Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Do Software Versions Really Matter?

Posted by timothy on from the blame-patrick-volkerding dept.

An anonymous reader writes "I work for a rather large software company and I am currently working on a completely new product. So new in fact, that the official name has not even been decided. I had assumed that the version number for this product would be 1.0 (at most). However recently I learned that the Product Managers want to release this NEW product with a version number somewhere between 5.0 and 8.0 because 'there is a stigma about buying 1.0 products. People assume it's no good.' This latest Dilbert-esque comedy routine nearly sent me over the edge. So to gauge my sanity against that of the upper Product Management, I ask the community: Do version numbers play a role in software decisions, or have product version numbers lost all credibility and meaning? Would the community feel comfortable buying version '6.3' software (and paying tens of thousands of dollars for it) knowing that it was the first release of the product?"

9 of 693 comments (clear)

  1. Similar to Dbase II when it came out ..... by SargentDU · · Score: 3, Informative

    There never was a Dbase I version, their initial release was Dbase II. :)

  2. No, you must give it a version number! by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 3, Informative

    A product family is used as a generic name for the whole family and if you don't have version numbers then you have hell.
    Customer: I'm using WizzoProg and getting this problem.
    Tech support: Which version of WizzoProg are you using?
    Customer: WizzoProg. I couldn't find a version.
    Tech support: Ok that must be the original Wizzoprog.
    Five minutes of confusion....
    Customer: Oh, you remember you asked for the version, I can see know it is V3.2.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  3. Re:It's just the opposite for me by Skater · · Score: 5, Informative

    Plenty of people. Slackware jumped from version 4 to 7 because Patrick got tired of people asking him when he'd upgrade to "Linux 6.0".

  4. Re:Version 7 by netsharc · · Score: 5, Informative

    God damn, I thought people in /. would know better...
    1. WinNT 3.51
    2. WinNT 4
    3. Windows 2000 (5.0)
    4. Windows XP (5.1)
    5. Windows Vista (6.0)
    6. Windows 7 (7.0)

    Open Notepad, go to Help - About and you'll see those version numbers. Windows 2000 was 5.0.2195, XP: 5.1.2600 ...

    --
    What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
  5. Re:It's just the opposite for me by Potor · · Score: 4, Informative

    7 is not a version number; Windows 7 is a product number. Big difference.

  6. Re:It's just the opposite for me by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 5, Informative

    EVERY version of Windows has more bugs...

    Windows NT 4 was much more stable than NT 3.x. Every version of Windows after ME was better than Windows ME. Windows 3.11 was better than Windows 3.0 and Windows 3.0 was a huge improvement over Windows 2.0...

    I could go on...

  7. ANother solution by spineboy · · Score: 3, Informative

    I totally agree with the parents post.
    Another option for the original poster would be to name their product after the year, as in

    FooBar 2009, or even more vague as in just plain FooBar

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
  8. Re:It's just the opposite for me by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Informative
    MS DOS v7 came out at the same time DR DOS upgraded to v7. Jumping over a bunch of unused version numbers to do so (AIR, it went from DOS v5.5 to DOS v7.0,

    You misremember. There certainly was an MSDOS 6 (DOS versions), 6.0, 6.2, 6.22 in 1993-4; I think I actually bought them.

  9. Re:It's just the opposite for me by demonlapin · · Score: 4, Informative

    Win95 rev B was better than WinME, and Win98 (especially SE) was a lot better than WinME. Win98SE is still a pretty good OS for old-school gaming; it's like DOS 5.