Version 2.11

[drober30]

You and I, as software types, know that this release is nothing but high priority band aids....major updates simply could not have been performed and tested given the time frame.

I agree with the time frame statement.

I think this project was turned over to new programmers to "fix it". They may have used the same source code or started over but they did not have to conceptualize a new design just make the current one work.

 

[calb]

I agree with the time frame statement.

I think this project was turned over to new programmers to "fix it". They may have used the same source code or started over but they did not have to conceptualize a new design just make the current one work.

I agree, given the timeframe and QA that would be required (they don't want to compound problems) this couldn't be more than just bug fixes - but I'd be happy to have that fixing done!

If it was turned over to new programmers it could take even longer to fix as they get their heads around the code.

 

[JStellato]

I'm an IT project manager and systems architect, and have done my fair share of programming. I do not have my Explorer yet, (although they called today and said it should be built soon!), however I can say that choosing to go with Adobe Flash was a MAJOR design error. When using flash it can be quite the resource hog.

If I were to design this software based on the hardware specifications I would have NOT chosen flash, but rather a graphical API, Silverlight or HTML5. I'd prefer the API such as a compiled DirectX program over the latter. But Flash would have never made my top 3 options. Although that doesn't account for pairing issues with phones, it severely impacts performance.