This was brought up in an earlier post, apparently because the rest of us feel the same way, their version numbers make no sense. 119825 is the installation build of theproduct used to compile and 119598 is the actual build of the product.
Why they think the installation build is important, really has me baffled. I guess to them they build the product and bundle it, and 119825 is significant to them, so for tracking purposes that's how they look at, that's all I can figure.
But you are not alone, the build numbers don't match, and as someone else point out, VC 2.5 is U3, so why isn't VC 2.53? There is a lot of confusion and it's totally different than the way the standard is for versions of products.
119598 is the latest build.. There is a new build coming out... (soon?). They still have LOTS of bugs to fix. One thing I have mentioned before is why there are so many of us that use these products DAILY, and we interact, and tweak, and find better ways to do things, we we aren't included in a pre-release look at the product BEFORE the general public gets to it? For one thing I KNOW that people like you, MGower, myself, SBeaver, and a bunch of others would have caught that date bomb bug before the rest of the world did... That could have saved them a world of hurt. Also like this new release coming out, it's still a release, why not let us look at it for 2 weeks, and make sure it's polished, kinda like a private QA team. Who else has more vested interest in seeing that EVERTHING is perfect before it's released than us?!?! NO ONE! I don't want my stuff broken any more than others, but it would be nice to get a heads up AND give feedback directly to the VM programmers to let them know it needs this or it needs that.. That's what we need now.
