Odd question.

2.5.

But I thought the current version is 2.10?

Wouldn't that be a step down?

No. It's the way decimals work. Another way of writing 2.10 is 2.1. Another why of writing 2.5 is 2.50.

Aaaah.

On another, related note: apparently there's not going to be a Vista-friendly version 2.10 because 2.5 is already on the way.

So why is there a Linux-friendly version? Doesn't seem fair that Vista users have to wait and Linux users don't.

Well, the developers are just putting more time into finishing 2.5 and making it work for all systems than making 2.10 work for Vista. 2.5 will be out soon, so there is no real need for a Vista friendly 2.10. Plus, it seems like most of the Vista users (like me) perfer alpha builds anyways.

Yeah, because the only reason most people got vista was because it was 'new' and XP was 'oh so 2002 technology'

But let's not turn this into a debate.. So it's only natural that somebody who picked something because it's new would pick a new build

I use XP and i use alpha builds, though

And there's a linux version because ZC is older than vista and things dont change instantly

russadwan wrote:Well, the developers are just putting more time into finishing 2.5 and making it work for all systems than making 2.10 work for Vista. 2.5 will be out soon, so there is no real need for a Vista friendly 2.10. Plus, it seems like most of the Vista users (like me) perfer alpha builds anyways.

Y'know, it's just a matter of principle.