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

Discussion in 'NOD32 version 2 Forum' started by iNsuRRecTioN, Feb 17, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. iNsuRRecTioN

    iNsuRRecTioN Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2003
    Posts:
    303
    Location:
    Germany
    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
     
  2. PlexShaw

    PlexShaw Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Posts:
    62
    Surely these types of user wouldn't even know NOD32 existed, would they? ;)
     
  3. webyourbusiness

    webyourbusiness Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Posts:
    2,640
    Location:
    Throughout the USA and Canada
    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... ;)
     
  4. anotherjack

    anotherjack Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    Posts:
    224
    Location:
    Louisiana
    Incidentally, that's also the same sort of numbering system that Lotus Domino uses for their versioning...
     
  5. ShunterAlhena

    ShunterAlhena Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Posts:
    134
    Location:
    Szigethalom, Hungary
    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 ;))
     
  6. mrtwolman

    mrtwolman Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    Posts:
    613
    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
     
  7. ShunterAlhena

    ShunterAlhena Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Posts:
    134
    Location:
    Szigethalom, Hungary
    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;)
     
  8. webyourbusiness

    webyourbusiness Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Posts:
    2,640
    Location:
    Throughout the USA and Canada

    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.
     
  9. Blackspear

    Blackspear Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Posts:
    15,115
    Location:
    Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
    Agreed, the less confusing the better.

    My 2 cents...

    Cheers :D
     
  10. iNsuRRecTioN

    iNsuRRecTioN Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2003
    Posts:
    303
    Location:
    Germany
    yeah, change that :p
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.