All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software

Unstable releases!

(1/3) > >>

sunshine:
ok, correct me if I'm wrong but aren't odd numbered releases considered unstable releases? Not the major release numbered but the minor and alpha numbers. The odd numbers denote an unstable release or code change, or unconfirmed bugfix.

Isn't it true than that the very first version of windows released to the public was unstable?(v3.1) and doesn't that make most IE releases unstable as well (IE , 3.3, 5.5) But it looks like Microsoft has been hiding their alpha level patches as "Service Packs" minor or major Kernel Patches(eg win NT4 sp6 = win nt5 or win2k) not to mention the latest windows release Win 5.1 ...

damn those foo-mongers....  :eek:

badkarma:
I don't know if you ever noticed this ... but *every* release of windows/IE is unstable  :rolleyes:

seriously ... version numbering is no indication on wether it's a stable release. Usually you can take the following rules as a guideline (but they are definatly not set in stone)

major version changes (i.e. 1.0 -> 2.0) indicate feature enhancements to a particular program

minor version numbers (i.e. 1.0 -> 1.1) indicate bug fixes

some companies use a third decimal to show minor bug fixes (i.e. 1.0->1.1 fixes a major showstopping bug, 1.0->1.0.1 fixes minor bugs)

but like I said ... this is not set in stone, and some companies assign version numbers at random (or so it seems)

saddlemagic:
Odd numbered releases are unstable... That's a new one on me. Here's one for ya: "If you stand on your left foot when you sneeze, you will not catch a cold."

The release number has nothing to do with the stability of the software. It is just a number.

And, "Windows 1.0" (as far as I know) was the first public release of Windows. I'm not sure the whole history and changes but, it was followed by "Win286" for the new 80286 processor, and "Win386" for the 80386. Then "Win3.0" was released, hearlded as the best OS you will ever see, then "Win3.1" came out as a bug fix.

Then M$ promoted "Chicago" for the next couple years, after that they changed the name to Win93, the next year it changed to Win94, then the successor to win3.1 finally came out. After more than four years of development it should have been perfect. "Win95" the triumph of M$ over.. itself?

Oops! I'm talkin' too much drivel.

badkarma:
hmmm ... after some digging I encountered the Free Software Project Management Howto which covers choosing a method of version numbering

 
quote:
Linux kernel version numbering:

The Linux kernel uses a versioning system where any odd minor version number refers to an development or testing release and any even minor version number refers to a stable version. Think about it for a second. Under this system, 2.1 and 2.3 kernels were and always will be development or testing kernels and 2.0, 2.2. and 2.4 kernels are all production code with a higher degree of stability and more testing.
Whether you plan on having a split development model (as described in Section 3.3) or only one version released at a time, my experience with several free software projects and with the Debian project has taught me that use of Linux's version numbering system is worth taking into consideration. In Debian, all minor versions are stable distributions (2.0, 2.1, etc). However, many people assume that 2.1 is an unstable or development version and continue to use an older version until they get so frustrated with the lack of development progress that they complain and figure the system out. If you never release an odd minor version but only release even ones, nobody is hurt, and less people are confused. It's an idea worth taking into consideration.

--- End quote ---


so you weren't entirely incorrect, but it's not a widespread standard....

edit : quoting is soooooo difficult ... *sigh*

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: BadKarma ]

beltorak0:
That's a good recap of the history of it, saddle; where did you dig that up?
Do you know when / how Win286 became Win386?  Two M$ coders at an M$ party decided to try to place the win (?)kernel(?) in protected mode and "_"blow away the 1 MB barier"_"... so they used a mini-disassembler / debugger and stepped thru the code, one instruction at a time, hacking away at each General Protection Fault.... one, by, one.  And you wonder why it's so unstable?  It hasen't had a re-write since the begining (I'm guessing); just bits of code used over and over.... that's probably the real reason M$ won't release the code -- too much code that survived from mid 1980's....

-t.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page