Small patch being deployed
by Adam Holisky 
Jan 27th 2009 at 11:30AM
The patch is a client side patch. This means you'll need to download a new, albeit small, patch when you first log onto WoW today. For me, the patch downloaded and installed automatically when I executed the World of Warcraft Launcher on my desktop (pictured above).
This patch brings the game from version 3.0.8.9464 to 3.0.8.9506. Updated: The patch is 6.923mb in size on a Windows computers (interestingly the program you have to download to get the patch is an additional 2.1mb). The realms should be up by 11:00 a.m. PST / 2:00 p.m. EST today.
We'll bring you more as we learn it.
Filed under: Patches, News items
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Tidecaller Jan 27th 2009 11:44AM
Thanks, but my WoW Launcher "broke" this story to me a few hours ago.
BREAKING: Sky is blue! More as it develops...
Tidecaller Jan 27th 2009 11:40AM
Constructively, the screenshot is a good one. Having the patch download, deploy and finish all in the same launcher window was a much more streamlined process.
Gonduk Jan 27th 2009 11:40AM
2:00pm PST, not EST....at least I hope or those in central time aren't playing until 4:00pm and I am bored :D
Sakinah Jan 27th 2009 11:45AM
2 pm EST is 1 central. Pray for 2pm est, because if it's 2 pm pst, then no, you won't be playing until 4.
Gonduk Jan 27th 2009 11:51AM
Yea, I fail sometimes. I didn't pass time zones in school. /facepalm
ttvp Jan 27th 2009 11:41AM
" The patch is 6,923mb in size"
Eh? Is that a typo? There has never been a patch over 6GB in size. Maybe you meant KB instead of MB?
Korrh Jan 27th 2009 11:43AM
MB > Mb
Byte vs. Bit
mensrea Jan 27th 2009 11:49AM
Nice try, Korrh, but no.
mb != Mb
"mb" would actually a "millibit" or 1/100oth of a bit. So if we're going to be overly literal, he's actually saying that the patch is 6.9 bits in size... or less than a byte. Impressive, though, to be able to transmit a partial bit.
Mb wouldn't even make sense for this, as it would mean that the patch was still the better part of a GB in size.
He wrote "mb" and meant "KB". It's a ~7MB patch.
ttvp Jan 27th 2009 11:50AM
Most people don't know or care about the difference between bits and bytes. I do, and I show extra care when choosing my words. Notice that I used KB, MB, and GB because I know not to make these mistakes.
Even then, 6.9k mb would still be over 800 MB, which is still ridiculous. Besides, the post has since been corrected.
Choose who you're correcting wisely, lest you end up looking like the uneducated dick.
ttvp Jan 27th 2009 12:06PM
/r mensrea
I don't think you fully understand either. I've never heard of a "millibit" before because it does not exist. Maybe theoretically, but it just doesn't exist because a single bit is the smallest logical representation of digital data. When dealing with computers and data, you can only have bits and bytes, and further expansions on those. Maybe the metric system allows you to use milli, but data doesn't work that way. As far as I'm concerned, uppercase M and lowercase m don't differentiate anything, the point is to use uppercase B and lowercase b to refer to bits and bytes.
I defy you to prove otherwise.
Korrh Jan 27th 2009 12:59PM
You're right, most people don't care about the difference between MB or Mb, or mB or mb for the sake of your example. Though similar to you, I care. You made no mistake and I made no comment on a mistake other then the authors, you saw the same pre-edit mistake I did. I was merely commenting on the authors poor usage of abbreviation in your quote, I'll be more specific in the future : )
The uneducated dick part was rather silly though. Obviously you wouldn't expect 7GB or even an 800MB patch. I'll assume your questions toward the author was just you being nice and letting him know the typo was there instead of you being ignorant.
As for Mensrea, ttvp pretty much said it. A millibit does not exist in anything other than theory. Heh, Imagine trying to decompress something that small... That's a joke...
Mb would stand for Megabit. The problem I have with seeing something labeled "mb" when referring to something taking up space, is that "mb"(megabit) is more commonly used for transfer rates and networking, but even that is incorrect and is another topic in itself.
oh well, servers are back up anyways.
mensrea Jan 27th 2009 2:44PM
I understand bits and bytes perfectly well, actually.
But if you're going to take things literally and then criticize, you ought to make sure you get it right. A lower-case 'm' is improper because metric-system-style prefixes are case-sensitive.
Does a millibit exist? No, and that's precisely why the lower-case "m" is what makes the original post nonsense, not the bit/byte difference. That also happens to be the reason that everyone would read "mb" as "megabyte" because it is the only unit which really makes sense in context.
But yes, we all understand now. You're one of the true geniuses in the world who knows that b = bit and B = byte.
Good work.
Draimen Jan 27th 2009 11:41AM
"Updated: The patch is 6,923mb in size on a Windows computers (interestingly the program you have to download to get the patch is an additional 2.1mb)."
6,923mb? Holy crap. Are you sure that's not a typo? That's almost 7 gigs...
Sathom Jan 27th 2009 11:41AM
6,923 mb? (that's like 7 Gig)
or 6.923 mb?
Anuine Jan 27th 2009 12:01PM
Maybe he's French, or German, or whatever uses comma as a separator. Then it would perfectly make sense.
Xretsim Jan 27th 2009 11:42AM
Is frostmourne still a Hunter Weapon's? BRK will be so happy if it is :)
Tuesdays are the worst days for wow...
stevens.ce Jan 27th 2009 11:46AM
Sweet - a new patch!
That likely means two or three more days of unexplained lag and downtime, but at least this time it will be as the result of a different patch! WOOT!
crsh Jan 27th 2009 12:43PM
Don't forget the now-usual emergency maintenance Friday or Saturday.
Osi Jan 27th 2009 11:46AM
Uhh, I didnt have to download and program to get the patch ...
BondMykeBond Jan 27th 2009 11:48AM
The patch notes only link to the WoW Bug Reports forum, which has no official information on the patch. And, as others have already noted, three bug fixes hardly seem to require a 6 mb patch. There is obviously more to the patch, but no information has been provided as of yet.
I am starting to feel that Blizzard is going downhill in production control of these updates. 3.0.8 was a disaster in managing and testing content before being placed in to production, and today is an equivalent failure in communications of modifications. It is hard to not believe that they are slipping through a whole bunch of changes that they don't want to admit they had to fix. Is this a do more with less result of economization? I suspect we are all spending hours of game time working around problems which are the result of Activision's desire to increase profit margin.