The Easter Weekend has been and gone. I think I read that the release of 2.0 was being deferred until after the Easter Weekend in order to maintain a better release profile.
Just wondered what lead time we should now expect?
No hassle, just trying to stave of my disappointment.
Thanks.
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on BlueSky
What is the main differences between 2.0 (proper) and 1.6.1?
AFAIK there are:
- Categories
- Theme standardization
- Language improvements ala Unicode
- Inbuilt (incremental) app updates
If there are any more I'd love to know!
Bests
Don't hijack threads. And you would know the answer if you read one or two of John's status updates.
If you feel a need to comment how about providing a link instead?
how about searching. or checking the blogs: https://portableapps.com/blogs
Too many lonely hearts in the real world
Too many bridges you can burn
Too many tables you can't turn
Don't wanna live my life in the real world
I meant can we please discuss the benefits of the new platform, instead of starting complaint threads relating to release dates.
Personally I don't care about how long it takes, so long as it's done properly and my experience with these apps is nothing short.
As I tried already to dot point some new features I'm hoping to know more.
Greetings to all!
The link is on every single page of the web site, hard to miss.
https://portableapps.com/blogs/johnhaller/2011-04-27_status_update
The information is already posted on the site. I don't see why you feel the need to hijack another person's thread for a question you could have easily figured out.
Awesome so to add:
- Portable App directory (Is that the original EXE files and bits & bobs to update?)
So all in all there are 5 new features/improvements it seems...
My confusion is in the difference between the current Beta (2.0) and the 2.0 RC1 in that shouldn't it be 2.1?
is that you don't understand the difference between a beta and a release candidate.
A typical development sequence goes like this
Alphas (which are sequentially numbered or lettered) - typically buggy and primitive
Betas (which are sequentially numbered or lettered) - still a few bugs/missing features
Release Candidates (which are sequentially numbered or lettered) - all bugs/features addressed, one last round of testing.
Final Release - ready for the masses.
So, the current beta is 2.0b5.
There may be another beta, which would be 2.0b6.
Once all the bugs are addressed, and all the features added, the first release candidate will be posted, and that would be 2.0RC1.
If no problems are found with the release candidate, the final release will be 2.0.
I made this half-pony, half-monkey monster to please you.
OK so why not release something bug free but which may or may not be feature complete?
I tried 2.0b5 and it was a real shocker let me tell you so I went back to 1.6.1 which is stable but lacks features commonly asked for such as those previously outlined.
Basically what I want to know is why can't it be that we have one feature at a time, in order of importance, eg. themes first (incl. unicode, languages etc), then categories, updater (proxies, incremental updates) instead of waiting forever to make it stable?
Although I'm not disposed to themes I understand their importance, similarly unicode compatibility and languages, but categories, updater and so on rank way down the list at least for me.
Professional comments perhaps?
Betas are mostly-stable but still unfit-for-public-release versions of software. Each beta will typically bring with it
new feature(s), which is mostly stable and tested, but which is need of more extensive testing by more people. But this can still depend on the development cycle of the product in question. Betas are only considered unfit for public use as they are not feature complete or may not be as stable as the release version.
Take Google Chrome, for example - each version of Chrome, which is on a rapid-release cycle, brings a small number of major features, whilst the dot point versions are bug and security fixes. Firefox is moving to this model as well, so we should see major releases every six or so months. So if you want the latest features today, you run the developer/alpha/nightly builds of a product. If you want new features which are mostly stable, you go for the beta version. If you want the newest features before everyone else AND stability, you grab the release candidates. If you want the best possible stability and reliability, you go for the less feature-some release version.
Feel free to disagree, that's just my two cents worth...
Maybe this is just my personal view .. but the 2.0b5 was not stable even with the features of the official release. Here I point to refresh on 1.6.1 flawless but on 2.0 slow.
I even noticed that 1.6.1 allowed an automatic refresh after app install, something I don't think 2.0 is capable of so that's why in a sense I am desperate for the official word/release because I know I will enjoy the new features but naturally need stability first and foremost.
And to answer the original question..
There's currently no new expected release date for 2.0, but I can't imagine it'll be too far away since the translations are nearing completion, along with the new theme is finalized.
@gluxon - many thanks for the direct answer. I'd seen John's comments abouting waiting until after Easter, so was just checking I hadn't missed something.
Thanks.
Cambridge, UK