3 ms·
Sorry for nitpicking, the problem from the article is about the patch number. Your reasoning is still holds though: 0x00050801 (5.8.1 8b for patch) < 0x040901
by scns 6y ago
Sorry for nitpicking, the problem from the article is about the patch number.
Your reasoning is still holds though:
0x00050801 (5.8.1 8b for patch) < 0x04090100 (4.9.256 16b for patch)
- josephg 6y agoOh oops - thanks for the correction! I somehow misread the article to be talking about 4.256.x instead of 4.x.256.