If you really must have Edge on your Apple M1 silicon, there's a compatible stable build for Microsoft's browser Microsoft has added new features to Edge and released a stable channel version for Mac M1 users as it strives to make the browser more than a tool to download Chrome. Unlike Windows 10 users, who get the browser bestowed on them by default, those with Apple devices must actually choose to download it themselves. After the …
Err... no. Safari has its problems, but is simply vasly superior to MSIE and Edge. Recall that there used to be a version of MSIE for Mac... which died at v5.something, a Very Long Time Ago, in part because the primitive version of Safari at that time was better than MSIE. (Web browsers available for Mac at the time included MSIE, Safari, Firefox, and OmniWeb; OW was better than the others, but also was, allegedly, payware if you used it past a certain date. Or something, it's been a while and once I discovered that they wanted cash I dumped it into the Trash. Irt was better, but not that much better. Netscape Navigator may still have been around as well.) I used mostly Firefox on Macs for years, then found myself using Safari more and more and it's now my main browser on Macs. Firefox remains my main browser on Windows and Linux.
Please, if you would, detail the 'rubbish'. And why you think that it's 'rubbish'. Perhaps I'm doing something wrong and simply haven't noticed.
Could someone please explain to me how we got to the point where softwere version numbers are rivalling with asteroid names for incomprehensibility ?
Version 90, okay, got it. Point zero I would guess means that it is not an official version (since the article plainly states it is a dev version), fine. Point 782 - wow, how many dev versions do you need to get things right ? This has to be developed using Agile.
This I could understand, but what the hell is the last Point zero for ?
It's a standard Windows version number format that had been used since the early 90s i.e. <major version> <minor version> <build number> <build patch number>. They will be doing overnight builds and a number integration builds per day. The last number is used if they need to patch an existing released build.
For example the version of Windows I'm using at the moment is 10.0.21301.1010 which is version 10.0 from build 21301 which has been patched 1010 times.
It is basically the standard <releasever>.<majorrevnum>.<minorrevnum> with the build number stuck in there. Consider how Apple and Google number iOS/Android releases. The yearly release increments the release version. Feature updates increment the major rev number, updates without adding new features (i.e. bugfix/security only) increment the minor rev number.
Why they include the build number in that, who knows since it is probably just "once per day" incrementing number, but they apparently decided to. Just be glad they don't sell Windows versions this way, I think the kernel is nearing build 20,000 or so now...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
