This of course this is a good workable solution, but it would be sensible surely for all Designer/MU versions to be able to be separate installs - independant of each other.
-
-
Theres probably a happy medium in between what i do and what you would like. There is no way in the world i would want separate installations for each version we have seen this year - that would be horrific. However, a separate install allowed for say 8.2, 8.5 & 8.5.1 would be good.
I don't think we can realistically expect to load the software and tell it which version we want to work in. It just is not built in that way. But versions running alongside each other, exactly the way in which you mentioned V7 & V8, would definitely be good.
Maybe we could have V7, V8.2, V8.5 & V8.5.1 all running alongside each other as standard, that should be relatively easy for them to allow.Comment
-
Time for "The Crowe" to enter this thread and sort the multi-install in one brief but amazing post?
PS v8 still sucks lol.Comment
-
Exactly what I mean. 7, 8.1, ... 8.5 etc. all running as separate installs if you wished.
I think the current increment between 850 and 851 is wrong (and was an oversite by Actinic?) and should have been 860.Comment
-
Oh yeah bigtime, 8.5.1 should have been 8.6 and the subsequent version of 8.5.1, should have been 8.6.1. They messed up proper on this upgrade, part of which i think was caused by the urgent nature of the Vista users.
So if we have version numbers of the software that go A.B.C.
A = Major release, separate install allowed
B = Major feature release or architecture change, separate install allowed
C = Bug fix or feature additions with no architecture change, NO separate install allowed
How's that sound? That would be good from my corner.Comment
-
Spot on the nail. I love Actinic v8 in almost every aspect .. especially from a site owners viewpoint, it is a great piece of kit and has saved me enormous amounts of time .. this is not in question. It is the being a designer/developer using v8 that stops me in my tracks.Originally posted by drounding
If v8.5.1 had jumped to v8.6.0 that I could have lived with as the major leap in the 2nd digit is enough to force everyone onto the latest version ... no need to stay at v8.5.n (much as my v7 is still at v.7.0.4 as I can support all those on different patch versions without upsetting my own sites).
I have various versions of IE on my machine for testing purposes - these all sit on the same machine without the need to buy second and third machines or install and reinstall software (which is like back in the good old days of having different autoexe.bat files just to be able to load different programs by leaving out the mouse driver... no body's idea of fun)Comment
-
[QUOTE=leehack]Separate PC's for incremental versions is ridiculous i agree. My approach on this is to have a second system (which is mandatory for me anyway really..........................QUOTE]
I always use at least 2 systems, although not true design work like you guys, but it lets me test the new version before i upgrade my current sites.
However as stated the option to run another version on the same PC would probably be a big headache for actinic but a big advancement.
I have some really annoying bugs in V8.5.1 but these are more of an irritation and i can do what i want but have to do it another way. I have commented on them and can only hope that actinic do take note, i know bruce and chris d are probably the only 2 that take note.
DarrenComment
-
He's very busy at the moment but he is browsingOriginally posted by georgeComment
-
I cant believe pre 8.5.1 was stated as vista compatible, as soon as i stuck it on a vista m/c i had issues so i do not know who beta tested it but it certainly was not me - and 8.5.1 is still not 100% vista compatibleOriginally posted by leehackComment
-
I doubt this should be such a problem. I think they would only have to change the registry settings to be unique and fiind some way around licencing sites.Originally posted by Darren BComment
-
Originally posted by drounding
way beyond me duncan, i can rip a network apart, set up vpn's instal voip but bugger that registry stuff - oh an i aint bad at flying bad boy kites.
Comment
-
to be honest as a developer, you need 2 pcs.
one is your stable preferred patch level the other is for one off installs at what ever level you need for a client site. most developers use 2 pcs anyway, one main system, one backup, so this is standard.
Granted it is inconvenient having to upgrade client site just to get it to fit on your own preferred patch, but i've been doing this since v3 and its only once in a while it turns out to be totally inconvenient.
whilst it would be nice to have a multi patch version of 8, it isn't crucial, and with abit of flexibilty you can work things. If you have any client site come to less than 8.5 you should upgrade it anyway.
The only times to hold off is when a new patch has been released and you'd rather wait a few weeks so see how it pans out.
I'd never reckon to keep a laptop for longer than 18-24 months, i think they depreciate quickt quickly, Lee's 3 years in my view is optimistic
Comment
Comment