Chris, 2024-12-29 19:29:

> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> Chris wrote:
>>
>>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> 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

No. The table clearly states, that Android 16 is a DEVELOPER PREVIEW 2
and the version is marked as "Latest preview version".

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> 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'
>>> <https://developer.android.com/about/versions/16/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.

How am I being flippant? I acknowledged the mistake.

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> > Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> >>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> >>>>> Chris wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> 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'
> >>> <https://developer.android.com/about/versions/16/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.
>
> How am I being flippant? I acknowledged the mistake.

Sigh! You said (amongst others) "Then the table is wrong.", so you did
*not* acknowledge *your* mistake, but said that it was an error in the
Wikipedia page, which it isn't.

Bottom line: You were wrong. The Wikipedia page is correct.

Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 30.12.24 09:24, Chris wrote:
>> Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
>>> On 29.12.24 19:29, Chris wrote:
>>>> The table here states it was released on 18th December:
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_version_history
>>>
>>> And why do you think Android 15 is labelled "Latest Version" and
>>> coloured green exactly in this table?
>>
>> It isn't on my phone?
>
> Nonsense. You are cornering yourself.

Not at all. The wikipedia app on my phone doesn't render the coloured cells
in the table. I now notice that when rendered in a browser the colours do
show. Kinda ironic that the official app does a worse job than the default
browser.

Plus in dark mode the version number column is black on dark grey and is
not obvious to read. My apologies.

This is what I see:
https://ibb.co/LCzZH5y

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> 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'
>>>>> <https://developer.android.com/about/versions/16/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.
>>
>> How am I being flippant? I acknowledged the mistake.
>
> Sigh! You said (amongst others) "Then the table is wrong.", so you did
> *not* acknowledge *your* mistake, but said that it was an error in the
> Wikipedia page, which it isn't.
>
> Bottom line: You were wrong. The Wikipedia page is correct.

I admit I made a mistake. In my defence, as I showed to Joerge, the
wikipedia app doesn't render tables very well in dark mode.

Given the OP is on android 13 he still could do with upgrading.

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> > Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> >> How am I being flippant? I acknowledged the mistake.
> >
> > Sigh! You said (amongst others) "Then the table is wrong.", so you did
> > *not* acknowledge *your* mistake, but said that it was an error in the
> > Wikipedia page, which it isn't.
> >
> > Bottom line: You were wrong. The Wikipedia page is correct.
>
> I admit I made a mistake. In my defence, as I showed to Joerge, the
> wikipedia app doesn't render tables very well in dark mode.

Thanks. And thanks for the clarification about what you could not see.
And you probably could not easily see all the colomns at the same time.

> Given the OP is on android 13 he still could do with upgrading.

Assuming that he can. My (over) four year 'old' Samsung Galaxy A51
phone is stuck at 13 (came with 10).