Modartt user forum - Version 4 Update ?

Re: Version 4 Update ?

null@example.com (Beto-Music) — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:40:28 +0000

NASA lost a very expansive space probe due silly things like that...

Let's hope people understand about different hours along EARTH globe, just to don't acuse Modartt of time traveling...

EvilDragon wrote:

Haha.
Nice confusion about day-month order. In most of Europe we always use day, month, year. Just because it makes more sense!

Re: Version 4 Update ?

null@example.com (dondascher) — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 12:20:26 +0000

FWIW, for 'single field' data they suggest 20111102T190000

For consistency I would have expected either .... D20111101T190000 or 20111101190000, preferably the latter.

Re: Version 4 Update ?

null@example.com (EvilDragon) — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:53:41 +0000

ISO makes sense, it's just in reverse from humanly logical. But yes, it's alphabetically sortable, that's cool

Re: Version 4 Update ?

null@example.com (GordonS) — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:21:59 +0000

Glenn NK wrote:

The other logical order is from general to specific: 2011/11/02 19:00hr year/month/day/hour.
Glenn

Better still is the trivially different official ISO standard for date and time...

2011-11-02 19:00 (or 2011-11-02 19:00:00 of course)

For me personally a big attraction of the general arrangement is that it's ASCII sortable.

FWIW, for 'single field' data they suggest 20111102T190000

Re: Version 4 Update ?

null@example.com (Glenn NK) — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:22:00 +0000

EvilDragon wrote:

Haha.
Nice confusion about day-month order. In most of Europe we always use day, month, year. Just because it makes more sense!

Some of us are trying to convert the rest of North America for the same reason (logic).

day/month/year goes from specific to general.

The other logical order is from general to specific: 2011/11/02 19:00hr year/month/day/hour.

These systems are like counting 1 -2 - 3 or 3 - 2 - 1.

The NA system is like counting 2 - 1 - 3 (very logical)

Glenn

Re: Version 4 Update ?

null@example.com (dondascher) — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:40:59 +0000

These dates are formatted as dd-mm-yyyy as we are doing in europe, so 02-11-2011 means november the 2nd and that's just about 3 months ago.

You are absolutely right. I never noticed that.

Well, in that case, it may be a while yet. No point in "holding my breath".

Re: Version 4 Update ?

null@example.com (EvilDragon) — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:55:18 +0000

Haha.

Nice confusion about day-month order. In most of Europe we always use day, month, year. Just because it makes more sense!

Re: Version 4 Update ?

null@example.com (sebion) — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:56:31 +0000

These dates are formatted as dd-mm-yyyy as we are doing in europe, so 02-11-2011 means november the 2nd and that's just about 3 months ago.

Re: Version 4 Update ?

null@example.com (dondascher) — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:27:56 +0000

Well, here is the first portion of the very first post in the thread entitled PIANOTEQ 4 FORETASTE.

1 Topic by Philippe Guillaume 02-11-2011 17:20
Philippe Guillaume
Admin
Offline
Registered: 25-04-2007
Posts: 1,350
Topic: Pianoteq 4 foretasteDear all,
Some of you have been asking about Pianoteq 4. We are currently working very hard on it and we hope to have it ready in the next few months.

02/11/2011 thru today is almost 1 year.

Re: Version 4 Update ?

null@example.com (berghs.kedjan) — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 20:53:25 +0000

dondascher wrote:

It has been almost a year since the expectation was "in the next few months" according to the FORTASTE thread.

No, it's just 3 months ago.... ;-)

Version 4 Update ?

null@example.com (dondascher) — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:00:25 +0000

Just wondering if there is some sort of realistic expectation of the next major Pianoteq upgrade ?

It has been almost a year since the expectation was "in the next few months" according to the FORTASTE thread.

I suppose that is why management is reluctant to give expected release dates.