Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 00:03 UTC
Microsoft Microsoft has just responded to Google's move regarding Exchange ActiveSync. Sadly, instead of addressing the very real problems consumers are about to face, Microsoft starts talking about switching to Outlook.com.
Thread beginning with comment 545940
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[17]: Comment by shmerl
by Laurence on Thu 20th Dec 2012 10:55 UTC in reply to "RE[16]: Comment by shmerl"
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

I was simply explaining why Microsoft release as they do.

Oh well.

Indeed. That I agree with because now you're FINALLY stating that you're talking about release cycles.

I kept saying that your argument is about release cycles and not version numbers, yet you kept dismissing that point and trying to argue that it's the version numbers which made the difference. Which is why this argument went on for so long.

Edited 2012-12-20 11:12 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[18]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Thu 20th Dec 2012 18:59 in reply to "RE[17]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

And the version number gets incremented with the fucking RELEASE.

They aren't totally independent. Saying that release version X will stay relevant for Y amount of time and support SET Z of features is part of the release.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[19]: Comment by shmerl
by Laurence on Thu 20th Dec 2012 23:53 in reply to "RE[18]: Comment by shmerl"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

And the version number gets incremented with the fucking RELEASE.

They aren't totally independent. Saying that release version X will stay relevant for Y amount of time and support SET Z of features is part of the release.

Indeed. But to then credit the longer release cycles in IE to it's versioning (which is what you did), is a step too far. I can see the logic behind your statement, but it's deeply flawed logic.

Version numbing is essentially just a naming convention. What you're talking about is releases. Each release needs a name / version number; true. But just because some numbers increment differently to others doesn't make one product more or less enterprise ready (unlike the claim you made).

If you had even the slightest idea what you were talking about, you'd realise the idiocity of making such a leap.

Reply Parent Score: 2