Software Version Numbering After 2000? 524
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? "
versioning is overrated (Score:2)
Switch to hexadecimal (Score:4)
Slackware Versions (Score:2)
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."
Naww, we're okay... (Score:2)
2002+ (Score:2)
I prefer ignoring the calendar for version numbers, and eagerly wait for the end of testing and appearance of:
New Name (Score:2)
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.
Re:2002+ (Score:3)
Yeah, I can see it now:
"Open the CD-ROM bay door, BIL."
"I'm sorry, I can't do that Dave."
95, 98, 2000 (Score:2)
Re:Slackware Versions (Score:2)
Windows (Score:2)
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.
Some non-computer companies have this problem too (Score:2)
What will happen to Century 21 (Real Estate) in 101 years?
I'm sure there are other companies with names that have expiration dates...
Version numbers based on years sometimes *good* (Score:2)
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.
Year Versioning Makes Sense (Score:5)
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.
Re:Windows (Score:2)
I could see it creating some major confusion.
But that's okay, I don't know anything but software development houses that are intending to adopt win2k anytime soon anyway.
My thoughts... (Score:3)
Either code names or we can use another industries system... (GT, VR-4, SX, GS, etc.)
Spice it up!
Re:95, 98, 2000 (Score:2)
Not a serious problem (Score:2)
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'?
Mozilla has it right (Score:3)
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.
_________________________
Re:My thoughts... (Score:2)
Microprocessors have code names also, but they are hard to remember:
P6 -> Pentium Pro
Klamath -> Pentium II at slower speeds
Deschutes -> Pentium II at faster speeds
Katmai -> Pentium III at slower speeds
Tanner -> Pentium III Xeon at slower speeds
Coppermine -> Pentium III at fast speeds
Cascades -> Pentium III Xeon at fast speeds
Dixon -> Some mobile Pentium
Mendocino -> Some Celeron version
Etc. Etc.
Personally, I think Pentium Pro/II/III (etc.) are much eaiser to deal with than the code names are. :-)
Hmmm that's really crappy. (Score:2)
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.
Re:Year Versioning Makes Sense (Score:2)
NO!!!! You can use a version of Office released in the early 90s if you want with Windows 2000. Microsoft only wants you to buy Office 2000 so that you gain the supposed benefits of "being up to date" or having the version numbers match up. This is utterly ridiculous; if your version of Office does what you need it to do, then why bother getting Office 2000 to get the same number as the operating system. In this context, a year version means absolutely NOTHING; it is used to deliberately [yes, split infinitive] create the false impression that one must upgrade (at a fee, of course) to get the full benefits of the new operating system.
Traditional version numbers make sense IF you know about the software that you are using. Computers are not black box, consumer appliances in the same sense as cars. Sure, it would be great if they were easier for a novice to use, however, several important differences exist. First among them, the differences among cars from varying years is practically *non-existent* while computers and software [should] have meaningful changes and improvements between versions.
Your analogy is flawed, as is your premise that year-based versioning is neccesarily or intrinsically superior to other versioning systems.
Year-based naming (Score:4)
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 Linux version numbers but.... (Score:2)
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.
Experiences from a *REAL* computer user. (Score:3)
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.
Re:Year Versioning Makes Sense (Score:5)
Even Windows 98 has a Second Edition and countless updates, Windows NT/2000 have always had build numbers, and the list goes on and on. What it amounts to is that 'year versioning' is the marketing/public side of versioning, and the real versioning takes place in the alleys, with my Internet Explorer 5's version at 5.00.2919.6307 q246094 (really!), and Office 97 at Service Release 2b and the Jet 3.5 update.
What it amounts to (as far as most people are concerned) is that year versioning is good for when I'm talking to my relatives so that all I have to do is say "does the screen with clouds at the beginning say 95 or 98?" to begin troubleshooting their problems at Christmas get-togethers, but when I'm talking to computer-savvy folks, things like "Slackware 7.0" don't even begin to describe what's really inside my box.
Year versioning sux! (Score:5)
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.
Sun is almost as bad (Score:5)
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.
Solaris 2.7/7 name (Score:4)
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" [theregister.co.uk].
Year versions can be confusing (Score:2)
Re:My thoughts... (Score:2)
--Kevin
They are just cashing in (Score:2)
Year Versioning DOES have its place (Score:3)
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
Re:Mozilla has it right. a clarification (Score:2)
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.
_________________________
Parts have versions, systems have names. (Score:4)
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.
Re:Nextel after 2000 (Score:2)
That said, I hope 0.001soft tries such a thing, so that they can fail miserably. :)
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
More importantly (Score:2)
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!!"
Roman Numerals (Score:2)
Christopher A. Bohn
Re:Nightly Stands,Turns Me Off (Score:2)
I would have to agree that the usability of most nightly builds are less than reliable, and deploying such builds is very *very* risky. What nightly builds do offer is a 'snapshot' of the development currently underway. This is an invaluable tool to defud FUD and gives someone looking to make a buying a decision the chance to test the product before deploying.
Consider this blurb [eocenter.com] from a a 1995 Byte magazine article:
According to Microsoft, NT is for everyone else--especially business users who can appreciate its robust security, superior crash protection, symmetric multitasking, and CPU portability. Ultimately, however, Microsoft would love it if its software were running on all hardware, everywhere.
After reading the article and looking at the roadmap [eocenter.com] one would be under the assumtion that WinNT would run on PPC in 1995.
Having access to the nightly NT build would help you confirm or deny weather or not this was indeed the case.
_________________________
My Mom: Yea, our office has the Microsoft 98 (Score:3)
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.
_________________________
Re:I'll give you a clue: (Score:3)
Version # inflation - it's sorta like pinball. (Score:3)
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.
Simple solution: use time() for version (Score:2)
Just a whimsical thought. :-)
Happy Antemillennium!
Redhat is Satan! (Score:3)
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?
---
PCBoard (Score:2)
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.
Re:Year Versioning Makes Sense (Score:2)
Sorry, but... no. (Score:2)
Solaris 7 is the environment.
Solaris 2.7 was the prerelease name given to Solaris 7 environment.
For more information, check the Solaris FAQ.
Re:Slackware Versions (Score:2)
That makes me wonder. Has anyone sighted a version number higher than "Emacs 21"?
--
Re:Naww, we're okay... (Score:2)
--
Re:Year versioning sux! (Score:2)
I think this is more of a PEBKAC issue [tuxedo.org] than a versioning issue, but what you say is true. Perhaps it would be best if Operating Systems (defined as complete working kernel, and associated software) would be year versioned, with individual parts of it independanly versioned.
IE:
"To upgrade from GNU/Linux Slackware 98 to GNU/Linux Slackware 99 you need to get X version kernel, X version this, " etc..
However, for multiple updates it becomes bad.
Slackware 31/11/1999 anyone? It still is not a good solution. Numeric versioning provides too much independance from dates (and knowning if it is updated), and date versioning provides too close a tie to the date (and makes frequent updates problematic).
---
Why is it so hard... (Score:2)
Re:Sun is almost as bad (Score:2)
Let's not forget that Windows NT did not exist in 0.x, 1.x, or 2.x form, and wasn't out there in a 3.0 form, either, AFAIK
---
Re:95, 98, 2000 (Score:2)
I never realized that Microsoft was switching their names around like that. I guess Microsoft realizes that, for them, confused users are good users.
On the subject of silly names, how much sillier can they get than "Millennium"? No matter how many N's you put in it, it's just going to confuse people. "Is it another name for Windows 2000? Or maybe 2001? Or something totally different? Is it even an operating system?" Also, I don't see why Microsoft would want a consumer release that can be misspelled so easily. Quick, someone go register www.windowsmillenium.com!
--
Re:Microsoft Version Numbers (Score:3)
Win95 A = 4.0 sp1
Win96 B = 4.0 R2 (FAT32)
Win95 C = 4.0 R2.5 (USB!)
Win98 = 4.1
Win98 SE = 4.1 sp 1
Sigh.. Way too much time working as a tech supporting bad software
---
Re:Year versioning sux! (Score:2)
I hate using years to designate product versions, except for when it actually makes sense: ie Tax software is year-dependant, so I have no problem with that.
What I hate more, is number skipping.
Macromedia went from Freehand 6 to Freehand 8 so they could be "ahead" of Illustrator 7. Then Illustrator 8 came out.
Pope
Re:is this really a problem? (Score:2)
Intel started using names mainly because of trademark laws. It is not possible to trademark a number (486 or 586) but name is (Pentium). As you may recall AMD and Cyrix were cloning 486s like crazy and Intel wanted to protect their property at least somehow. Since i486, they use names, that also improved public perception of their processors. Apparently it is much easier for John Smith to remember word Pentium, than i586.
paradiorthosis (Score:2)
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. :-)
Re:Roman numerals (Score:2)
Incidentally, how'd you get a movie from 6808? It must have had really nice special effects
--
Ask Jethro Bodine (Score:2)
Re:is this really a problem? (Score:2)
Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Millennium. So what'll the next one be? Some thoughts:
Windows: The Next Generation
Windows 2001: A Crash Odyssey
Son of Windows
Windows vs. Godzilla
Windows vs. Mozilla
Windows Returns
Windows Forever
The Windows Show
Windows-mon: The Sixth OS
Windows I: The Saga Begins
--
Re:Year Versioning Makes Sense (Score:2)
When I read your response however, it became blindingly aparent that year versioning is not the way to go. Maybe for Microsoft, and their marketing campaign (and im not saying I agree with your whole anti-MS sub-conscious buy-the-latest-version scam idea) but for most products out there you cannot really standardise like that. People that use a certain range of products are familiar with the versioning employed and its significance. The user-friendliness of naming everything the same seems a little dull...Why exactly do we need to cater for all the newbies out there?
I suppose that came out wrong, its good to encurage new computer users, I like to see the whole computer explosion thing happening, it was really amasing to see how many people started using computers and the internet so suddenly. But I mean, standardising things to such a level seems kind of dumb to me. And all to make the newbies feel at home?
If you use a particular software product, chances are you are familiar with the versioning system and know the significance of version 4.13.1462 More importantly, if you are looking at foo 2000 what do you know about it? Wow, its the 2000 version, yay! What does that mean exactly? absolutly nothing! It doesnt even narrow down the release date to one year... it could well have been released in 1999, or late, in 2001 ! At least when you look at foo v13.3.1214 you have some details, you know that its been rebuilt x times since the release you are using, you know what the magnitude of the upgrade is likely to be from previous experience... with foo 2000 you know nothing, and at best, you'll know the build number... the only remains of the shattered old versioning system, which will give you little information!
Sun does this (Score:2)
On the obscuring of version numbers in Windows (Score:4)
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.
Re:Year Versioning is just another marketing tool (Score:2)
Using Letters For Version Numbers (Score:3)
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...
Absolutely...And that's good! (Score:2)
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?
I'm sorry Dave.... (Score:2)
Windows 2001 - an OS driven insane by it's bugs...
Bill Gates: "Windows 2001" (Score:3)
Multiple Releases - No Problem (Score:2)
Re:paradiorthosis (Score:2)
Redundant
Offtopic
Troll
Flamebait
Paradiorthotic
hmmmm. as a moderation choice, i like it. but my all time most-wished-for moderation category would be Retromingent [ucsd.edu].
======
"Rex unto my cleeb, and thou shalt have everlasting blort." - Zorp 3:16
WinNT5 (Score:3)
Oh no! (Score:2)
Good thing my CPU is CDXL MHz!
Work together for the Common Geek Good:
Year Versioning is Marketing Genius (Score:2)
Re:New Name (Score:2)
well it would if jim morrison wasn't dead
JIM MORRISON IS DEAD??????!?!?!?!?!!!
Why didn't I see this on /.???? Is there a naked, petrified, open source morrison in the works?
======
"Rex unto my cleeb, and thou shalt have everlasting blort." - Zorp 3:16
Using a year is NOT versioning (Score:2)
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 [sourceforge.net]
Re:I probably should have checked that... (Score:2)
No matter how cute we try and make it with year versioning, computers are more complicated than cars - so much so that detailed, simple versioning that MS left behind with Office 4.3 is actually the right way to go.
Also, that comment about after version 5 it's time to move to a new product does actually seem about right. Enter at v3, go to v5, jump to v3 of another package. I started at DOS 3.3, went to 5, moved to Windows 3.1, now I'm at Win98 and I'm looking to dump the PC and move to the Palm, which is at v3.3... Hmmm, scary.
Re:Year Versioning Makes Sense (Score:2)
When a user is using Windows 95b, Office 97sp2 & Outlook 98 they actually don't have a clue what version of anything they're running. Again, hands up anyone who's had a user not notice there's a difference between Outlook 97/98 & Outlook Express - at least until they can't find their e-mail. "But, I just clicked on the Outlook icon like I always do." (Note: I do actually blame MS for this one)
Re:Roman numerals (Score:2)
Re:My thoughts... (Score:2)
- 8086/8088 - the original, no protected mode
- 80286 - protected mode, barely
- 80386 - new 32bit stuff and new instructions (gee, could I vague that up a bit)
- 486 - on-chip maths co-processor & on-chip cache
- 486SX - no co-pro
- 486DX - what the 486 always was before the SX
- 486DX2 - internal clock speed double outside BUS
- 486DX4 - internal clock speed triple outside BUS
- Pentium - I forget, some PCI bus stuff?
- Pentium MMX - Multimedia instruction set, sort of DSP stuff (kinda)
- Pentium Pro - Lots of 32-bit instruction optimisation
- Pentium II - MMX & Pro combined
- Celeron - A P2 missing an expensive cache
- Pentium III - Umm, just plain faster?
- Xeon - Multiprocessor P3.
Anyone want to flesh this out / correct me?Append the a suffix (Score:2)
Re:Roman numerals (Score:2)
Type I & Type II PCMCIA cards are very much different thicknesses, though you're right about Type I not being used much. Also, try not to get the Release mixed up with the Type - the release determines functionality (storage v's I/O) - the Type determines thickness.
PCMCIA: People Can't Memorise Computer Industry Acronyms.
Re:Sun is almost as bad (Score:2)
However, and this is WAY offtopic, one of my customers, the Mathews-Dickey Boys Club in St. Louis got $60kUS worth of MS software donated to them by Microsofts' community outreach program. That blew me away.
Re:Year Versioning Makes Sense (Score:2)
You're making one BIIIIG assumption:
0 100
|'''''''''|'''''''''|'''''''''|'''''''''|
^- The avg. newbie You ---^
This is a rough view of what most people look like compared to most techies in terms of computer knowledge (Don Knuth presumably is at 110 on this scale).
Here's the "do they give a flying fsck?"-ometer that registers how much they WANT to approach most techies on that scale:
0 100
|'''''''''|'''''''''|'''''''''|'''''''''|
^--- how much they want to find out
As you can see, they basically don't give a flying fsck. This is because they have better things to do with their lives - like writing their memoirs, researching their family history, surfing the net or doing their taxes.
Home computers, consumer OS's and consumer apps are written (remember this - it's one of the more important things you'll read today) for these people. Yep, that's right - your customers/users/whatever for consumer apps and consumer OS's are generally going to be people who don't care and don't need to learn the nitty gritty of their computer.
You know why?
Because that's why you get the big bucks - so that they don't have to .
Of course, if you're giving everything away for free, that might explain your attitude...
Computers aren't some elite thing that should be used to create some kind of pseudo class war -- they're a tool. They're popular because every-day people want to use them to get their stuff done.
In short - you don't sell hammers that require people to be concert pianists to use them - because that way, you won't sell any hammers.
Simon
Simon
NT versioning (Score:2)
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.
Re:NT versioning (Score:2)
should be
>(or 4.6.[some version number]).
I always preview. Always. Except this time.
PCMCIA (Score:2)
Or, if you prefer: People Can't Memorize Computer Industry Acronyms.
Re:PCMCIA (Score:2)
Re:Using a year is NOT versioning (Score:2)
Intel switched from generation numbering to naming once their marketing people really took over the place. AMD switched its K7 to Athlon
Ever looked at the version numbers in IE? Look at the build number. Download it today, then in three weeks. Probably a 300 build jump
Just my $0.02
Re:My thoughts... (Score:2)
The "Escort 4" would obviously be the 4th incarnation of the Ford Escort. The problem is that car companies release cars every year, whether there really are new features or not (different colour and moulding, that's all?).
$60kUS software donation (Score:2)
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?
Re:My thoughts... (Score:2)
Incidentally, almost all California placenames. Katmai is a mountain in Alaska, not sure where Tanner is. Coppermine? Dunno.
...and it also explains why the Celeron always seemed to just be someone blowing smoke. Heck, it's the STONED virus in hardware....
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Debian: Toy Story (Score:2)
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?
Nightly builds -- the developers (Score:2)
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?
Re:95 and 98 (Score:2)
The internal version strings are still 4.0.foo.
And as for more stable, I don't find that at all. If anything, it's worse, although it does recover better.
dave
Re:Nextel after 2000 (Score:2)
Err, it's being released in February or so.
do keep up.
dave
Re:Windows (Score:2)
The definitive versioning system. (Score:2)
Super Fun Happy Windows!
Joy Joy Green Linux!
Excellent Excel Dynasty!
Wicked Flaming Death Emacs Wok!
Imperial Yahoo!
You're wrong, here's the reason why (Score:2)
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.
Re:Simple solution: use time() for version (Score:2)
Current time: 9.469.328.39
The first field increments every 3 years, the second about every day, the third every minute and a half, and the last of course every second. The first two fields are almost the right timing for major/minor version numbering...
But as has been noted elsewhere in these threads, numbering by year or time loses the logical distinction of major versus minor changes to a piece of software - unless we believe all software from now on will only be continually backwards compatible and evolve only gradually. Yeah right.
Re:Year Versioning Makes Sense (Score:2)
Re:Year Versioning Makes Sense (Score:2)
For example, going by the year versioning, which is the bigger jump:
Win95 -> Win98
Win98 -> Win2000
Of course, it must be Win98 -> Win2000, since there's only two years difference! (No pedants please). If they'd called the versions by their proper names, 'Windows 4.0', 'Windows 4.1' and 'Windows NT 5.0', you could see what was going on.