Anti-Virus Database: Why Version 1.1xxx after 1.999 instead of 2.xxx?!

Hi there,

why the Anti-Virus Database Versionformat is not changed to Version 2.xxx instead of 1.xxxx (1.1xxx) after the last 1.999 Update?!

The Anti-Virus Database Versions are coming from NOD32 v1 and as NOD32 v2 is released, the Anti-Virus Database Versions are confusing beginners/novice (uninformed/inexperienced users..).

So why you (Eset) don't change the NOD32 Database Updateformat now to Version 2.xxx after 1.xxx (1.999). This was a good time for changing!

2.xxx is better than 1.xxxx (1.1xxx), because it don't confuse beginners/novice (uninformed/inexperienced users..), because the NOD32 Version is also 2.x!

Think about it ;-)

thx and best regards,

iNsuRRecTiON

 

Surely these types of user wouldn't even know NOD32 existed, would they?

 

I posted something about this earlier - think of the first number (before the decimal point) and the second (after the decimal point) as being competely separate.

The update went from 999 to 1,000 - ie, +1 - the first number hasn't moved.

Stupid system... but it's what Eset uses... I would have suggested using something other than a decimal point as a separator, or zero filling the secondary number with a number of leading zeros - but hey - it's not got to make sense to the users...

 

Incidentally, that's also the same sort of numbering system that Lotus Domino uses for their versioning...

 

Absolutely. As ESET recently ceased supporting NOD32 version 1, it would have been good if the definition version reflected the change as well... not major problem though, I'm satisfied with NOD32 as it is (well if some wishlist elements were included, it'd be even better )

 

1.xxx is format of dababase files, IMHO the numbering will stay as it is And the NOD32 1.x supprot will cease in about week or so to be correct

 

OK, got the point.
I didn't know the exact date, saw the news a while ago. I use the newest release so it doesn't really matter to me

 

Does that make it any more or less logical?

Given that it would confuse your "average" user, that's reason enough to NOT use such a numbering system imo.

 

Agreed, the less confusing the better.

My 2 cents...

Cheers

 

yeah, change that