Why 2.0 ?
Posted 23 August 2005 - 12:45 AM
If you consideer Starcraft for example ; between each patch, it is only a diff?rence of a centimal (v 1.12 -> v 1.13 ) . And when the new patch change a decimal, it?s really an event with huge improvements. And step by step , starcraft will slowly upgrade to Starcraft v 2.00 which will be something revolutionnar.
Maybe my example is not very good, but it?s representative of the global politic of patch numbering.
I don?t know why casio or saltire use so big numbers but it really depreciate the value of their patches.
Posted 23 August 2005 - 01:16 AM
Personally I don't know what the next number of the OS will be numbered, but internally I call it OS 3.0.
Posted 23 August 2005 - 08:23 AM
Posted 23 August 2005 - 06:10 PM
...where major means big changes that are highly visible (like UI changes or major feature enhancements) and minor means small changes many users might not even notice.
At least Casio didn't use the Micro$oft approach and name if CPOS 200x.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users