HP3000-L Archives

September 1998, Week 5

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
John Burke <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
John Burke <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 29 Sep 1998 07:03:06 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (43 lines)
Apparently, it depends upon what type of update you do (unless HP
actually fixed this ???). I used PATCHIX to go from PP4 to PP5 and a
showme now reports:

RELEASE: C.55.00   MPE/iX HP31900 C.05.08   USER VERSION: C.55.05
                                                                ^
                                           Note ________________|

My other systems, a combination of Express-3 and PowerPatch 4 all show a
user version of C.55.00

Hmmmm.

-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Percox [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 6:47 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: PP5 - Should I or shouldn't I? -Reply


Tim writes:

>Same here.  We've been on PP5 for a over two weeks without a problem.
But
>it would sure be nice if HP would update the C.55.03 to C.55.05. In
effect,
>this version number means nothing.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

A number of 3000-L postings over the years have tried to point
this fact out. Despite Stan's well written and logically correct
postings to this point, HP continues to defend their numbering
scheme while not getting the real message.

I think a little reminder is in order:

"Perception is reality"


Duane Percox ([log in to unmask]  v/650.372.0200x608 f/650.372.3386)
http://www.qss.com/          http://qwebs.qss.com/qwebs
http://qwebs.qss.com/faq3k

ATOM RSS1 RSS2