Version Number? [like: Should be be more 2.x than 1.x]


  • Vivaldi Ambassador

    I know that vendors/authors change version according to their own concepts/desires.
    But it seems as if Vivaldi is stuck on version 1.xxx By remaining on v1.xxx could be considered
    by some to mean that V is "not" very developed. Some people might see this as Vivaldi is stuck
    and not moving forward. As in "undeveloped". Lacking in advancement.

    I know by my running Vivaldi that this is not the case. However to show the world that
    Vivaldi is making significant advancements the powers that be might want to consider
    moving to v2.xxx These are just my thoughts.


  • Moderator

    2.x may come when big changes were made.

    Which interval of version change in major and minor number should
    be made to let Vivaldi appear more "developed"?



  • @para-noid said in Version Number?:

    I know that vendors/authors change version according to their own concepts/desires.
    But it seems as if Vivaldi is stuck on version 1.xxx By remaining on v1.xxx could be considered
    by some to mean that V is "not" very developed. Some people might see this as Vivaldi is stuck
    and not moving forward. As in "undeveloped". Lacking in advancement.

    In the really olden days of PC software (pre-1990's), the advancement of the primary version number actually most often signified the inclusion of truly major new features and/or a significant internal revision of the old version code. In those days of technically-driven companies, the time between major-version updates was measured in many months or in years. As computers became more consumer-oriented, versioning became much more marketing-driven in both mechanism and "lingo". Versions began to be released more on a time-schedule than a development/need schedule; and because most of the software was sold, it was pushed out more often to raise revenue. Eventually, it became a "my version number is higher than your version number" kind of challenge between competitors.

    Then, for a variety of reasons, some companies began using the release year (or the year following the release year) to define their primary version, much like vehicles are marketed. Again, this was to assert both the newness of the version and subtly impugn the oldness of earlier versions in order to push the product. The point is that major version numbering often came to be purely a marketing tool, rather than to represent the significance of features or revisions.

    Vivaldi takes a more original-days technical focus on its product, and is using the addition of truly significant features as its rationale for bumping a major version number. To those of us who've lived through a lot of the version-numbering hype in the past, Vivaldi's approach represents a return to practical (and technical) sanity. Indeed, over the years and because of marketing psychology, a popular conception has taken root that higher primary version number equates to modernity, but at the end of the day, Vivaldi is a browser 'designed for our friends', not for 'total domination' of a mass-market.


  • Vivaldi Ambassador

    @gwen-dragon said in Version Number?:

    2.x may come when big changes were made.

    Which interval of version change in major and minor number should
    be made to let Vivaldi appear more "developed"?

    Sync is pretty major to me and probably many others. As will M3 when it's ready. Just saying.


  • Moderator

    @para-noid My best intuition is that release of M3 will trigger major version number increment to 2.0. After Ver. 1 was released, Jon said M3 would appear in the "next" version.

    And just by way of discussion, I notice that all of my paid-for software that I use for my work, increments version number every one or two years.


  • Moderator

    @para-noid Sync is pretty major. It's also about half-finished. At least we can test and use it now.


  • Vivaldi Ambassador

    Another thing to think about. How many versions has Chromium, Chrome and Firefox, to name a few, gone through since Vivaldi first released its first and only version?

    v1.x equates to very little development.
    v2.x equates to at least some development.



  • @Para-Noid That's only marketing bs, and you fell in that trap yourself.
    I have updated Vivaldi 120 times since 1.0, just looked in Vivaldi\Application\SetupMetrics\ and I bet there were more before that.
    That's a lot of development for me, in less than 2 years.
    Major version is when the program gets a major overhaul and prolly it's so different than previous version that seems another program.
    Those others just increment their version every x months just to make YOU think there's some major progress, but it's just timed, whatever they did it's incremented.


  • Vivaldi Ambassador

    It seems as if some people are missing my point. Many users might be skeptical about trying V due to its version number.
    Staying on v1.x to many people means that Vivaldi, or any other software, is "not" actively developed. I do know otherwise. But others may not see it that way.

    It's all about appearances. Let's face it, any software that's stuck on one version number gives the "appearance" of very little development. For a browser this is not good. A potential new user will notice the low number designation that has not changed for over a year and think to themselves and decide V isn't very developed. When in fact Vivaldi has come a long way over that time span.

    Like I said it's all about appearances and marketing. By the way marketing is not "bs". Marketing is how a product is sold and used.


  • Moderator

    Regular User do not look at version numbers.

    Large versionnumber jumps are something for marketing guys. LOL

    First guy: Oh! Look we have Vivaldi 11.
    Second guy: Wow. Must be as good as IE 11, yes?
    But when comes Vivialdi 63 be like Chrome 63?
    First: I do not know, i use Windows 10.



  • @para-noid
    "Usually", as conforming to Blackbirds explanations, v1.0 didn't signify "very little" development, but such a load of development, that all basic functions worked, all (found) critical and most annoying bugs were resolved and the product was ready for ... well, if not sale, then distribution to the public which wasn't inclined to deal with beta versions.

    Many open-source projects have been on the market for years and still did not reach 1.0 - for a reason.

    Moreover, I don't think Vivaldi need to attract new users just by boasting new major version numbers now and again. Let it mature, let us (the content and happy users) spread the word and those who want to wield it's power will come ;)


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Vivaldi Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.