Do you hate it when companies skip version numbers?

[Schadenfroh]

Like Audigy 2 to Audigy 4 and Winamp 3 to Winamp 5




and another thing.....
DirectX 9
DirectX 9B
DirectX 9C

instead of DX9, DX9.1, DX9.2 etc.

 

[Platypus]

Winamp 3 to 5 has a reason.

 

[Quasmo]

I dont like how version upgrades like from V1 to V2 sometimes really aren't tat different. I think that a complete new version should mean that almost all the code is relooked at and then rewritten more suitable then scrap bd features and add better ones. Helps create less bloat.

 

[Rock Hydra]

It doesn't bother me. It's only a number.

 

[tami]

who cares?

 

[Mrvile]

Very much so.

 

[Mr Smiley]

Only if my vote will make it 50 50.

 

[JetBlack69]

Java 1.4 to Java 5

 

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: Mrvile
Very much so.

 

[walla]

Windows 3.1 -> Windows 95 -> Windows 2000

 

[aplefka]

Yeah, makes it hard to follow updates.

 

[Actaeon]

Originally posted by: walla
Windows 3.1 -> Windows 95 -> Windows 2000

:laugh:

 

[sash1]

It pisses me off soo much! :| I just want to shoot something! Last time a company skipped a version number I threw my computer out of my window then poured acid all over it! :| :| :| :thumbsdown:

 

[Krk3561]

Originally posted by: walla
Windows 3.1 -> Windows 95 -> Windows 2000

You forgot 98 and ME

 

[Cheesetogo]

Originally posted by: walla
Windows 3.1 -> Windows 95 -> Windows 2000

Was there a widows 1 and 2?

 

[icejunkie]

Arctic Silver 3 -> 5, but that's because in Japan 4 is considered an unlucky number

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: JetBlack69
Java 1.4 to Java 5

I want to stab Sun for that.

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: Cheesetogo

Originally posted by: walla
Windows 3.1 -> Windows 95 -> Windows 2000

Was there a widows 1 and 2?

Yes.

 

[ultimatebob]

IBM is does this too... every time they add a new DB2 product, it gets the same "8.2" version number as the rest of the suite. Even if it is a flaky first version product that needs a bazillion patches to work right