PowerArchiver 2012 or PowerArchiver 2013
-
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 :)
-
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.
The version number don’t tell the user how old the current version is. Instead I suggest you skip the version number in the name and instead use YY.MM in the name. That way the name will tell you how long the current version has been released.
Naming it something like PowerArchiver 2012 or 2013 really doesn’t reveal anything about how mature/reliable the program or the program’s roots.
You can say the same by using version number. The version number doesn’t tell you anything about how mature/reliable the program is. Example of this is Inkscape that has version 0.48, but is a very mature and reliable program. On the other hand, Firefox release a new version number every 6 week, but that doesn’t make the program more mature.
The point is, version number don’t matter and therefore don’t have to be part of the software name.
Kind Regards
Micke -
I agree with Luxor & Innuendo - I think removing the year would be a good move, and give it a version number. A version number does not make the product feel as dated, nor does it then tie you to a specific release date etc. :)
-
thanks for everyone’s input!!!
-
So what’s the verdict?
Windows 11 Pro ENU x64
Intel Core I7
32 GB RAM -
PowerArchiver 2012 Part Duo will be released next month.
-
i would prefer the date and the version number so people can see when the product was released.
-
i would prefer the date and the version number so people can see when the product was released.
You can check that in product history, via blogs, and in the help file. :)
At the end of the day, its no Biggy, but it seems more users are happy for it to move with a build identifiy rather than a Year.
You only have to look at our Competitors Winzip, Stuffit, 7-zip,Winrar.
All of such moved away from Year stamps, as it doesnt really give the user an indication of major, minor, revision updates.
Every time i visit Winzips website i know prior it was version 14.1, i visit the site 2 months later its 14.6. instantly from that i know changes have been made without having to read the news, blogs or anything else.
-
@Sir:
Every time i visit Winzips website.
:eek:Traitor!:p
-
lol, many of my suggestions that have been put into PowerArchiver were from checking out our competitor’s and other software products.
It’s all part of the job. But rest assure, i have never purchased Winzip, nor do i have it on my system. it is powerarchiver all the way.
I do however, install winzip every 3 months play with it and compare it against PA. then uninstall.
-
@Sir:
You can check that in product history, via blogs, and in the help file. :)
At the end of the day, its no Biggy, but it seems more users are happy for it to move with a build identifiy rather than a Year.
You only have to look at our Competitors Winzip, Stuffit, 7-zip,Winrar.
All of such moved away from Year stamps, as it doesnt really give the user an indication of major, minor, revision updates.
Every time i visit Winzips website i know prior it was version 14.1, i visit the site 2 months later its 14.6. instantly from that i know changes have been made without having to read the news, blogs or anything else.
You see build number of PA everywhere, on main page, on download page, on download.com everywhere.
It is not like it says PowerArchiver 2015.
It is PowerArchiver 2011 12.12.
-
And thanks for everyone’s input.
If we developed our software as rarely as competition then we not use the year :P. But we do. It is also basis for our upgrade schedule so it wont change anytime soon.
-
-
My vote is to call it PA 2012 or 2013 (year), then the build number like you have eg 12.12.
By the way, some new 2013 cars are out already eg the Maxda CX5 :) For atleast a month already…
By the version date, eg 12.07 (eg July) vs 12.09 (eg September) it is hard to tell if there is a major change, eg from PA 2011 to 2012 with, thus the PA 2012 is still necessary. Hopefully you get the idea, to still keep the PA 2012 versions.
Keep up the great work Conexware team!
-
what you dont want is to change the version numbers widely. I would suggest that you yuse the above suggestion say 13 for year and mm for month and a b c or d for the version numbers for that month if you need bug fixes that month
-
I like the old style. Just use the real version number.
v13.xxI don’t like the year number which always make confuse and bad if your don’t big update in those year or up coming year.
-
Why don’t we try to get rid of the numbers?In my opinion Power Archiver neo/beta/Alpha sounds cooler then Power Archiver 2012 or 2013!!
