PowerArchiver 2012 or PowerArchiver 2013
-
Well, why not harmonize with the version numbering?
So PA2012 - PA 12.5.xxx
(e.g. maybe an update with only PAF)
For May/June.
PA2013 - PA 13.xx (all the good stuff)
For Dec/Jan. -
Well, why not harmonize with the version numbering?
So PA2012 - PA 12.5.xxx
(e.g. maybe an update with only PAF)
For May/June.
PA2013 - PA 13.xx (all the good stuff)
For Dec/Jan.year is only marketing term… version number shows how many changes there were. but yeah, something like that was what I was thinking…
-
I’m not disputing the 2012/2013 bit of course it would be 2012 if it was released this year, but if was around october you might as well make it beta 2013.
Again, it depends on at what point you are to make the choice. is pa at a point where you could release a major roll out.
Personally, PA works great as it is, i see no reason to rush development this year. unless its to resolve bugs i dont mind waiting till next year.
We have ZTE, Cloud and Wiki to keep us all busy.
Maybe you should just call it PoweArchiver 13 and drop the 2000 part altogether.
I like that idea!! get rid of the year all togeather, why not make 2013 not only a modern improved version but rename the version to PowerArchiver 13.0
-
Or get rid of Numbers altogether !?
What about "PowerArchiver Niburu ";) -
-
PowerArchiver NXT
PowerArchiver X
PowerArchiver Destroyer/Nibiruhmmm
:-)
-
oh dear, we are off track again.
Ok, i will make the deciding factor. :)
A mid update for 2011 will be brought out containing current patch’s, minor bug fix’s and enhancments.
ZTE, Wiki and PAF will remain in development during this year and tested by the development team and us highly skilled alphas! ;)
PowerArchiver title will adjust taking out the year. thus keeping version number much like many other brands.
The cloud service will be a job to look at when ZTE has reached a stable version with all major bugs resolved. This means we can focus on testing the cloud service more than the application.
:) Well thats how i would manage this process.
-
Wiki will be in next PA for sure, not waiting for end of year… and few other things too :-).
-
Great on the wiki thing! because its a great tool to have. also updates can be made without local downloads to each user client.
There are a few things i am keen for;
1. ZTE
2. PAF Format
3. Developer Tab [the custom tab] no confirmation if you are looking at it but if that is a v13 update thats fine by me :D
4. Cloudthe cloud thing isnt a major for me because i already have cloud services such as LiveDrive and Box. both with windows shell extensions and share to user abilities.
However, that doesnt mean i dont see the advantage for Conexware to go down the route. I do remember sending an email over a year ago to you drazen suggesting such a feature and you replied saying it was on the thinking board already.
“great minds think a like” :)
-
Maybe call it “New Powerarchiver”? Or is this just stupid?
-
-
As some may have already stated (did not read entire post) the next version should be 2013. By the time testing is finished and it’s released to the public, it’ll be late 2012. Most not familiar with PA may assume it’s an older version and may bypass it for a competing product. :)
-
@Sir:
Great on the wiki thing! because its a great tool to have. also updates can be made without local downloads to each user client.
There are a few things i am keen for;
1. ZTE
2. PAF Format
3. Developer Tab [the custom tab] no confirmation if you are looking at it but if that is a v13 update thats fine by me :D
4. Cloudthe cloud thing isnt a major for me because i already have cloud services such as LiveDrive and Box. both with windows shell extensions and share to user abilities.
However, that doesnt mean i dont see the advantage for Conexware to go down the route. I do remember sending an email over a year ago to you drazen suggesting such a feature and you replied saying it was on the thinking board already.
“great minds think a like” :)
i recently went through my logs and found first time talking about something similar to AC was 2007 :-)
-
PowerArchiver Reloaded
-
Rather than shoot a major release every year, why not just say: every two years. Then make sure that it is a MAJOR release.
Quite frankly, I find it annoying with companies feel compelled to do something every year, when the differences between any year (or even every two years) is relatively slight.
In my mind FF hurt themselves when they stopped waiting 3-4 years for a major release, and started issues new releases every few months.
-
Rather than shoot a major release every year, why not just say: every two years. Then make sure that it is a MAJOR release.
Quite frankly, I find it annoying with companies feel compelled to do something every year, when the differences between any year (or even every two years) is relatively slight.
In my mind FF hurt themselves when they stopped waiting 3-4 years for a major release, and started issues new releases every few months.
I partly agree with you on that one!
However, the users doesnt have to update their system.
Also, with patchbeam you can set it up so it update’s when you want it to without any anoying messages.
And Programs that require Driver’s, Codecs or definitions such as Media Streamers, spyware or antiviru’s software always recommended you download the latest updates.
For powerarchiver having the knowlege that you can compress using the latest compression formats currently available while keeping it backward compatible is a major plus point.
-
Rather than shoot a major release every year, why not just say: every two years. Then make sure that it is a MAJOR release.
Quite frankly, I find it annoying with companies feel compelled to do something every year, when the differences between any year (or even every two years) is relatively slight.
In my mind FF hurt themselves when they stopped waiting 3-4 years for a major release, and started issues new releases every few months.
this is what we have done in past, major updates are on average done within 16 months.
and this is also why we developed patchbeam, to make them simpler and easier so we can do more of them.
that way when you tell us you want feature like solid compression in batch converter, we can do it within month and not 2 years.
with new format though, updates will come on monthly basis, thats the only way development can work when something is brand new.
-
So what do you think we should name next one - PA 2012 OR PA 2013?
thank you!
My suggestion is that you skip the year in the name PA. Instead you use YY.MM as name when the actual version of PA is released.
Example: If the next version is released in May 2012, then name it PowerArchive 12.05. If it’s released in Feb 2013, then the name will be PowerArchiver 13.02. By doing this you can then simply by looking at the name know what year and month the actual version of PA was released.
You can also have the internal version number in the About Box. Something like PowerArchiver 12.05 (13.00.10) or whatever the next version will be.
Kind Regards
Micke -
Maybe you should just call it PoweArchiver 13 and drop the 2000 part altogether. ;) :D
I was just going to make this suggestion.
Way back in 1995 Microsoft started this “name the product after the year it came out” convention & then Norton (and lots of others quickly followed). You’ll notice that almost all of them have abandoned that method of naming for more conventional methods.
My guess is for the reason SPWolf voiced…once it becomes a new year your product sounds ‘out-dated’ even if it came out just a couple months before the calendar change.
I vote for PowerArchiver v13.0. Prominently displaying that the program is in its 13th major version shows that it is a very mature piece of code that’s been around a long time and trusted by its users.
Naming it something like PowerArchiver 2012 or 2013 really doesn’t reveal anything about how mature/reliable the program or the program’s roots.
-
2013 all the way :)
