Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Lame 3.90 beta vs. 3.90 stable (Read 3470 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lame 3.90 beta vs. 3.90 stable

I am just curious if anyone happens to know why the Developers decided to issue a 3.90 beta before a 3.90 stable?

Did they recently discover some problems that warrant closer scrutiny?

The Developers rightly realized that a new stable is needed soon to replace the dying 3.70, and they were about to issue it till ??? something happened...

PS I hope we do not have a "7 month lifespan" of 3.90 beta. It is my feeling that lame use among the masses will surge once 3.90 stable is released and once people hear the great quality (for those who care about qualiy...) Also, hopefully --alt-preset normal will attract many users and then we will have an MP3 renaissance on the web...

Lame 3.90 beta vs. 3.90 stable

Reply #1 –
Quote
Originally posted by RD
I am just curious if anyone happens to know why the Developers decided to issue a 3.90 beta before a 3.90 stable?

Did they recently discover some problems that warrant closer scrutiny?

The Developers rightly realized that a new stable is needed soon to replace the dying 3.70, and they were about to issue it till ??? something happened...


The main reason I think is because of the issue with the presets and a few other "loose ends".

Quote
PS I hope we do not have a "7 month lifespan" of 3.90 beta. It is my feeling that lame use among the masses will surge once 3.90 stable is released and once people hear the great quality (for those who care about qualiy...) Also, hopefully --alt-preset normal will attract many users and then we will have an MP3 renaissance on the web...


I hope things aren't going to take as long between releases either myself.. but who knows.  I'm not quite sure when the beta or stable is going to be released, but the alt-presets (normal) should be in by then at any rate.

Lame 3.90 beta vs. 3.90 stable

Reply #2 –
Actually, I hope that they change the version number when the stable version is released so as to distinguish between encodings made with the alpha/beta version (not least because Dibrom's tweaks weren't included or were still in development). This will permit rapid analysis of the files in EncSpot.

Actually, I believe that this has been the historical versioning pattern. But I see everyone on this board referring to all versions, alpha, beta, or stable as 3.9.

Lame 4.0 stable anyone? It even has a nice marketing ring...

Lame 3.90 beta vs. 3.90 stable

Reply #3 –
Quote
Originally posted by mpconnelly
Lame 4.0 stable anyone? It even has a nice marketing ring...


I think 3.91 would be better if only because there are a lot of things that really need to be done before 4.0 IMO.  One includes a much easier to use frontend, the experimental options should be cleaned up, presets consolidated, etc, etc.