Thanks very much for the heads up!! Boy 5.2.2 had a short and merry life :).
As you say, there must have been a showstopper for a new "recommended version" to come in so quickly. I wasn't expecting that!! Oh well, a few quick edits and nobody will notice the difference :).
Thanks very much for the heads up!! Boy 5.2.2 had a short and merry life :).
As you say, there must have been a showstopper for a new "recommended version" to come in so quickly. I wasn't expecting that!! Oh well, a few quick edits and nobody will notice the difference :).
In the new version numbering system, the last digit is just a "bugfix number". So the 5.2.x's should all be the same, with just relatively minor 'fixes' each time the last digit bumps. Users only need to move from 5.2.2 to 5.2.5 if they have the specific problem addressed; RAS, Win9x shutdown, or Mac screensaver, IIRC.
Also, the recommended and even the latest beta version may vary by platform. 5.2.2 was never the recommended for Linux or Mac. I'm not sure any 5.2 was, and too lazy to go look, but if it was, it was 5.2.4 on Linux - assuming it's okay, the first V5 Mac "recommended" will probably be 5.2.5. (When I get off the boards, I'll see if I can break it...) And I don't even want to think about the 5.3.1 that somebody already grabbed and optimized!
Anyway, I would in most cases just refer to 5.2.x as "5.2.x" and not specify the last digit, unless it's relevant to the specific question.
Anyway, I would in most cases just refer to 5.2.x as "5.2.x" and not specify the last digit, unless it's relevant to the specific question.
Yes, this is the best solution. My intention is to provide encouragement to Windows users to upgrade if they are having problems with a 4.xx version. Linux users don't usually need hand holding and I know nothing about Macs so that's why the upgrading guide was specifically directed at, and limited to Windows.
My concern is to make the instructions relevant to what a person contemplating upgrading will see when going to the downloads page. They will largely take the recommended version so the instructions should mention what the current value is and be changed when that changes. I've made some minor changes that should be clear to users who need assistance.
I have only skimmed through the posts here since I posted last and saw my name mentioned a couple of times. Gary seems to have stated my Beta App reasoning fairly well. It is Einstein 4.79 that is out of date - having been built to a pre-BOINC 4.45 library. Therefore, Einstein 4.79 has some incompatibilities with BOINC 4.45 (and later BOINC versions). Apparently, these incompatibilities are mostly related to the graphic display aspects of Einstein. And, it is my belief that the library incompatibilities expand the scope of the "graphics bug" beyond that "ATI graphics card" problem that was the center of early "graphics bug" reports. The Beta App not only contains specific fixes for the ATI graphics card problem but it also uses the new BOINC library and therefore addresses incompatibility issues as well. My experience with the Beta App has been very good. I switched to the 0.03 Beta back in August shortly after I upgraded to BOINC 4.45 from v4.19. My Einstein 4.79 WU's had started failing with "Client errors" immediately after the BOINC upgrade. I read through the Message Boards, saw some posts that recommended the Beta App and decided to give it a try. And, it has worked flawlessly for me - no "Client errors" since switching. I am now using v0.18. I should note that my Dell laptop (which had all the "Client errors" using einstein 4.79 and BOINC 4.45 ) does not have an ATI card.
I have rambled a bit, but the main point I want to make is this: Upgrading BOINC beyond v4.19 will not cure the "graphics bug". On the contrary, it causes it to occur. But, if you are using BOINC 4.45 or later, switching to the Beta App fixes the "graphics bug" in most cases.
I have been advocating the Beta because of the above stated reasons and also because is inevitable that some day a version of this Beta App will replace 4.79 as "official". We all can help move that process along if we try the Beta and report any problems we might encounter.
Thanks very much for the
)
Thanks very much for the heads up!! Boy 5.2.2 had a short and merry life :).
As you say, there must have been a showstopper for a new "recommended version" to come in so quickly. I wasn't expecting that!! Oh well, a few quick edits and nobody will notice the difference :).
Cheers,
Gary.
RE: Thanks very much for
)
In the new version numbering system, the last digit is just a "bugfix number". So the 5.2.x's should all be the same, with just relatively minor 'fixes' each time the last digit bumps. Users only need to move from 5.2.2 to 5.2.5 if they have the specific problem addressed; RAS, Win9x shutdown, or Mac screensaver, IIRC.
Also, the recommended and even the latest beta version may vary by platform. 5.2.2 was never the recommended for Linux or Mac. I'm not sure any 5.2 was, and too lazy to go look, but if it was, it was 5.2.4 on Linux - assuming it's okay, the first V5 Mac "recommended" will probably be 5.2.5. (When I get off the boards, I'll see if I can break it...) And I don't even want to think about the 5.3.1 that somebody already grabbed and optimized!
Anyway, I would in most cases just refer to 5.2.x as "5.2.x" and not specify the last digit, unless it's relevant to the specific question.
RE: Anyway, I would in most
)
Yes, this is the best solution. My intention is to provide encouragement to Windows users to upgrade if they are having problems with a 4.xx version. Linux users don't usually need hand holding and I know nothing about Macs so that's why the upgrading guide was specifically directed at, and limited to Windows.
My concern is to make the instructions relevant to what a person contemplating upgrading will see when going to the downloads page. They will largely take the recommended version so the instructions should mention what the current value is and be changed when that changes. I've made some minor changes that should be clear to users who need assistance.
Thanks for the comment.
Cheers,
Gary.
I have only skimmed through
)
I have only skimmed through the posts here since I posted last and saw my name mentioned a couple of times. Gary seems to have stated my Beta App reasoning fairly well. It is Einstein 4.79 that is out of date - having been built to a pre-BOINC 4.45 library. Therefore, Einstein 4.79 has some incompatibilities with BOINC 4.45 (and later BOINC versions). Apparently, these incompatibilities are mostly related to the graphic display aspects of Einstein. And, it is my belief that the library incompatibilities expand the scope of the "graphics bug" beyond that "ATI graphics card" problem that was the center of early "graphics bug" reports. The Beta App not only contains specific fixes for the ATI graphics card problem but it also uses the new BOINC library and therefore addresses incompatibility issues as well. My experience with the Beta App has been very good. I switched to the 0.03 Beta back in August shortly after I upgraded to BOINC 4.45 from v4.19. My Einstein 4.79 WU's had started failing with "Client errors" immediately after the BOINC upgrade. I read through the Message Boards, saw some posts that recommended the Beta App and decided to give it a try. And, it has worked flawlessly for me - no "Client errors" since switching. I am now using v0.18. I should note that my Dell laptop (which had all the "Client errors" using einstein 4.79 and BOINC 4.45 ) does not have an ATI card.
I have rambled a bit, but the main point I want to make is this: Upgrading BOINC beyond v4.19 will not cure the "graphics bug". On the contrary, it causes it to occur. But, if you are using BOINC 4.45 or later, switching to the Beta App fixes the "graphics bug" in most cases.
I have been advocating the Beta because of the above stated reasons and also because is inevitable that some day a version of this Beta App will replace 4.79 as "official". We all can help move that process along if we try the Beta and report any problems we might encounter.