| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Garrett
Moderator Team
Joined: 04 Oct 2001
Posts: 2149
Location: A House
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 01, 2002 12:21 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| PGWARE wrote: | | How do you know Microsoft wasn't working on internal builds before they decided to release ? Im' sure they did the 3 thing as you said but no one knows the full circumstances, there may have been major internal builds before they decided to go with a public version. |
There was an article in a well known software magazine within the last year that noted that MS did it for Netscape reason and no other reason. Otherwise, I would not have even mentioned it.
-Garrett
_________________
'What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.' - Confucius (550 b.c. to 479 b.c.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
PGWARE
Web Host
Joined: 29 Dec 2001
Posts: 1566
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 01, 2002 2:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yeah well that's the magazine's opinion or someone elses that they consulted. I doubt Microsoft would release that information if it were true. We really all don't know what the truth is, it is probably true that they did it because of Netscape but again we never know how many internal builds they had. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flypaper
Contributor
Joined: 19 Oct 2001
Posts: 104
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I believe that M$ just made the version number up. It happens all the time. Mandrake is another prime example. The numbers might not be correct, but are probably close: Mandrake was on version 3, and then Red Hat came out with version 6, so Mandrake's next version number was 6. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Garrett
Moderator Team
Joined: 04 Oct 2001
Posts: 2149
Location: A House
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2002 3:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| PGWARE wrote: | | Yeah well that's the magazine's opinion or someone elses that they consulted. I doubt Microsoft would release that information if it were true. We really all don't know what the truth is, it is probably true that they did it because of Netscape but again we never know how many internal builds they had. |
PK, man, it's alright if they did anyway. It's not a big deal at all. Sheesh, it's not the end of the world if they did. I've even seen people skip numbers to get thier version numbers higher. There's some thing that some believe that lower version numbers are not impressive, so they skip numbers to make it look like the program has been in circulation for longer than it has. I've seen some fools with programs that have version numbers in the 60 to 90 range. I know the same fool who does that, just flat out updates his freaking version numbers either on a weekly or monthly basis, just to change the version number so the fool can update his programs at all the listing sites... He's trying to get more exposure on new item and updated item pages on listing sites..
-Garrett
_________________
'What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.' - Confucius (550 b.c. to 479 b.c.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
@vdsworld