Re: freedom scientific weird numerical system

  • From: "Mark Alexander" <ARICorp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 21:36:57 -0400

Don't you have a life? This subject/thread has been pounded to death, now bury it and move on. ----- Original Message ----- From: "jim grimsby Jr." <jimgrims@xxxxxxxxxxx> 

To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 8:17 PM
Subject: RE: freedom scientific weird numerical system



You people have issue with comparing like things.
If you are using your dish box you are going to tell the cells rep what
firmware you are using.  If you have a cell phone you are going to do the
same thing.  Please let's compare apples to apples could we.

-----Original Message-----
From: jfw-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jfw-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Judith Bron
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 4:40 PM
To: jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: freedom scientific weird numerical system

In real life the manufacturer shouldn't burden the end user with all their
numerical problems. When a mother calls the pediatrician with a sick child he or she doesn't say, "My child has a temperature of 101.8993." They tell 
the receptionist that their child has a temperature of 101.  There are
probably a zillion other examples but this is the one that came to mind.
The user of a software product doesn't want to give a product number that,
in another life, would get them a PHD in topography or some other mathmatic 
specialty.  Keep it simple stupid!  Judith  Judith
----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Spratt" <A.Spratt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: freedom scientific weird numerical system
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


--
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 





--
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:

  1. Home
  2. jfw
  3. Archive
  4. 05-2008