RE: freedom scientific weird numerical system
- From: "jim grimsby Jr." <jimgrims@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 17:17:45 -0700
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
Other related posts: