Version Confusion 2.01 vs 2.1 beta 1

By on March 16, 2013 3:22:44 PM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

hschroed

Join Date 03/2013
0

Purchased Object Desktop and started downloading and installing components. Got to Fences. Found stable v 2.01 and 2.1 beta 1. Confusion started! Is 2.1 beta 1 really 2.10 beta 1? Is 2.1 beta 1 a beta of the version that will replace v 2.01, in which case it should be identified as v 2.02 beta 1? Is 2.1 beta 1 really 2.01 beta 1 (ie. a beta of the current stable v 2.01), in which case it shouldn't even appear as a download?

In either case, confusion continued, installing 2.1 beta 1 should accurately reflect its version in the About of the program (ie 2.1 beta 1 or 2.01 beta 1, whatever, whichever is the correct interpretation) instead of the 2.01 version that it currently displays.

 

Does anybody know what 2.1 beta 1 is a beta of?

 

The reason I ask is because I am getting the "Fences Folder Portals feature is unavailable in classic mode.' message, and that this is a system of v 2.01 and will be fixed in next version. Will that be 2.1 beta 1 or 2.01 beta 1 or 2.02 beta 1, 2.02, or 2.20? It is still a problem in the 2.1 beta 1 I have installed.

4 Replies
Search this post
Subscription Options


Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
March 18, 2013 12:01:41 PM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Hello,

The current Beta of Fences 2, is indeed 2.09, however, the 'About' is reporting an older version.  This will be resolved in coming releases. 

Fences reporting that Folder Portals are not available in classic mode will still be reported in newer versions, however, there is now an option to turn of the notice.  The notice is not reporting an issue with Fences, rather, that Aero is not enabled or working properly.  One cause could be that the machine is waking from hibernation or after quitting a program that shuts down Aero.

Regards. 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
March 19, 2013 5:28:41 PM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

2.09? I didn't see that coming. Version 2.09 makes more sense than calling the download 2.1 beta 1. Version 2.09 would clearly be a higher version than 2.01. From my experience, the naming convention is usually the name of the target final version/level appended with alpha and beta n to indicate progress towards final. So if 2.00 was a stable release then next stable release could be 2.01 and the alphas and betas in-between would be 2.01 alpha 1 etc and beta 1 etc. If your alpha/betas are actually 2.01,2.02, 2.03-2.09, it might be more accurate to identify the download 2.10 beta 9.

As for the Fences Portal error, I have another theory.

The majority of Stardock customers are running the product on a PC with a single Windows account with administrator access. Families sharing a single computer typically share that single account. Most program publishers appear to be missing the boat on the emerging program/app business models that are forcing computer users to implement multiple accounts.

Microsoft Office 2013 is an example. Microsoft has deliberately made the EULA of Microsoft Office 2013 so restrictive (e.g. single PC, single install (read .. if Windows fails (even if it's due to MS code failure) and you require a reinstall of Windows, you can't reinstall Office 2013 without paying for it again) so restrictive that it herds their customer into buying Office 365 with a yearly subscription. The next step is to tie the product to the user and not the PC, the argument being that a multiple users on a single machine should be paying more than a single user on a single machine. What is the evidence that this is the next step? Do a Windows 8 Microsoft Store app install and you will discover that the app is only available to the account that the app was installed in. The only way to make the app available in a second or third account is to setup Microsoft Store access in each Windows account. If you set up each account with the same Microsoft ID (Hotmail, Passport, etc), you can install the app without paying a second time.

Setting up separate accounts for different family members, using the same Microsoft ID however precludes you from effectively using some very important  features in Windows 8.

Consider a family of three. Father uses home desktop, laptop, smart phone, tablet and work pc, and wants to use cloud features to share/sync information between between all. Mother similarly, uses home desktop and a second smart phone, and the child uses home desktop and a third smart phone/ipod, etc. The only way to effectively sync cloud data between the single PC and the corresponding mobile user/device, is to run multiple accounts on the desktop, with each account having its own unique Microsoft ID active. That would effectively position Microsoft to implement both a yearly subscription and per user business model on every PC running Windows 8 and up.

From a publishers point of view, this would be the ideal revenue position to be in. From a user point of view it may be the perfect storm or possibly a good opportunity. If the price per year/per user is significantly low enough to match current software investment (consider the per app cost of Apple Store downloads) and there is an increase of the number of customers downloading the app, it could be a user/publisher win-win.

So why did I degress. I am trying to impress on Stardock that the requirement to develop apps that have to be designed to run on a PC that may have several accounts logged on simultaneously through user switching, may no longer be an exception but is about to become the norm.

The problem with Fences Portal may be that the status of Aero may indeed be turned on/off between the different accounts.

I have a similar issue with the Object Desktop program which sets the background for the Windows 8 lock screen. If you set the lock screen as administrator in one account, switching between the other accounts results in the lock screen returning to the default Windows background. My theory is that Stardocks programs have to be redesigned to be more compatible with a multiple account PC.

 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
March 19, 2013 5:36:28 PM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Quoting hschroed,

 
I have a similar issue with the Object Desktop program which sets the background for the Windows 8 lock screen. If you set the lock screen as administrator in one account, switching between the other accounts results in the lock screen returning to the default Windows background. My theory is that Stardocks programs have to be redesigned to be more compatible with a multiple account PC.

 
 

The issue with multiple lock screens on Windows 8 is a bug in Windows 8 itself.  The very same problem happens with the lock screen changing option built into the OS.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Sign Up or Login and this ad disappears!
There are many great features available to you once you register. Sign Up for a free account and browse the forums without ads.
March 19, 2013 5:49:24 PM from WinCustomize Forums WinCustomize Forums

Quoting hschroed,
Microsoft Office 2013 is an example. Microsoft has deliberately made the EULA of Microsoft Office 2013 so restrictive (e.g. single PC, single install

This has changed see link

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Stardock Forums v1.0.0.0    #108431  walnut1   Server Load Time: 00:00:00.0000422   Page Render Time:

Home | About | Privacy | Upload Guidelines | Terms of Service | Help
WinCustomize © 2014 Stardock Corporation. All Rights Reserved.