Re: freedom scientific weird numerical system

  • From: "Adrian Spratt" <A.Spratt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 18:32:08 -0400

Promise, this will be my last word on the subject, no matter how tempted I might be to reply to any future message in this thread. I feel justly chastened by Allison.


1. All kinds of products, from planes to refrigerators, have complex internal development numbers, but manufacturers keep the numbering simple for the public, such as Boeing 767, 777, and so on. Yardbird has it right.

2. For those of us who don't live and breathe technology, a simple numeric system would make discussion easier and more fluent.

3. In mathematics, decimal point 5 is greater than decimal point 2, no matter how many digits follow decimal point 2. So for software developers to make their numbers function otherwise is to confuse mathematicians, not just amateur tech people like me who learn only what we need in order to make the software useful for other purposes, whether those be to operate a reception center or write novels, practice law or manage a store.
----- Original Message -----
From: "jim grimsby Jr." <jimgrims@xxxxxxxxxxx>

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.

--
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: