Version number anomaly

[kzinnato]

There are major issues going on with the ScreenshotCaptor download and version. TechTracker tells me I have an out of date version, so I go check it and it is in fact reporting that the version I just downloaded and installed, which says it is version 2.83.01 on your website,  installs version 2.28.5.0 on my pc. (the executable is dated 8/7/2010). So,  I just checked the version on CNET and the installer is the same size but does not binary compare to what is on the OFFICIAL website. And it installs a version 2.28.5.0 that does not binary compare to the version I installed using YOUR installer.

HELP!!!

[mouser]

hi kzinnato, welcome to the site and remember our motto: don't panic!
well i'm not sure that's our motto, but it's still good advice.

first things first, the version on this website (donationcoder.com) is the one and only official download.  direct link is here and it will always get you the latest version: http://www.donationcoder.com/Software/Mouser/screenshotcaptor/downloads/ScreenshotCaptorSetup.exe

now as for cnet download, cnet should have a copy of our official version.

let me tell you where i think the confusion is coming from.  in windows, exe files can have a version number embedded within them -- the version # embedded in the exe file of screenshot captor is indeed "2.28.5.0" and has been probably for over a year.  that's just not a number i bother to update.  it's not related to the official release version.

perhaps i should automate the setting of that exe-file-embedded value during builds, but in general this number is not a reliable as a way of guess a program version number.  however programs like TechTracker may try to guess at the version number using it, which would explain the confusion.

[kzinnato]

Thanks for the quick reply, but I must humbly disagree with you. First, the version that I just downloaded from your website is 2.83.02 if we go by what the installer says. The version on CNET and Softpedia is version 2.83.01. The executable they install is dated 8/5 whereas yours is 8/7. They appear to both be using an earlier build. (2.83.01 vs. your 2.83.02)

I have never known any programmer not to use the internal version number (FileVersion or ProductVersion) as the authoritative way to determine the version number of their program. I highly suggest you do in fact version stamp your executable. Secunia's PSI, CNETs TechTracker, and many other programs will then no longer have a "false positive".

Finally  .. let me be pretty clear to anyone who might be reading this that although I have a difference of opinion about how best version control may be done, ScreenshotCaptor is still IMHO the finest screenshot capturing program around!!

[mouser]

Thanks for a thoughtful and kind reply 
Perhaps this was just the gentle and kind nudge i needed to update my build process to embed the proper version # in the exe file when building.

[TurboJosh]

EDIT: Nevermind - I see in latest version 2.84.01 the EXE Version information is correct. Thanks.



This fix may be implemented already and if so, this message can be ignored.

But if not, I wanted to agree with kzinnato.  I have always considered the EXE Version tab (FileVersion and ProductVersion) to be the authoritative way of determining the product version.  I strongly suspect Microsoft's official MSDN documentation would agree on this.

I have a disk catalogging program "WhereIsIt?" that relies on this version information (among other uses), and I would be shocked if a program's version did not match.

So, one more vote for the proper version #  

[mouser]

I've modified my version library code so that it's much easier for me impossible for me not to update official embeded version info, so it should be up to date in future releases.

[mouser]

Should be fixed in the latest beta and going forward in the future:
http://www.donationcoder.com/Software/Mouser/screenshotcaptor/downloads/beta/ScreenshotCaptorSetup.exe