.0.whatever) to the IE that came with it. Kind of foreshadowing with their whole integration thing I guess.
if(!toilet_paper) roll.replace(new roll);
Not sure what PCMICA stands for, but PCMCIA stands for Personal Computer Memory Card International Association .
Or, if you prefer: People Can't Memorize Computer Industry Acronyms.
begin 644
Hopefully they will fall off the face of the earth. -Drows(John) http://stur.dhs.org Project[STUR] "Why?!"
Life is like a pair of boxers, you always have to hang loose.
FYI Windows 2000 is NOT the next version of Windows 98, it is the new name for Windows NT 5, replacement for NT 4. (Which of course makes it even more confusing.) Windows Millenium will be the next, and (hopefully) last version of the Dos/Windows/Windows 95 tree.
.thank.you.for.choosing.ms
Solves the sub versioning problem.
Ryan
Es heisst Dummkopf
And yes means "Ja", no means "Nein" and the other ones are correct.
Alexander Skwar -- Homepage: http://www.digitalprojects.com | http://www.iso-top.de iso-top.de - Die
You're right of course. Take DNS zones for example.. it is much easier and more logical to make the serial number "1999123101" to mean "12/31/1999, revision 1 of the day". I use this scheme for everything now rather than MMDDYY which is of course, NOT Y2K COMPLIANT!
heh "Windows 2001, a Bug Odyssey"
I can just imagine taking my 2.2.14 version car into a service station. "Sorry bub. We don't have 2.2.14 parts.. we do have 2.1.14 and 2.2.16 versions of that part.. but we'd have to replace these 15 other things for you to use the newer version spark plug. Sorry."
After naming windows 2000, can M$ just place a dot after 2 making it Win 2.000 then develop to 2.001,
2.100, 2.101, 3.000. And after some time we are back at Windows 3.1 what it actually is!
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
Actually, there WAS an NT 3.1 -- :)
"Windows NT Workstation 3.1" and "Windows NT Advanced Server 3.1"; both of which most people (and MS) would like to forget.
This was quickly replaced by "Windows NT Workstation 3.5" and "Windows NT Advanced Server 3.5", which were again fairly quickly replaced with "Windows NT Workstation 3.51" and "Windows NT Server 3.51"
(Notice that the "Advanced" on the server was dropped here -- Did they realize how badly *NIX folk were making fun of them?
In either event, it takes many attempts to search MS's site for any evidence either of these ever existed; They were very good at this for a while, I recall three days after IE4 came out I was trying to search their support site for info on a glitch under IE3.01, and there was NO TRACE OF IE 3 AS HAVING EVER EXISTED. They seem to be better about that now, as it is still possible to find support for Win95 and IE4, but I always found it amusing the think about a group of "version Nazis" running throughout the MS organization, slashing and burning any evidence of previous releases...
...Come to think of it, wasn't that their defense in the DR DOS case?!
Dates that are part of release numbers have been a convention for a long time in many areas. 2000102.02 connotes the second relase (or build) from the second of January, 2000. This dosen't make marketing people too happy because it dosen't look cool, but it is more clear than just using 2000.
I really had thought that we learned how bad an idea it is to tie versioning to years when Adobe changed Illustrator 88 to sequential versioning. When Microsoft decided to use 95, I thought it was more of a challenge than a usable scheme. It seemed more like they were determined to release the product, ready or not, in 1995 because they had slipped so often. Considering the missed releases of NT 5, ... well ... ready or not, here it comes.
I work at a help desk and anytime someone calls with a problem they are never able to tell me what versions of programs they are running. I once had someone tell me they were running Windows 7.0. After several questions trying to figure out where they got that version number, they finally read me the title of a book that they had - 'Wordperfect for Windows Version 7.0. Several attempts at trying to explain that one to them failed.
----------------
I don't see how you could call Win98 4.1. It is consideraly different then 95. It is more stable, handles much more hardware, and just is basically a better OS. Incorporating IE4 (or IE5 for 2nd edition) did make a big differene in the OS also. Granted, I would not call 98 it a major release. But give it a little more credit then that.. 4.5 or more I'd say.
Switching to Linux can be an adventure!
we should institute a street-fighter style of naming convention....
;P
imagine the press releases...
RedHat today announced the release of the next version of their linux operating system, RedHat Linux 7.3 Alpha Turbo Hyper-Fighting Championship Edition 2, Revenge of the Bride of M. Bison...
at the very least it'd be more fun than just numerics
-dk
-dk
Dream with the feathers of angels stuffed beneath your head.
I have already computed pi to the very last digit!
The catch is that I've only done it in binary, not decimal. And the last bit of pi is .... *drumroll* ... 1. I have even double-checked my result. You see, if the last bit of pi were 0, you would be able to leave it off.
The downside is that since the computation actually did finish, I was not able to get Jack The Ripper out of my computer.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
"Open the spreadsheet file, computer."
"I'm afraid I can't do that, user."
Yeah, but Futurama is set in the late 2990s and early 3000s. It may simply be a joke; I haven't seen 30th Century Fox anywhere else. This is the show that's displayed "From the makers of Futurama" and "Based on a true story" at the beginning.
-- "Of course the meek shall inherit the earth. They're welcome to it. As for the rest of us - Pavonis Mons, here we c
first gen alpha with a 2 bit kludge for even larger memory support. remember 18-bit memory addresses?
Seems like the only way we can remove the bullshit is to set an industry standardfor software version numbers. Why not just call releases by their date in the easy-perl-parse method of
yyyymmdd - eg 20000102 for today?
It would need to be a system that even the marketing people understand, so 2.6.4 would be out. Thoughts???
-- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
Before you get too enthused about the donation:
What was the production cost of the software to Microsoft? I'm looking at marginal, not fixed costs of production here. A few seats of NTWS, an NTSV or two, BackOffice and Office -- that would pretty much fill it out, wouldn't it?
What was the likelihood of the MDBC-SL (or however you acronymize yourselves) purchasing the software had it not been contributed to them -- or better yet, selecting a free software alternative?
And we call this a charitable donation?
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
The Debian release names come from characters in the movie Toy Story. A bunch of Pixarians in the dev group, methinks. Does this mean that development stops if the series ends?
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
Releasing nightly builds, aside from the full disclosure aspects mentioned by others, are for outside developers who need to follow the current development branch. This goes a long way to producing your non-crashing quality product.
This is a bit like a cafeteria -- just because the food is offered doesn't mean you have to sample from every dish, every day.
If you don't want the nightly build, grab the latest stable release and be happy with it.
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
Yes, this means there actually were 218 versions! Actually, my rationale was this... for every burned ROM that left the development lab for testing - even if just in-house testing - I incremented by 0.01.
In practice, this meant that versions that actually went out to users incremented at somewhere between 0.02 and 0.1, depending on the number of bugs fixed or new features.
It worked quite well for us...
Had products called "blah blah 2000", went to 2100, then 3000 etc.. Many products do it that way. Chess 2000 is now 4200 or something like that.
*Laughed my ass off on the IE thing! *
It seems clear to me that the easiest way to version software is to use the year followed by month/day. Eg, Windows 2000.4.20 or 2000.0420 would be a revision of Windows 2000 released on April 20th. If major software releases used this simple, straight forwards scheme, everyone would know exactly what versions they were talking about, and would know instantly when it was released.
For example: I write program XYZ on Jan 1, 2000. My last version was "1.1". Now, my next version becomes "1.2.01-01-2000"
This scheme has the advantage of allowing for very rapid developments. If I stay up all night and code a few bugfixes or implement a vew features, I can title my new XYZ "1.2.01-02-2000" People know I didn't change a lot (otherwise it would be 1.3.01-02-2000) and exactly when it appear.
I think synthesis is better than either of the original options.
You can't get a blue screen on a black and white monitor.
You can't get a blue screen on a black and white monitor.
They all happen as coincident: Windows is 95% completed in 1995. And then 98% completed in 1998. At around 2000, it's 2000%, i.e. 20 times, completed. In effect, you may (can?) use only 1/20th of Windows and 19/20th of Windows are either bugs or useless features.
Most people know nothing about their cars. When asked what kind of car they drive, the reply using the standard model year syntax: "A 98 Civic." That's kind of boring. How great would it be if every highschool kid could tell you in detail what kind of car his ricerocket really is? "I drive a Civic, it has a 6-cylinder 16-valve SOHC VTEC engine that produces 127 hp and 107 lbs of torque per foot and has a multi point fuel injection system." Well, okay, it's still just a Civic but at least we get to hear the details and the owner (or owner's son, as the case may be) doesn't sound like a complete moron. So why doesn't Honda call their new Civic the "v6-127" or something else that actually describes it's features? Likewise, I think Windows 2000 should be called something like MoreStableKernelLikeNT Windows. If the public is too dumb for version numbers, they should at least be able to handle names that have something to do with the product itself.
Real Name - Code Name
Windows 1.0 - (No code name to my knowledge)
Windows 2.0 - Windows/286
Windows 2.x - Windows/386 (don't remember the exact version number)
Windows 3.0 - (No code name to my knowledge)
Windows 3.1 - (No code name to my knowledge)
Windows 4.0 - Windows 95
Windows 4.1 - Windows 98
Windows 5.0 - Windows 2000
See Micros~1 can't decide up on 1 naming method, it went from number to pentium names, then back to number then to years.
For one thing, I do not agree with the higher version numbers (ie, windows 2000, etc) but you must credit these companies for their marketing techniques, higher version numbers bring in more customers who are not very technically oriented. Personally I think they should stick by the "major/minor/patchlevel" versioning as it gives a much better view of how far along the product is in development, but thats just my opinion.
actually red hat 5.2 was glibc-2.0 based, whereas
6.x is glibc-2.1 based... dunno about 5.0 or 5.1
and at least one package (dhcpcd to be specific) from red hat 6.0 worked fine on my old 5.2 system (it was kind of an emergency...)
(anonymous but not a coward)
lurch@geocities.com
to email me, enter my username in igpay atinlay
Actually there is a major difference between 7.0 and 7.1 DOS. 7.1 supports Fat32 and has an enhanced fdisk. and BTW, 7.1 DOS also comes with Win95B or Win95OEM, whichever you prefer to call it.
Aren't people in the future going to wonder how we jumped from windows 3 to windows 95 to windows 98 to windows 2000, and everytime the number got immensely larger, and everytime the OS got more buggy?
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
I say "forty-eight times"... but most people I work with say "forty-eight speed"...
How about xx.yy where xx is the year, and yy is the minor revision.
98.0 for the first release of windows 98
98.1 for "Second Edition"
Major revisions, as has been pointed out, are usually at least years apart, so the major numbering works, and minor revisions can be numbered like they are with many other programs.
Easier than trying to remember the latest update tag ("SE") decided on by the marketing department, but still retains the obvious (to consumers) year-based advantages.
P.
I think we should go to a versioning system similar to the way that Japan sometimes names their TV shows (and the Chinese name their restaurants).
Super Fun Happy Windows!
Joy Joy Green Linux!
Excellent Excel Dynasty!
Wicked Flaming Death Emacs Wok!
Imperial Yahoo!
-
Anyone else notice that AOL, MSN, and CompuServe -- among others -- match their versions numbers almost immediatly as one releases a new version.
It's a great example of how Joe Q. Sixpack sizes up his software. "Well, AOL has the new FIVE POINT OH out, but I see thissy here MICRO NET WORK only has the FOUR POINT oh. I figger I'll call up thissy AMERICAN ON LINE and see about getting the line on!"
Morons.
I used to think it was a bunch of marketing bullcrap until I installed Solaris 7 and read through its documentation. Sun may have gotten it right on this one.
The reasoning works like this:
Given that Sun is trying to speed up their release cycle, for smaller, quicker changes -- Solaris 8 is available and the Solaris 9 source tree has existed for some time now -- this actually does make sense.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Hey - anyone know if Sir Arthur C. Clarke owns "2001", "2010", etc.? Perhaps people will be forced to skip Office 2001 ...
URL: http://xanga.com/lvirden > Quote: Saving the world before bedtime. Even if explicitly stated to the contrary, n
What do you do when you come out with a killer product in 1995 [or so] and call it SimCiry 2000? Introduce SimCity 3000 in 1999 [or so]! I should expect SC 4000 in a few years, but how that relates to modern urban arcitecture, I've no idea! :)
Be Seeing You,
Jeffrey.
Time Lord, Dark Horse: The Techno Mage of Gallifrey
X happened to be on version 11 when it caught on and became really widespread, so they just started making X Version 11 Release 2, 3, etc., often written as X11 Release N, incorporating the ancient version number "11" into the name of the product. I first used X about 10 years ago and it was already X11 Release some such thing (2, I think, with 3 six months later) and they're still using this number system, and they've had some decimalized minor releases along the way. So the next MS OS a couple years after Windows 2000 could be Windows 2000 version 2.
They have done this somewhat anyway with the service packs for NT and the Windows 98 Second Edition. It's only a small step (for MS anyway) to apply this name to a "new version" as opposed to an upgrade.