RE: freedom scientific weird numerical system
- From: "jim grimsby Jr." <jimgrims@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 14:43:52 -0700
It is how every company who makes software lists it. It is not for the end
user it is so they can keep track of updates etc. let's show you some
examples
Skype Version 3.8.0.115
Winamp Version 5.5.3.1938
Microsoft Office Outlook Version 12.0.6300.5000
Get the idea?
-----Original Message-----
From: jfw-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jfw-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Yardbird
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 1:42 PM
To: jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: freedom scientific weird numerical system
Chris,
Yes, what you say here probably does explain it in a literal sense, but what
way is that for a company to list its releases for the end user? The result
is pretty senseless and needlessly confusing for someone like me. Although
I've managed to keep track of which was which, it hasn't been without a lot
more effort than I wish it had been. you know, version 2.0, version 2.1,
version 2.5 and so forth would have been a nice model to follow. Why we end
users, *especially* because we're not just glancing at the numbers visually
and taking them all in at once and "getting it," should be burden with such
extravagant and confusing numbering has always been beyond me. I've just put
up with it because I have the program, and I need it, and so I bear with the
annoyance as an inescapable eccentricity of the company providing me with
that program. But not cheerfully. Not at all. Like Adrian, every time I need
to refer to my version and build number, I have to put up the Jaws window
and open the Help menu. Big drag. And I can't remember from one time to the
next which number it was. Others seem to be fine with this and to revel in
knowingly trotting out build numbers. They say things like "That keystroke
worked okay for me in version 10.9987612, but it doesn't work now in
90093448, so I'm uninstalling it and going back to 99878344, which I believe
was just before the function broke."
, but I'm not among such users. I wish FS would keep their internal
categories to themselves and provide simple, straightforward numbering for
the public releases we wind up using.
IMHO, and so forth, of course. Free country, different strokes, a million
ways to get something done, etc. :-)
confusion have to be wtoermented It always seemed really silly. really
extravagent and pretty ----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Skarstad" <toonhead@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: freedom scientific weird numerical system
hi. Keep in mind folks, FS often produces versions of JAWS for
internal uses, I.e. Alpha and beta builds, and they usually have
sequential numbers. so that would explain the strange numbering
system. We don't see all the builds that are made, so when a public
version comes out, it could be a much higher number than the previous one.
I hope that explains it?
At 03:31 PM 5/12/2008, you wrote:
>I don't think it's the first time a JAWS update has come out with a
>nonsequential number. I also wish FS would simplify the numbering
>because we frequently need to refer to update, and not just version,
>numbers. I usually take the extra step of checking the "About"
>section in JAWS help. It isn't as if there have been 522 separate
>updates of version 9.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: MarkF
>
>Is it just me and all the people I have talked to. numerically
>speaking jaws 9.00.522 should be the latest update NOT 9.00.2152
>
>This is not the way versions numbers should be labeled .2 comes before .5.
>
>Has anyone else thought this strange?
>
>Mark
>
>The beginning of strife is [like] letting out water, So abandon the
>quarrel before it breaks out.
>
>
>__________ NOD32 3093 (20080512) Information __________
>
>This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
><http://www.eset.com>http://www.eset.com
--
JFW related links:
JFW homepage: http://www.freedomscientific.com/
Scripting mailing list:
http://lists.the-jdh.com/listinfo.cgi/scriptography-the-jdh.com
JFW List instructions:
To post a message to the list, send it to jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to
jfw-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
Archives located at: //www.freelists.org/archives/jfw
If you have any concerns about the list, post received from the list, or the
way the list is being run, do not post them to the list. Rather contact the
list owner at jfw-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
JFW related links:
JFW homepage: http://www.freedomscientific.com/
Scripting mailing list:
http://lists.the-jdh.com/listinfo.cgi/scriptography-the-jdh.com
JFW List instructions:
To post a message to the list, send it to jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to
jfw-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
Archives located at: //www.freelists.org/archives/jfw
If you have any concerns about the list, post received from the list, or the
way the list is being run, do not post them to the list. Rather contact the
list owner at jfw-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1428 - Release Date: 5/12/2008
7:44 AM
--
JFW related links:
JFW homepage: http://www.freedomscientific.com/
Scripting mailing list:
http://lists.the-jdh.com/listinfo.cgi/scriptography-the-jdh.com
JFW List instructions:
To post a message to the list, send it to jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to
jfw-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
Archives located at: //www.freelists.org/archives/jfw
If you have any concerns about the list, post received from the list, or the
way the list is being run, do not post them to the list. Rather contact the
list owner at jfw-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
