Subj : Re: Off Topic (was: MS XCOPY v 4DOS internal COPY) To : R.A.G. Seely From : Outsider Date : Sun Feb 10 2002 06:36 pm From: Outsider@f3.n342.z1.cereal.mv.com (Outsider) Subject: Re: Off Topic (was: MS XCOPY v 4DOS internal COPY) From: Outsider <"o?o"@microsoft.com> R.A.G. Seely wrote: > > Outsider wrote in > news:3C663413.F63E53C5@yahoo.com: > > > Probably the most common error is 'higher' instead of 'newer', ie. > > MSDOS 5.0 or "higher", Windows 95 or "higher". One version cannot > > be _higher_ than another, neither physically nor euphorically . > > Well - 6.0 is "higher" than 5.0, in a reasonably understood numerical > sense, but it certainly isn't "newer"! (Do you suppose numbers were > created, one per day, or something?) So I don't think your argument is > entirely sound here. But I think "greater" might be better. I must disagree. The number is higher, but the version is not. Higher or greater version numbers indicate a newer version, that is their purpose. Therefore, "newer" is the correct term, or, "newer" or "later" version. It's like confusing numbers with the numerals that represent them. > One disadvantage of "newer" is very common - people start to equate greater > version numbers with newer versions of the software to such an extent that > they do this "across" different products. Hence the nonsense like "you've > got to use a version 4 or greater browser to view my site" - when not all > browsers use the same numbering system. (Eg, Opera was driven to some > artificial number version increases just because there was a perception > that its lower version numbers were an indication of supporting fewer > features.) That is another problem, and one which is not even explainable by _legimate_ misunderstanding, IMO. -- Outsider -- |Fidonet: Outsider 1:342/3 | | Origin: The Cereal Port BBS (603)899-3335 199.125.78.133 (1:132/152) --- # Origin: (1:132/152.4) * Origin: Baddog BBS (1:218/903) .