VOGONS

Common searches


First post, by eL_PuSHeR

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Does anybody what's the point is releasing so many major versions?

It seems the changings are minor or not even noticeable.

For instance FF 4.x -> FF 5.x

And there are already some 6 betas available.

IMHO, this is becoming annoying (specially for extensions).

Reply 3 of 27, by DosFreak

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Should just get rid of versions #'s and label them all Beta.

DOSBox Compilation Guides
DosBox Feature Request Thread
PC Game Compatibility List
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
Running DRM games offline

Reply 7 of 27, by Jorpho

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
btw3d wrote:

Yeah, it seems so, but it's stupid.

I know, but explain this to people who think that Chrome is now 3 times better (12.x) than Firefox (4.x). 😖

Chrome doesn't seem to display its version number very prominently at all.

I am very much anticipating FF6, as apparently it will include debugging features that might be useful to finally get to the bottom of its bothersome jerkiness.

Reply 8 of 27, by sliderider

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
eL_PuSHeR wrote:
Does anybody what's the point is releasing so many major versions? […]
Show full quote

Does anybody what's the point is releasing so many major versions?

It seems the changings are minor or not even noticeable.

For instance FF 4.x -> FF 5.x

And there are already some 6 betas available.

IMHO, this is becoming annoying (specially for extensions).

Oh, you mean you haven't tried Aurora 7.0 yet?

Reply 9 of 27, by Reckless

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I hate Chrome for starting this trend. Those involved in Firefox are stupid to follow especially as their addin model defines a particular pain point. I've dropped back to FF4 as the latest release disabled an addin and didn't seem to offer anything new.

Reply 11 of 27, by Tetrium

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Huh? We're already on FF5??

Meh, I'll stick with Opera 😀

Whats missing in your collections?
My retro rigs (old topic)
Interesting Vogons threads (links to Vogonswiki)
Report spammers here!

Reply 12 of 27, by Dominus

User metadata
Rank DOSBox Moderator
Rank
DOSBox Moderator
Reckless wrote:

I hate Chrome for starting this trend. Those involved in Firefox are stupid to follow especially as their addin model defines a particular pain point. I've dropped back to FF4 as the latest release disabled an addin and didn't seem to offer anything new.

There is the nightly tester tool extension for that.
But yeah, with their fast changing version number more extensions will seem to be incompatible even though they only need a little version number tweak.
And you can't hope for the mozilla devs to see reason, they have a disturbing mindset which won't leave its tracks.

Reply 14 of 27, by Good Ol' TarviS

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

I always thought that Mozilla named it Firefox 5 because of an important patch that plugged some big security flaw, and calling it Firefox 5 instead of 4.2 or whatever was the best way to get everyone to jump over immediately.

Reply 15 of 27, by Reckless

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Just think if Microsoft had adopted that strategy we'd be running Windows with a version number measured in 1000s if not tens of 1000s 😀 Whatever their reasoning, it will surely mean less user acceptance of new versions and eventually their product.

Reply 16 of 27, by Pippy P. Poopypants

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

After all, Windows 7 is not really version 7, but people would probably not be flocking to it if it had been named what it really is.

GUIs and reviews of other random stuff

Вфхуи ZoPиЕ m
СФИР Et. SEPOHЖ
Chebzon фt Ymeztoix © 1959 zem

Reply 17 of 27, by sliderider

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
Pippy P. Poopypants wrote:

After all, Windows 7 is not really version 7, but people would probably not be flocking to it if it had been named what it really is.

Windows 7 is just a patched version of Vista that MS sold as a new version to get back at everyone who stuck with XP during the Vista fiasco. Look at the version number of Windows 7. It's not 7.x it's still 6. something. Windows 7 should have been released as a free service pack for Vista.

Reply 19 of 27, by Mau1wurf1977

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Totally...

I was working in sales when Vista came out and it was a "challenging" time. The thing was that Vista wasn't really that bad in terms as a product. But it had so many thing working against it.

I mean it came on notebooks with 512MB or 1GB of Ram, shared graphics and single core CPU. Then we had issues with software not being compatible and worst of all the driver situation.

To Vistas credit, some of the manufacturers of printers or 3G cards should have been the ones to blame. Telstra took 6! months to release Vista drivers for their 3G modem. Printers or scanners wouldn't work up to a year. For some things we sold we had to get beta drivers from the manufacturers to help our customers. There also was no XP mode, which would have helped somewhat.

Many machines we downgraded to XP. We got very good at that and it was a nice little earner. Charged them for doing this...

So Vista did the hard yards. When 7 came out, drivers where available, applications had received patches and notebooks came with 2 or 4 GB of memory and much faster dual core CPUs.

But at that stage, the experience of Vista vs. 7 was very very similar...

So yea, should have been a service pack 🤣

Main reason they did this was to get ridd of the name "Vista". Because as soon as you said Vista, the customers didn't want to hear another word 🤣