On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 02:20:21 +0100, Barry Walsh
<bwalsh@SPAMMERSAREVERMINindigo.ie> wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 10:26:45 -0700, AthlonRob <junkmail@axpr.net>
wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 19:24:22 -0400, Brian C. <farside6@aol.com> wrote:

By the way, version change to 4.x is upcomming. I remember reading it in a
Predictor@home thread.

It's in Alpha testing now... so far so good, I think.  Hopefully Beta 
will be up and running again soon to test 4.x before it hits the release 
site.

With any amount of luck, P@H will move to 4.x at or near the same time 
as it hits Beta.  :-)

f/f george wrote:

As an idea, please make sure the Boinc people that see version 4 know
UPFRONT whether they should upgrade or not. I have no idea if version
4 is for everything Boinc or just certain programs but I DO know that
some people are still using version 3.19 because "no one told them to
upgrade"!

In the case of Predictor they recently forced everyone to upgrade to 
3.20 to continue receiving work as it fixed a bug that was screwing up a 
number of their workunits. The Predictor website also had the 3.20 
client a couple of days before Berkeley themselves listed it. Inserting 
a version notification system might be a good idea. It seems to check 
the version anyway, but presenting that info to the end-user would help. 
So far the only way is to manually check the BOINC website or wait until 
your client is too obsolete and an upgrade is forced.

PERSONALLY I think that EVERY upgrade should be mandatory! BUT I DO
realize that not everyone has time to do all of them such as those
that have many machines like in a business environment.
What kind of problems can supporting several different versions of a
piece of software wreak on programmers? I would bet alot! Keeping old
code just so some people won't have to upgrade when the newer version
of the software fixes or provides better support for some function.