Subject: Re: Windows 10. Horrible!
In article<email@example.com>, Tony Cooper<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> Any new version of any software requires a get acquainted approach
> >> that most of us are able to successfully negotiate in a short period
> >> of time.
> >for some new versions, that's true, but definitely not all of them.
> >many times, the changes are minor or even entirely internal, resulting
> >in no need to 'get acquainted' whatsoever.
> Those are not "new versions".
> I know you have a vocabulary
> but a "new version" is different from a new release that
> makes changes "under the hood" in the same version.
a new version is one that is different from the existing version, which
is why it's called new.
the changes can be anywhere from not noticeable (i.e., internal) to
minor to major or anywhere in between.
in almost every case, the version number changes to indicate that it
is, in fact, a new version, and how much of a change to expect.
a major change is usually a major version number (1->2) and a minor
change is a dot release (1.1->1.2).
on rare occasion, changes are minor enough to not warrant a version
number change, but it's still a new version (easily shown with a hash).
once again, you're *way* out of your league.
> A "minor" change does not mean a change that doesn't require an
> adjustment on the part of the user to understand the change. Changing
> the name of a tool, but not the tool, would be a minor change. The
> user may need to get acquainted with the new term.
if the tool differs only by name, then only stupid people would be
> >once again, you're wrong.
> You'd like to think so.
i know so.
you were *very* wrong on dcc, and still have yet to admit it.