Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!news.swapon.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Frank Slootweg Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android Subject: Re: One Note Date: 30 Dec 2024 11:13:38 GMT Organization: NOYB Lines: 58 Message-ID: References: <04s*TUR2z@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> <1ofomj5d0gp7ggpb9ts3f04661ckd11lhk@4ax.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net yoiY/SzGOV7ImBuBS0QThQhTSCmgwH+bd7owRQJBsLU/SKGAjl X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail Cancel-Lock: sha1:pkb/fiWbN0ToEHlNRlCKktdXIO8= sha256:DLzJWfhlU8ZnWgZKYhl6a7VYJkGsWUDM0l49QKo6UXw= User-Agent: tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (CYGWIN_NT-10.0-WOW/2.8.0(0.309/5/3) (i686)) Hamster/2.0.2.2 Bytes: 3634 Chris wrote: > Frank Slootweg wrote: > > Chris wrote: > >> Andy Burns wrote: > >>> Chris wrote: > >>> > >>>> Andy Burns wrote: > >>>>>> Chris wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Android 16 is the current version so it's possible the OneNote doesn't > >>>>>> support 13. > >>>>> > >>>>> 15 is the newest release version, 16 is still in development. > >>>> > >>>> According to wikipedia it was released this month. > >>> You clearly didn't read even the first paragraph > >>> > >>> "Android 16 is the upcoming major release of Android. The first > >>> developer preview was released on November 19, 2024. Google expects the > >>> platform to reach beta stage in January 2025 with a final release > >>> expected in the second quarter of 2025." > >> > >> The table here states it was released on 18th December: > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_version_history > > > > Nope, it doesn't. > > > > The "December 18, 2024" date is followed by a *note* '[29]', which is > > - as always in Wikipedia - also a link. > > > > If you follow that link, you will get the 'Release notes' which cleary > > says "Developer Preview 2", so exactly as Andy said "16 is still in > > development" and proven by his (above quouted) quote from the Wikipedia > > page. > > > > 'Release notes' > > > > Then the table is wrong. I was simply doing a quick internet search to help > the OP. That you can't be bothered to read for comprehension and follow links, doesn't mean the table is wrong. See also Jörg comment about the colour coding in the table. > > Of course all of this should have been blatantly obvious, as Android > > *15* was only released little over 3 months earlier. New Android > > versions come (too) quickly, but not *that* quickly. > > I don't use android, so not up to speed, hence why I thought wikipedia was > accurate. Huh? Then why do you subscribe to this group and say (to Jörg) "It isn't on my phone?". And once more, Wikipedia *is* accurate (on this issue). That you overlooked the note, etc. is of course perfectly allright. Being flippant when people correct you, not so much.