From: "John Beamish" 

True ... but (and I know there is no way around this):  I wish the betas
were really code that is beta (i.e., damned close to gold) because that's
what we used to get.  OTOH, code these days (particularly OS code) has so
many potential paths and hardware/software combinations that "damned
close to gold"  still has so many untested combinations that full beta
testing isn't going to cover all of them.

Finally, and this is the part that I really don't like, there are whole
sets of scenarios where the code is known to be Working as Designed but not
Working as Intended and the software supplier doesn't publicly acknowledge
these items won't be fixed.  How can one beta test software when there are
conditions that the supplier has no intention of fixing when you don't know
what those conditions are.


"Geo."  wrote in message
news:405daae2$2{at}w3.nls.net...
> I know, it's just that I can't understand why software companies don't do
> full public betas. Besides finding a bunch of bugs they would not other
wise
> find until it went GA, they can also serve as free advertising (try before
> you buy).
>
> Geo.
>
> "John Beamish"  wrote in message
> news:405d1e6c$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > It was a joke, son, a joke I say  .
> >
> > (at least the jobs weren't being outsourced to India.)
> >
> > "Geo."  wrote in message
news:405cc1a6$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > why not? It always amazes me how software vendors are reluctant to do
> > public
> > > betas. There are tons of talented people out there willing to do
testing
> > for
> > > free simply because they like playing with the latest and greatest.
all
> > you
> > > need is a good system for getting feedback from them.
> > >
> > > Geo.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5