On 3 Jan 2006 at 15:30, Mariposa Symphony Orchestra wrote: > David Fenton wrote: > > "Secondly, since the fix was Windows-only, if it had been named 2006c, > then the latest updates for Mac and Windows would end up with > different numbers, which would be a nightmare for end users as well as > for Finale tech support. If you think that's silly, just let me tall > you about how many times my clients have asked me why they aren't > upgrading to the latest version of MS Offices, such as Office 98 > (which was the *Mac* version between Office 97 and Office 2000)." > > I ask: > > Wasn't that out-of-sync formula precisely the case with Fin2004 or '05 > maintainence upgrades? . . .
Beats me. I haven't upgraded since 2003. > . . . I seem to recall they did just that and > subsequently ended up with (i.e.) WinFin'04b and MacFin '04c or some > such outcome. . . . Well, perhaps the lesson MM learned from that was that it wasn't a good idea to get the update versions out of synch on the two different platforms. Perhaps they did incur extra support problems because of the different update numbers and that's why they don't want to do it that way now. All is speculation on our part, but from the standpoint of best practices for software, I think they were completely correct for the file-fixed version of 2006b to have the same number as the original. > . . . It might have been a case of intentionally-terminal > upgrades - or an intention on their part that that 'c' upgrade would > be <the> one. If so, (and yes, this is pure conjecture) might the > opposite presumption be possible here? That they clearly have more > maintainence updates planned for us in '06 and thus need to keep both > alpha extensions alike? I doubt one can make any such guesses just from the numbers. > In any case, my main point(s) of irritation were the facts that 1) it > took a bit of investigative work on our part to determine that there > WERE two (slightly) different Win'06b updates. And that the second > one was <not> announced to us in any way as a distinctly different or > improved version and its existence was thus made all the more obscure > by the fact that it didn't bear <any> differentiation by name from > the.......previous 'b.' And as well, 2) the fact that I then had to > waste another 1.5 hours to download a maintainance upgrade to repair > the previous maintainance upgrade I had already had to waste 1.5 hours > to -- well, you get my point. I agree that all of those things are problems. Certainly the UI of the update checker ought to make clear to you that the fixed 2006b is *not* the same one you'd already. But I'm not sure what could be done about the impending release of the next update. There will always be someone who downloads the previous update the day before the next one comes out. Is it better to be told "a new update is coming soon, could be tomorrow, could be next week" or is it better to just download it and be done with it? Obviously, for broadband users it's a different issue than for dialup users. But I'm not sure that telling you an update is coming is going to be terribly helpful -- how many times have software vendors promised an update that didn't come for months, even years? Do you really want to continue with a buggy version because another version is coming Real Soon Now? > Sure - by all means call it 2006b-2 or 2006b.2 or 2006b-and-a-half. > But call it <something> different to justify it as a new update so as > not to appear to be the little "Check for Updates" that cried > wolf..... I think the naming of the update is not at all the problem. It *should* have been called 2006b. But the sub-version (or build number, however MM does this) should be different. The whole problem was that the update UI didn't give enough information to distingish the fixed 2006b from the original. That's entirely a user interface issue and completely independent of update numbering. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
