LISTSERV at the University of Georgia
Menubar Imagemap
Home Browse Manage Request Manuals Register
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (May 2009, week 1)Back to main SAS-L pageJoin or leave SAS-L (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:   Mon, 4 May 2009 15:59:17 -0400
Reply-To:   Chang Chung <chang_y_chung@HOTMAIL.COM>
Sender:   "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:   Chang Chung <chang_y_chung@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject:   Re: V9.2 Phase 2 versus V9.21
Comments:   To: Mike Zdeb <msz03@ALBANY.EDU>

On Mon, 4 May 2009 13:53:23 -0400, Mike Zdeb <msz03@ALBANY.EDU> wrote: ... >there are many references to version 9.21 on the SAS web site >is that the same as version 9.2 phase 2? ...

I seriously believe that disasters strike whenever marketing people are allowed to set the version number. I can give you several examples:

(1) WordStar. I am not kidding. This was THE word processing application in 1980's. One day, the version number jumped to "2000." WordStart2000 killed itself, its parents, and ancestors as well. :-) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WordStar

(2) SPSS-X almost did the same thing to SPSS. In fact, it could have been worse if X in Roman numerals wasn't indeed 10.

(3) Java. I sincerely believe that SUN would still be alive if it kept the version numbers straight. Just an example of how messy it is, see http://java.sun.com/javase/6/webnotes/compatibility.html Good luck, Oracle!

(4) Windows ME. Need I say more? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_me#Criticisms)

This "sas 9.2 phase 2" mess reminds me of the 8.02, 8.2, and 8e debacle. (http://www.listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0412A&L=sas-l&D=0&P=51311)

Not again... please. :-)


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main SAS-L page