Forum Header?

[Spidey300]

Level is right. The whole point of “Beta”, is that the product still has bugs, but is not totally un-usable. User Feedback is required.

[mattemuse]

@Level

I don’t know which way you’re arguing, but here’s how it goes:
RC (release candidate) is a potential build they are considering releasing.
Beta testing is acknowledging there are probably still bugs in there, and asking the community to find them, report them, so they can be fixed.

I’m arguing (proving, actually) that Imonfire’s categorization of the definition of “beta” as a “RC” definition is in error. And furthermore, most of these replies thus far are ridiculously asinine to the point of blatant trollery.

As far as the definition Imonfire is contesting, Release Candidates are never “tested by real-life users” to find bugs. RC builds are submitted to your publishers QA dept. with the expectation that there are NO bugs, and thus the build is a “candidate” to be “released.”
Beta builds, on the other hand, are commonly tested by real life users, as per the definition I posted. Thus the phrase “beta testing” and “public beta” etc. Beta builds are considered ‘feature complete,’ the idea is to catch obscure bugs in the wild that might be missed during the formal QA process. Therefore, Imonfires’ miscategorization of the “beta” definition I posted is proven to be wrong, and my original point stands.

My original point being that Imonfires’ clarification that this skin is “beta” is asinine, because the purpose of feature-complete beta builds is to gather real-world user feedback on the finished product. And just to clarify, because I’m not sure I’m emphasizing this enough, you’re supposed to be feature complete at alpha, although you never are, and by Beta have something that is done enough to show to the public, or at least a select group of users, with the expectation that there could be miscellaneous issues that you (and QA) have missed. And again, because I like to be as direct as possible, I’m referring to the forum header as a major feature that would be done way way way before alpha, and not as a misc. bug that requires a large user-base of testers to catch.

And just because I am bumping this now-obsolete thread, I feel the obligation to add that the current header/color scheme is aesthetically pleasing to me. Although I still think a bm-forums header photoshop contest would be entertaining.

[Spidey300]

1. The “White: Beta” was just a place holder while Josh worked on the new one. (This one still isn’t it)

2. Now Beta can be an almost finished product, but it still has bugs and a major feature revision might still take place. Alpha is just a slightly runnable state when the product is still being developed.

3. And about RC, an example
   

What is Windows 7 Release Candidate?

Windows 7 Release Candidate (RC) is a pre-release version of Windows 7, our next client operating system. When you use the RC, your PC sends information to our engineers to help them check the fixes and changes they made based on Beta tests. It takes hundreds of Microsoft engineers around the world to create each new release of Windows—but only you can help us perfect it.

Sauce

I know someone can explain it much better. But this will have to do for now.

[Level]

@mattemuse

I’m arguing (proving, actually) that Imonfire’s categorization of the definition of “beta” as a “RC” definition is in error. And furthermore, most of these replies thus far are ridiculously asinine to the point of blatant trollery.

As far as the definition Imonfire is contesting, Release Candidates are never “tested by real-life users” to find bugs. RC builds are submitted to your publishers QA dept. with the expectation that there are NO bugs, and thus the build is a “candidate” to be “released.”
Beta builds, on the other hand, are commonly tested by real life users, as per the definition I posted. Thus the phrase “beta testing” and “public beta” etc. Beta builds are considered ‘feature complete,’ the idea is to catch obscure bugs in the wild that might be missed during the formal QA process. Therefore, Imonfires’ miscategorization of the “beta” definition I posted is proven to be wrong, and my original point stands.

My original point being that Imonfires’ clarification that this skin is “beta” is asinine, because the purpose of feature-complete beta builds is to gather real-world user feedback on the finished product. And just to clarify, because I’m not sure I’m emphasizing this enough, you’re supposed to be feature complete at alpha, although you never are, and by Beta have something that is done enough to show to the public, or at least a select group of users, with the expectation that there could be miscellaneous issues that you (and QA) have missed. And again, because I like to be as direct as possible, I’m referring to the forum header as a major feature that would be done way way way before alpha, and not as a misc. bug that requires a large user-base of testers to catch.

And just because I am bumping this now-obsolete thread, I feel the obligation to add that the current header/color scheme is aesthetically pleasing to me. Although I still think a bm-forums header photoshop contest would be entertaining.

So, basically long version of what I said, plus or minus a few things.

I also like this theme, very old-timey, reminds me of the glory days of BM.

[Spidey300]

I didn’t intend to paste the image. I guess i must have copied it along with the quote. When i saw it, i thought, eh let it stay. Guess you know my username now, OH NOES!! :3