Subj : Re: Off Topic (was: MS XCOPY v 4DOS internal COPY) To : Outsider From : meirman Date : Mon Feb 11 2002 06:39 am From: meirman@f3.n342.z1.cereal.mv.com (meirman) Subject: Re: Off Topic (was: MS XCOPY v 4DOS internal COPY) From: meirman In comp.os.msdos.4dos on Mon, 11 Feb 2002 08:57:03 +0100 Outsider <"o?o"@microsoft.com> posted: >R.A.G. Seely wrote in a prior post: > (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. There is the little known theory that the numbers were indeed created one day at a time. After all, in the Bible it says that "there was evening and there was morning, one day". After that it switches to ordinal numbers, but still they are introduced one number per day. Of course, this only accounts for the first 7 numbers, and I just made up the theory anyhow. >...snipped >> Must be my training as a mathematician, but "greater" also means "larger" - >> or more accurately "more positive" (since -5 > -10 is a true statement: >> "minus 5 is greater than minus 10") ... >> >> The point I think you and Outsider are missing is that one often is >> referring to version *numbers* when saying "4DOS 6.0 or higher" or "4NT >> 4.01 or greater" and so it is a legitimate use to say "bigger", "larger", >> "greater", or other adjectives referring to the size (more precisely, the >> ordinal position) of the numbers involved. Of course, there is ambiguity >> here, so that one might be also (syntactically, rather than semantically) >> be referring to the *versions* themselves, in which case "newer", "later", >> and so on are correct. > >But the _version_ is not higher or greater, only the _version number_ itself. >The version is newer, which is designated by a higher or greater number. Yes. > >> In either case, I think phrases like "an abuse of English" are probably a >> bit extreme - but I guess that was their point. > >I see it as willful abuse on the part of software producers who purposely >mislead users into thinking a version is "greater", "higher" or "better", >when, in fact, it is newer -only- as indicated by the newer version number. >Everything else is subject to individual subjective evaluation and marketing >hype. I'm pretty much a purist wrt English myself but in this case, I think they're stuck with the way that consumers are going to perceive things. There is no doubt that if Word is on version 6 and Wordperfect on version 5, the latter looks older AND less powerful. Not just older than WP's own yet-to-be-released Ver 6, but older than Word's version 6. And since iirc WORD version 6 was specifically for win3.1, it WAS newer and used windows facilities. If Star Office for Windows were to have started off with version 3 it would sound to a lot of users like a toddler. It would remind some of them of the days of dos3. It's the same reason they put X in corporate names, one of the several reasons Xerox used two X's in their name, and the reason they say new and improved on packages. If there were some moral or legal requirement that there actually be versions 4 and 5 before there could be a version 6, then they would just name some version 3 with its first set of improvements as version 4, etc. because no one wants to violate moral or legal require...... OK a lot don't care, but some might do it anyhow to help with their public relations. meirman@QQQerols.com If you email me, please let me know whether remove the QQQ or not you are posting the same letter. -- |Fidonet: meirman 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) .