A sugestion for Kaspersky

[DVD+R]

Which I bet i'm not alone on this one, Instead of naming each Suite in accordance with the year (i.e Kaspersky Internet Security 2009/10/11 etc. etc. Why not just stick with kaspersky Internet security and forget about the year. to be honest I reckon the year bit is just a gimick as many people get paranoid if a program they have is dated by its title, and rush off just to get the current year. Totally un-nessecary in my view.. I also think the same of other companies not just Kaspersky.

[Sjoeii]

Don't all the vendors do this?
Norton 2011, Bitdefender 2011 etc

[ALookingInView]

-{ Quote: "Don't all the vendors do this?" }-
Most, yeah.

A poll on AV-C showed the majority preferring the yearly naming system. Bottom line, it makes money.
As much as I can't stand it, there's really no going back now.

[Page42]

-{ Quote: "Don't all the vendors do this?
Norton 2011, Bitdefender 2011 etc" }-
I'm thinking, right off the top, that it isn't most, but more like 50%.
There are plenty of vendors out there still naming by the version number.
I don't have the energy to count them all. :)

[ALookingInView]

There are exceptions to every rule, but I'm positive that more of the bigger ones use the new way.
Probably just another case of everyone copying Symantec. Not that they started it or anything, I've no idea. That's not really the point though.

[Page42]

Maybe that's the difference... the bigger ones.
But every one of the five programs named in my sig, forex, are all named per version number.
One school of thought is that the annual naming convention is a revenue generator for the companies, but they are also limited by that standard as well... like there is no point in them releasing a program update before the traditional next year release is due out.
Unless they call it NAV 2010½. :)

[tipo]

i don`t think it is a good idea. the versions must be differentiated. for example i want to use kaspersky antivirus. i go to their website and find there the latest version which is 2011. but i don`t want that version `cause i don`t like the looks of it or it consumes more resources than other versions. how could i find an older version of kaspersky otherwise? being differenciated like that permits me to go to google and search for kaspersky 2009. it`s old and hard to find. but at least i have a chance to find it. if i will search for kaspersky i will find a lot of websites hosting kaspersky products. but how can i tell if that is the right version that i am looking for?

[DVD+R]

-{ Quote: "Don't all the vendors do this?
Norton 2011, Bitdefender 2011 etc" }-


(Avira) No (Avast) No and probably some others but I havent used them, by the way, I'm not bashing Kaspersky, In fact far from it, I've had a 2 year licence for the last 11 months on my desktop, which I use now and again, I generally use my Toshiba A660 these days.

[gery]

-{ Quote: "Don't all the vendors do this?
Norton 2011, Bitdefender 2011 etc" }-
and i think that is not a good enough reason to do so
just my opinion though

[carat]

-{ Quote: "and i think that is not a good enough reason to do so
just my opinion though" }-

But there should be a difference: Better 2010/2011 than v9.873/v10.343 :)

[Rampastein]

I really prefer version numbers instead of lame years. It's like a vendor has to release a new version each year with only a modified GUI as a change. I liked it when KAV was still named v6 and v7, in version 8 they adopted the year naming system.

[SweX]

-{ Quote: "(Avira) No (Avast) No and probably some others but I havent used them," }-

(ESET) No (Prevx) No

[InfinityAz]

Using the year in the name makes it easier for the average user (actually all users) to know which is the latest version. If I see KIS 2011, it's generally easier to determine if it's the latest version than if I see KIS 11 (or whatever version KIS 2011 is).

[xxJackxx]

There was already a debate and vote on this at the Kaspersky forums when version 8 became 2009. Most of the forum users voted to keep it version 8 and marketing decided on 2009 anyway. So don't expect them to change their mind now. This year's debate is the custom install option, which has already been beaten to death.

[Page42]

-{ Quote: "Using the year in the name makes it easier for the average user (actually all users) to know which is the latest version." }-
Easy on the "all users", friend.

If AV companies are anything like automakers, who release next year's model in the last several months of the preceding year, then there is indeed room for confusion among some folks as to whether or not they have the newest version.

If this thread is about which naming convention we each prefer, I would pick version number... but only after forcing myself to shed the shackles of apathy to do so. ;)

[trjam]

well that why I like Dr Web. A new version say, every 5 to 6 years.:blink: