Quote - (Anaron @ Jun 29 2009, 19:28)

Thanks, but I'll wait for the
final version.

Which, from the looks of it, will almost certainly be bit-for-bit identical to RC3.

For Mozilla, the process can vary. As people would recall, the Firefox 1.0 RCs were really glorified betas and were not true candidates. The current project drivers very much like the idea of a true RC (in part because it makes it easier for QA to sign off on things: if you spin a new build after an RC, you need to test that build anyway to make sure something weird didn't happen during build or packaging, etc.).
As for Microsoft, they have intentionally "grade-inflated", and they have a very good reason to do so. Raymond Chen wrote an article explaining this (sorry, don't have the link handy) that basically boiled down to this: Microsoft had a problem where people didn't pay attention to the betas, and there was one incident, back when Microsoft's RCs were true candidates that they got an important piece of feedback only after the RC came out, at which point it was too late in the process to make those sorts of changes without incurring a lot of extra cost. So they had to grade-inflate, and what used to be late betas are now RCs, and what used to be RCs are now escrow builds. The idea is that more people are more willing to test and give feedback if it says "RC" than if it says "beta". Though I think that with the current overuse of the "beta" label (e.g., Google's notorious perpetual betas), the need for this grade inflation has decreased somewhat in recent years.