Ive just downloaded this development version...dont know if any of the development versions make a difference but i figure that someone has to try them out :P

I think that when bugs are fixed and a "perfect" boinc version is settled upon then more thought should be put into aesthetics like adding more install options so at installation the user can choose wether to have the side bar etc

---

<BR>AMD XP3200+
<img src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/seti2/stats.php?userID=2327&amp;trans=off"><img src="http://petrus.homeftp.org/bws/counter_big.php?id=7828479">
<a href="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paulandrew.odell/">MY SITE!</a>

I'm still fine running 4.19...
I'll only upgrade if i'm convinced it'll be a step in the right direction.
Still i'm not this way...
4.19 is not the solution for the world, but it's my solution...

---

Aloha, Uli

I'm running the 4.25 CLI (windows) because

1) I only look at the status messages anyway
2) the 4.25 GUI doesn't look as good as the 4.19 GUI, but that's just my opinion.
3) I don't like boincview (and that's admittedly because I didn't RTFM.)

*runs off to check some things in the User's Manual*

---

<img border="0" src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/one/stats.php?userID=567" />
<a href="http://boinc-doc.net/boinc-wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page">BOINC Wiki</a>
<a href="http://www.tamaness.hostrocket.com/BOINC_team.html">Gideontech BOINC team!</a>

> I'm running the 4.25 CLI (windows) because
>
> 1) I only look at the status messages anyway
> 2) the 4.25 GUI doesn't look as good as the 4.19 GUI, but that's just my
> opinion.
> 3) I don't like boincview (and that's admittedly because I didn't RTFM.)
>
> *runs off to check some things in the <a> href="http://boinc-doc.net/index.php">User's Manual[/url]*
>
Here the same. I also prefered the surface of the 4.19 version! Surely I'm running Windows, but I don't want to remembered by the 4.25 client.

---

WARR - Wissenschaftliche Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Raketentechnik und Raumfahrt
(WARR - scientific working group for rocket technology and space travel)

Thanks Paul for the info.

One thing that should be noted is that 4.27 is develpmental software and can be buggy. You should be aware that developmental software can do strange things to your puter and shouldn't be tried unless you're willing to accept the damage to software and hardware that can result from it's use. Stick with Official Core Client releases if you don't want to risk it.

thanks

tony

---

> Thanks Paul for the info.
>
> One thing that should be noted is that 4.27 is develpmental software and can
> be buggy. You should be aware that developmental software can do strange
> things to your puter and shouldn't be tried unless you're willing to accept
> the damage to software and hardware that can result from it's use. Stick with
> Official Core Client releases if you don't want to risk it.
>
> thanks
>
> tony
>
>

why is there everytime somebody who is panicing ? i think this scare about development software is really much too big and i dont know about any case (and can't imagine) where a dev version of boinc damaged any kind of hardware... development versions aren't that dangerous as most people think and "stable" versions aren't 100 % safe as the same people mostly think... even in "stable" versions can be many many bugs (as you see in windows) and its just a bit more tested than the dev versions...
"One thing that should be noted is that 4.27 is develpmental software and can be buggy." so you think that the "stable" releases can't be buggy ? why do the new dev versions fix bugs of the older stable versions, if the stable versions didnt have any bugs at all ? strange.....

---

<img border="0" src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/banner.php?cpid=6aae282341ad2454f17ea9016af07816" />

>
> why is there everytime somebody who is panicing ? i think this scare about
> development software is really much too big and i dont know about any case
> (and can't imagine) where a dev version of boinc damaged any kind of
> hardware... development versions aren't that dangerous as most people think
> and "stable" versions aren't 100 % safe as the same people mostly think...
> even in "stable" versions can be many many bugs (as you see in windows) and
> its just a bit more tested than the dev versions...
> "One thing that should be noted is that 4.27 is develpmental software and can
> be buggy." so you think that the "stable" releases can't be buggy ? why do
> the new dev versions fix bugs of the older stable versions, if the stable
> versions didnt have any bugs at all ? strange.....
>
>
I'm in a strange position here MW. I feel/felt exactly the same as you. There has been a big discussion about this issue in the past. I could look up the threads for you. I posted threads when a new version was available and was quickly debasted for NOT including a warning. I defended my/your position and there were even POLLs looking for anyone who was actually harmed by the lack of a disclaimer. NOONE responded that they were hurt. That might have been because noone was or because noone wanted to fess up about being so foolish. These disclaimers are for the 1 or 2 out a thousands who don't take the time to read the already existing disclaimer on the download page. It's PC gone crazy.

The person who debasted me apologized, and I agreed to include the disclaimer.

Have a nice week end

tony

---

hm, ok :)

nice weekend too

---

<img border="0" src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/banner.php?cpid=6aae282341ad2454f17ea9016af07816" />

I'll stay with 4.19 for now, but I disagree that install options and so on should wait until 4.27 is stable. One obvious reason is that adding more features can easily tilt the software unto unstable condition again. Another reason is that any software can only be judged as a whole. IMO there are no such thing as "only esthetics". Besides, people/users should be asked what options they want to be included. This issue is far to important than to be decided by a handful of developers.

---

> "One thing that should be noted is that 4.27 is develpmental software and can
> be buggy." so you think that the "stable" releases can't be buggy ? why do
> the new dev versions fix bugs of the older stable versions, if the stable
> versions didnt have any bugs at all ? strange.....

Release versions are believed to be reasonably stable.

Development versions are believed to be unstable until proven otherwise.

Note the use of the word "believed" -- not "known."

This is true of all software, not just BOINC.

---

I don't run dev versions because I don't babysit my computer enough to diagnose problems and compile bug reports. I'm not afraid of losing anything; it's just data.

---

<img border="0" src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/one/stats.php?userID=567" />
<a href="http://boinc-doc.net/boinc-wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page">BOINC Wiki</a>
<a href="http://www.tamaness.hostrocket.com/BOINC_team.html">Gideontech BOINC team!</a>

> why is there everytime somebody who is panicing ? i think this scare about
> development software is really much too big and i dont know about any case
> (and can't imagine) where a dev version of boinc damaged any kind of
> hardware... development versions aren't that dangerous as most people think
> and "stable" versions aren't 100 % safe as the same people mostly think...
> even in "stable" versions can be many many bugs (as you see in windows) and
> its just a bit more tested than the dev versions...
> "One thing that should be noted is that 4.27 is develpmental software and can
> be buggy." so you think that the "stable" releases can't be buggy ? why do
> the new dev versions fix bugs of the older stable versions, if the stable
> versions didnt have any bugs at all ? strange.....
>
I would ask: why should one run a non-public release version, such as 4.27 verses 4.25? What will I get that I don't get with the 4.25?

If there's something improved or fixed that can be documented, well document it. If not, my experience is if I upgrade early, there's usually last minute changes and I have to re-download again anyway.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: if there's a fix for some problem that keeps anyone from using the software effectively, let people know (that alpha releaese x.xx fixes yyy problem).

---

<img src='http://www.boincsynergy.com/images/stats/comb-912.jpg'>

> I would ask: why should one run a non-public release version, such as 4.27
> verses 4.25? What will I get that I don't get with the 4.25?

Some people like being part of the team that tests the software, finds the bugs, makes sure it works for the rest of the computing population.

It asks a committment from those running the pre-release versions, to be even more watchful of how it's working, to put it through its paces and look for problems. I used to do it for some message board software (now long gone), it can be another kind of fun and competition, trying to be the first to find the bug, have the best description of what's happening, on computers and in circumstances that the developers may not have access to.

> I guess what I'm trying to say is: if there's a fix for some problem that
> keeps anyone from using the software effectively, let people know (that alpha
> releaese x.xx fixes yyy problem).

FIRST, they test the pre-release, to make sure it fixes that yyy problem without introducing a qqq problem to replace it. They may announce that it should fix that yyy problem, but until it's actually released, there are more risks of it not fixing it in your environment, or introducing another bug. I don't do testing any more, the release will come soon enough.

---

Most software tends to be released much too early - generally speaking. IMO software should go through enough beta cycles to eliminate all known bugs. But I see over and over that impatient developers feel they must release after 3rd beta.

I'm not saying this is true for BOINC also. It looks to have a very serious development team. But maybe, just maybe, BOINC's biggest fault is its sturdyness after all: the developers seem to have agreed on that sturdyness, robustness - and of course scientific purpose (that goes without saying) - is their only focus. In that perspective, user options tends to be forgotten or made low-priority.

---

There are some people that have been asked to run the development software. There are some people that like to run the development software to try to help. There are some people that feel they must run the development software even thought they do not really understand that it can introduce bugs. There were many complaints about bugs in development versions, which is why we always post the disclaimer. There were one or two versions that trashed things (not any hardware yet, just data), but the users that should not have been running the development code started screaming bloody murder about leaving and such because of the horrible buggy software. I would much rather see the disclaimers to keep those people at bay. Note that I do run the development versions and I try to keep track of what is happening.

4.27 does seem stable at the moment.

The ability to hide the left pane is comming (not in the install, but at runtime so you can unhide it again if you want -- mine is going to stay hidden).

---

BOINC WIKI

> Most software tends to be released much too early - generally speaking. IMO
> software should go through enough beta cycles to eliminate all known
> bugs. But I see over and over that impatient developers feel they must
> release after 3rd beta.

Most of that is commercial pressure, i.e. marketers and managers trying to push software onto the shelves and get sales moving. The dynamic for this kind of freeware should be somewhat different, though I imagine Berkeley has its deadlines too.

> There are some people that have been asked to run the development software.
> There are some people that like to run the development software to try to
> help. There are some people that feel they must run the development software
> even thought they do not really understand that it can introduce bugs.

If I can help (officially) let me know. I'm actually managing a beta test program (on a non-trivial project) so I'm well aware of the risks.

---

To me, every single version is just the same.... im using 2.27 by the way ;)

---