Well that's good, because its now 2010, the projected release date for 1.0
Lets hope there isn't much more needed :)

Oh, wow.

He could always go to 0.991 through 0.999 and then 0.9991. Or be like Windows and use version names. I still don't understand where the 7 in Windows 7 is coming from. Any way I count it I can't get from Windows 3.1 to 7 in a logical manner. But I imagine using logic is where I'm failing.

In any case, so far so good Kestas. Thanks

Wasn't it the NT count that got continued, with NT4 at windows 2000 (5xp, 6vista, 7 = 7 ) ?

Ah, that would explain it.

Windows 2000 was Windows 5.0; XP was Windows 5.2.

And Windows 7 is Windows 6.2... That's official.

Microsoft have been doing road shows with major corporate customers in this region and their reasonably senior engineers have been letting a few details like this show up on screen as they do the inevitable set up and check routine with Power Point before the punters get seated.

So, those of you who think that 7 is a completely new re-write, think again.

In case you are wondering, my example comes from their fairly recent visit to The Bank of China HQ in HK, not exactly a small user of MS products.

I was figuring all along that Windows 7 was a cleanup of Vista. But I'm still on XP at home and work so haven't had any personal experience with either.

Fair enough, I was just hypothesising.
So, back to the question above then : why's it called windows 7?

To be honest 6.1 is the NT kernel version, not necessarily the OS (like any linux OS which often has a large version number but runs kernel 2.6.x). The kernel and OS versions haven't matched up since NT 4

Also its not a secret flashman, go open the command prompt and the kernel version will show up at the top, no-one should have thought it was a rewrite

It's "Windows 7" for marketing purposes, same reason it's "Fedora 11" etc

Re our version numbers I'd like to have it a bit more stable and have some choice variants selected before hitting 1.0, we might need to resort to 0.99.x depending on how things go ;-P

just a question kestas what variants are being planned for the site? most the goondip?

Following up on DJEcc's comment, I'd also love to know what new variants are planned. Used to play at goonDip and would dearly love to see those variants brought across. One minor side issue, is there a way to find out the Rules for the World variant here at Webdiplomacy?

DJEcc24; the thing is that unlike goondip webdiplomacy.net is supposed to be a plain webDip install, and I don't think having loads of variants packaged is a good idea; there would be too many ongoing support problems to maintain and support them all, plus most say they wouldn't want webdiplomacy.net to have very many variants. But adding variants to the default install and taking them out later would be tricky (or just not doable)

So I've been wondering how best to have some sort of vote that'd select a good, solid selection of 2-4 variants to ship by default (probably not the most novel ones, but ones that are the most well balanced and interesting)

Huge probs to Sleepcap, gilgatex, and jayp by the way, without which we wouldn't be facing this problem of having too many good variants to select from (in terms of the variant data in particular Sleepcap especially deserves kudos)

I think that winter 1900 should be a selectable variant option. The minor map changes on the classic diplo map aren't worth having. Presonally, I really like 7-island (interesting shift in BOP), but Milan is sort of silly (though i understand the design). I would also like to say how much I enjoyed Sail-Ho! It's a neat little map for 4 players, and it is quite fun. If we built stable live games here, they would be excellent.

I am also EXTREMELY interestedin Migraine diplomacy. Completely balanced diplomacy (but more interesting than Pure DIplomacy *thumbs down*) played on the Projective Plane!!!! I would love a chance at it.

I'm planning on hosting a website "only" for variants and variant-developers to test and discuss their maps. Currently I'm waiting for 0.98 on sourceforge to make a new setup.
There won't be any of the special-Goondip-features, only plain webdip 0.98, but all variants portet to the new platform so far.
Hopefully that will encourage more variant-developer to test their variants on a webdip server.

Yep, I'm (as people know) another 1900 advocate.
Sleep: sounds good

Ive no idea the right place, and have no idea how to search the forum here. But on the World variant here, it would be nice if the army/fleet icons were smaller on the big map view. On the big map view some of the icons are almost larger than the locations. Makes it hard to see the borders between the icons and arrows.

:D

http://forum.webdiplomacy.net/ is probably the best option.
Saying that, perhaps with the addition of more awkward maps it is time to split the layers of the image into different files.

fhphillip, you can go back to the pre-game map by clicking on the left most arrow. The pre-game map will show you all the territories without any units on them so you can see what can go where.

Different unit icons was one thing gilgatex had added so having smaller ones for that variant is theoretically possible if that change was added into the standard webdip code.

i'd be ok with anything but i definately want ancient med. i did alot of games on it and it works very well. perhaps someone can make a voting site?