Guest Hawk-eye Posted November 21, 2001 Share Posted November 21, 2001 Just a heads up that the corrected update ... 2.23 .... is out to replace the screwed up 2.22 version. Quote Link to comment
Guest Kerry Posted November 21, 2001 Share Posted November 21, 2001 Don't ya get impressed when software version numbers start rolling over faster than a petrol pump. At times it doesn't give one a great deal of confidence. Sometimes it's best to say a version or so behind and let new versions settle down (let someone else find the problems). Cheers, Kerry. Quote Link to comment
Guest Hawk-eye Posted November 21, 2001 Share Posted November 21, 2001 Exactly my down-under friend ... 2.22 sucked. This seems to "un-suck" the problems of 2.22. This is definitely the case of don't stay one revision behind .... Quote Link to comment
Guest Prime Suspect Posted November 26, 2001 Share Posted November 26, 2001 quote:Originally posted by Kerry:Don't ya get impressed when software version numbers start rolling over faster than a petrol pump. At times it doesn't give one a great deal of confidence. Sometimes it's best to say a version or so behind and let new versions settle down (let someone else find the problems). Cheers, Kerry. The fact that they are response to users input (returning the track display to its previous form when users complained), and seem to be constantly looking for things to improve, does give me a great deal of confidence. Given the choice, I'd much rather deal with the occasional glitch, than with a company that has a "take it or leave it" attitude. Quote Link to comment
Guest Kerry Posted November 26, 2001 Share Posted November 26, 2001 Certainly being Pro-active is good and for sure there are some manufacturers where support just about falls on deaf ears. The main point above was one has to be sure some of these updates/upgrades (or whatever one wants to call them) don't get pushed through so quick that other problems are caused. Hence the comment to say a version "or so" behind. In the example above the problem may/may not have been critical (but it could very well have been) so "sitting" on 2.21 (when 2.22 was released) would have saved the hassle of 2.22, then if 2.21 wasn't broken there's a decision to make to jump this update principle and become a "pioneer" of 2.23 (could be better but could be worse?), or let someone else find that out first. In the Vista's case almost 50% of all software releases have been for pure operational bug fixes (correcting errors etc) but those manufacturers that "listen" to users requirements/ideas etc is slightly different agenda to bug fixes. Cheers, Kerry. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.