Re: Alpha vs. Beta

Re: Alpha vs. Beta

• To: CALC-TI@LISTS.PPP.TI.COM
• Subject: Re: Alpha vs. Beta
• From: 82nd Deer <eviljim@MEGSINET.NET>
• Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 20:33:33 -0500
• Comments: To: Reinier Zwitserloot <R.Zwitserloot@BTINTERNET.COM>
• In-Reply-To: <3411cc8b.9125850@news.btinternet.com>
• References: <3.0.3.32.19970904215436.007cb230@megspo.megsinet.net> <3.0.3.32.19970906130451.007cfa10@megspo.megsinet.net>
• Reply-To: 82nd Deer <eviljim@MEGSINET.NET>

For the most part, you are correct, but alpha is not always "in house" -
several smaller compaines have limited alpha releases.

At 09:38 PM 9/6/97 GMT, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
>Historically speaking:
>
>Alpha Release - an alpha release, usually denoted with an alpha sign
>suffixed to the version number, is an in-house testing release.
>
>Beta Release - a beta release, usually denoted with a beta sign
>suffixed to the version number, is a global testing release.
>
>Gamma Release - The first public release. tends to be v1.0.
>
>Delta release - update to a gamma release. v1.xx, usually.
>
>
>Newer denotations came with Microsoft's v4.00.95 naming of Win95.
>Since then, I have seen lots of v1.00.15 or some such. Also, since
>Alpha beta gamme delta releases usually go in order, they are
>sometimes also viewed as 'begins to look like something- definately
>useable - fully working, etc.'
>
>
---
Evil Jim
Viva La Mexico
<eviljim@writeme.com>
http://members.tripod.com/~eviljim/
I want to die in my sleep like my Grandfather, not screaming in pain like
the passengers in my car...

• USUL Alpha 3.0
• From: 82nd Deer <eviljim@MEGSINET.NET>
• Re: Alpha vs. Beta
• From: 82nd Deer <eviljim@MEGSINET.NET>
• Re: Alpha vs. Beta
• From: Reinier Zwitserloot <R.Zwitserloot@BTINTERNET.COM>

• Prev: TI 86/92 programs compatible?
• Next: Re: TI 86/92 programs compatible?
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread