I remember when Dr. Dobbs Journal was respected (Get off of my Lawn)

I double checked my calendar and it wasn't April 1st, so this can't be a joke:

http://drdobbs.com/tools/232300656?cid=DDJ_nl_mdev_2011-12-20_h

This reliable understanding between vendor and customer fell apart when Microsoft released Windows 95 a few years after Windows 3.1.

@ScanIAm: Is he serious?

@Maddus Mattus:I couldn't find a hint of sarcasm in there.  Note how he cut off the analogy before we got to Windows XP...

This is the editors note where it's usually "tongue in cheek" but with a meaningful message, as it is in this case. Our industry HAS severely muddled version numbers. Obviously the 95 in Windows 95 and the 7 in Windows 7 are not version numbers, but there's no denying this confuses many people. This is not the first time I've seen someone cracking jokes like this, and there's some truth in it. Windows 1, Windows 2, Windows 3.0, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Vista, Windows 7... does any of that really make any sense to you?

I'll also point out he jokes about other schemes used by other companies, and even by OpenSource projects. Versioning and naming can be confusing for those of us "in the know", so imagine what it's like for our end users.

I like that article. Very funny. What he doesn't mention is internally Windows 95 was 4.0

22 minutes ago, devSpeed wrote

I like that article. Very funny. What he doesn't mention is internally Windows 95 was 4.0

Which was particularly amusing at the time since NT 4 was also 4.0 and (depending on the API you called), 95 called itself either 4.0 or 3.95.

Thankfully the general public has never had the faintest idea what version numbers are and, most of the time, hardly know the difference between Windows and Office.

"social contract" LOL

although, Sony went from PS2 to PS3, and MS went from Xbox to Xbox 360

or Mango is named WP7.5 event though it's stamped w/ 7.1

LOL maybe he's got something there

4 minutes ago, Minh wrote

"social contract" LOL

although, Sony went from PS2 to PS3, and MS went from Xbox to Xbox 360

or Mango is named WP7.5 event though it's stamped w/ 7.1

LOL maybe he's got something there

The Atari went from 2600 to 5200, nothing new there. I think things will seem a bit silly when the PlayStation 4 comes out - that number just seems strange. It is possible Sony will give it a name, like they did with the PSP Vita, but named releases are hard to pull-off.

Yet I think Microsoft will give the third Xbox a named release - "Xbox 720" is too predicatable, marketing executives would think "Xbox 3" might cause consumer confusion with the "360" name, and other titles like "Third Box" or "Xboxxx" are just gimmicks (and might be sued by Sony).

The Atari 5200 probably has more than 2X the power of the 2600 though, so, it's not pure marketing.

There have been 5 different motherboard designs on the XBox 360 so if you just count that I guess the current XBox 360 Slim is version 6 so the next is Xbox 7.

I think some in marketing take numerology way too seriously...

11 minutes ago, chicago_mike wrote

I think some in marketing take numerology way too seriously...

25 minutes ago, Minh wrote

*snip*for good reasons... remember the mega pixels in cameras?

Processor speeds in MHz too.

Or my personal favourite: laptop manufacturers selling a machine on the basis of screen size, and not screen resolution, response times, and panel tech - so we have punters shelling out for 16" laptops with 1366x768 TN displays with atrocious input lag and G2G times, and then they wonder why people seem to prefer Apple's kit.

It is a complete mystery.

@W3bbo, people prefer apple laptops? last I check, iOS is below 10% marketshare

4 minutes ago, Minh wrote

@W3bbo, people prefer apple laptops? last I check, iOS is below 10% marketshare

I'm sure that's a typo, but iOS actually has about 61% marketshare (and the iPad has near 90% of the slate tablet market conquered). I assume you're referring to Apple Macintosh's market share.

Anyway, Apple's lack of popularity isn't because, as you suppose, their hardware is inferior or comparable to your typical Windows laptop, but because Apple's products have a relatively high barrier to entry: not only are their cheapest products significantly more expensive than even high-end Windows kit, but there's a whole separate ecosystem that punters need to buy into. Shifting operating systems, and ditching incompatible software and hardware (and repurchasing as necessary) doesn't help Apple's cause at all. However you will find Apple's customer satisfaction rates are through the roof.

yeah I did mean Macs. I know Apple makes marginally better hardware. I know the Apple OS is somewhat simpler to use. But it does does cost more and it doesn't run apps people got at work.

I'm just nitpicking your statement that people prefer Macs. I'd prefer a Prius too if I could buy it for the price of a Elantra. But they aren't. So I don't prefer TO HAVE a Prius. As people DON'T prefer TO HAVE Macs. For whatever reasons. But I would guess the price

12 hours ago, Minh wrote

yeah I did mean Macs. I know Apple makes marginally better hardware. I know the Apple OS is somewhat simpler to use. But it does does cost more and it doesn't run apps people got at work.

I'm just nitpicking your statement that people prefer Macs. I'd prefer a Prius too if I could buy it for the price of a Elantra. But they aren't. So I don't prefer TO HAVE a Prius. As people DON'T prefer TO HAVE Macs. For whatever reasons. But I would guess the price

 

I will say this:  I see more and more folks moving to iPads and or Mac's and away from Windows.

it's not yet a total switch but i see it happening...  if the trend keeps up ?

even now at work we are starting to get requests for iPhone / iPad apps to work with our current system.  not to replace the point of sales machines but to start offering some of the management an on the go secure app.

Definitely seems serious, but he has a point, at least from the IT point of view. Putting aside the year-based versions, the recent version numbers are meaningless. Windows 8 is actually v.6.2, WP7.5 is actually 7.1. Chrome is on version 16 now, even though each "major" version increment introduces small changes.

There was a time when you could look at the version number to get an estimate of how big of a change things were. No longer.

Maybe we should all move to Tex's versioning scheme, and keep approaching pi.