Please use verion numbers in the filename of the installer.
-
- KVRAF
- 12977 posts since 29 Sep, 2003 from Ottawa, Canada
Conversely, there are obviously people who want a different version number and it's no big deal for them to do it theirself.
-
- KVRAF
- 1721 posts since 15 Aug, 2003 from Indianapolis
By the same token, you've spent far more energy needlessly defending Mackie on this simple reasonable request than it would take for Mackie to rename the file themselves with the version number!IIRs wrote:Graeme, it took far more effort to write that post than it would to right-click -> save as -> add a version number
Read through this thread again...you and Lunch come off sounding like absolute fanboys.
I agree it's not that big of a deal, but it would make things easier to track, and I've often thought the same as Graeme when downloading a new T2 update.
Think of it this way: Thousands of us can download and change the filename ourselves, or some guy at Mackie can do it ONCE... then if you want to rename it "T2Install all examples.exe" and put it in it's own folder labeled "whatever" you're free to.
Personally, I hate having multiple directories within directories. I'd much rather have one directory called "T2" with multiple files that can be quickly sorted by looking at the filename. Call me lazy, but that's a lot of unnecessary clicking.
I can't understand why you guys would fight someone on this simple, incredibly sensible request
It really sounds like you guys just want to argue about something.
-
- KVRAF
- 12977 posts since 29 Sep, 2003 from Ottawa, Canada
Oh, c**t off. I wasn't even "fighting" or "defending" anyone or anything.
Greg
Greg
-
- KVRAF
- 1721 posts since 15 Aug, 2003 from Indianapolis
My, that's very adult of you. Same to ya.Lunch Money wrote:Oh, cnut off. I wasn't even "fighting" or "defending" anyone or anything.
Greg
OK. Maybe my use of the word "fanboy" (which was at least somewhat in jest) was inappropriate.
However, you did restate basically the same opinion in three different posts, so I'm not sure how I got the impression you were being defensive.
-
- KVRAF
- 2009 posts since 9 Apr, 2003 from Cornwall, UK
yeah, change the filenames Mackie
-
- Banned
- 22457 posts since 5 Sep, 2001
[DELETED]
-
- KVRAF
- 12977 posts since 29 Sep, 2003 from Ottawa, Canada
Apparently, you're the one who needs a fight or something, bk. And the one solo 'fanboy' comment wasn't the only thing you said, if you read your whole post again.
My response wasn't adult-like or childish, it was merely human. I reserve the right to and don't apologize for being too tired and cross to be "diplomatic" all the time. You were out of line, and instead of apologizing for it or realizing that maybe-- just maybe-- you're the one who took things to a personal level, you follow up with MORE insults and try to further your argument.
It gets really tiresome. And you're not even somebody who normally instigates such things. Frankly, I rarely look at names when I reply, and when I read back and saw who I was replying to, today, I was like, "Really? bk??" So when I say it gets tiresome, I don't mean from you, against whom I still have no beef, but in general. You can't voice a counter-opinion to a Feature Request around here without people getting all pissy about it.
Cheers,
Greg
My response wasn't adult-like or childish, it was merely human. I reserve the right to and don't apologize for being too tired and cross to be "diplomatic" all the time. You were out of line, and instead of apologizing for it or realizing that maybe-- just maybe-- you're the one who took things to a personal level, you follow up with MORE insults and try to further your argument.
It gets really tiresome. And you're not even somebody who normally instigates such things. Frankly, I rarely look at names when I reply, and when I read back and saw who I was replying to, today, I was like, "Really? bk??" So when I say it gets tiresome, I don't mean from you, against whom I still have no beef, but in general. You can't voice a counter-opinion to a Feature Request around here without people getting all pissy about it.
Cheers,
Greg
-
- KVRAF
- 3617 posts since 26 Sep, 2003 from Bradford - The Armpit of Britain
I'd never noticed that mackie didn't include version numbers, not strange as i don't really use T anymore.
My 2 cents: Reason does it, Ableton Live does it.
It's easy to implement.
Whenever you are dealing with the public, especially software etc. one has to cater for the lowest common denominator & remember the 'numpty factor'.
So it certainly wouldn't hurt to do it, it would be easy & could help customers by giving them one less thing to phuck up e.g. accidentally overwriting a file & then finding out that there is a compatibility problem with the new version, wanting to revert & realising that they can't due to the overwrite.
Using version numbers would negate the possibility of the above scenario & similar ones, & surely that is part of a programmers job - thinking ahead & trying to minimise possible problems, which is why mucho software uses version numbers.
Why should a user have implement something even so simple as a set of named folders for software versions when the company could do it for them, surely they must use something similar as part of their development & audit process?
Anybody who works with long complex word documents & spreadsheets etc. should understand this.
My 2 cents: Reason does it, Ableton Live does it.
It's easy to implement.
Whenever you are dealing with the public, especially software etc. one has to cater for the lowest common denominator & remember the 'numpty factor'.
So it certainly wouldn't hurt to do it, it would be easy & could help customers by giving them one less thing to phuck up e.g. accidentally overwriting a file & then finding out that there is a compatibility problem with the new version, wanting to revert & realising that they can't due to the overwrite.
Using version numbers would negate the possibility of the above scenario & similar ones, & surely that is part of a programmers job - thinking ahead & trying to minimise possible problems, which is why mucho software uses version numbers.
Why should a user have implement something even so simple as a set of named folders for software versions when the company could do it for them, surely they must use something similar as part of their development & audit process?
Anybody who works with long complex word documents & spreadsheets etc. should understand this.
-
- KVRAF
- 2009 posts since 9 Apr, 2003 from Cornwall, UK
I don't think that Mackie want us to go back to older versions, 'the current version *is* the best'.
I just rename the filename, it's not difficult and has saved me a massive pain in the butt as the last version v.4 randomly quit on my system, so my backup version came in very handy. luck I didn't trust Mackie's beta testers!
I just rename the filename, it's not difficult and has saved me a massive pain in the butt as the last version v.4 randomly quit on my system, so my backup version came in very handy. luck I didn't trust Mackie's beta testers!
-
- KVRAF
- 4644 posts since 28 Nov, 2002 from Chicago
I'd be surprised if that is the programmer's decision to make.diverdee wrote:& surely that is part of a programmers job
The behaviour of the webserver is going to be the web-team's department, and overall say is always going to lie with the big boss.
Someone shot the food. Remember: don't shoot food!
-
- KVRAF
- 3617 posts since 26 Sep, 2003 from Bradford - The Armpit of Britain
yeah - point taken, really it would prolly be the responsibility of the project manager or something.
Dunno any of you have ever worked on any kind of project team, I did it at cellnet helping to test & implement a new frontend system & the version numbering, document auditing & all that guffins was very important - any change to a document, or anything else had to be logged in the approved manner, version changes had to be referenced & yada yada yada.
It was a ballache at times, but in the event that something went wrong it made perfect sense.
Obviously all the old versions of programs was archived along with relevant test docs. etc.
Dunno any of you have ever worked on any kind of project team, I did it at cellnet helping to test & implement a new frontend system & the version numbering, document auditing & all that guffins was very important - any change to a document, or anything else had to be logged in the approved manner, version changes had to be referenced & yada yada yada.
It was a ballache at times, but in the event that something went wrong it made perfect sense.
Obviously all the old versions of programs was archived along with relevant test docs. etc.
-
- KVRist
- 207 posts since 27 Mar, 2005 from Spain
That's just about one of the most optimistic and funny comments I have heard anyone say about a software patch from any supplier.Mr. Tingle wrote:I don't think that Mackie want us to go back to older versions, 'the current version *is* the best'.
I wonder just how many people installed SP1 - only to have to remove it a few days later?
Graeme
-
- KVRAF
- 2009 posts since 9 Apr, 2003 from Cornwall, UK
exactly! it's all about confindence. you want to say the the world 'we're clever and don't make mistakes, you can trust us'Graeme wrote:That's just about one of the most optimistic and funny comments I have heard anyone say about a software patch from any supplier.Mr. Tingle wrote:I don't think that Mackie want us to go back to older versions, 'the current version *is* the best'.
I wonder just how many people installed SP1 - only to have to remove it a few days later?
but I'm not totally serious about that really being Mackies intentions, their probably oblivious.
-
- KVRAF
- 12977 posts since 29 Sep, 2003 from Ottawa, Canada
Like any beta testers, 'they' can only report on things that they've experienced or come across.Mr. Tingle wrote:luck I didn't trust Mackie's beta testers!
FWIW, I don't trust ANY new releases from any company until they've proven stable.Mind you, I DID keep SP1 installed without rolling back... Maybe I'm just lucky.
Greg
-
- KVRAF
- 2009 posts since 9 Apr, 2003 from Cornwall, UK
sorry, couldn't resist a little dig.Lunch Money wrote:Like any beta testers, 'they' can only report on things that they've experienced or come across.Mr. Tingle wrote:luck I didn't trust Mackie's beta testers!
Greg