Dead End Naming Conventions

It's probably fair to say that Microsoft was a huge influence in this spate of nomelclatural faux pas, jumping from simple numeric versioning to 'release date' versioning with Windows 95, 98, and 2000. The final nails were driven into the coffin of sensical version control with Windows ME and XP. Jeepers.

I've been privately hoping that Apple will have the sense to step up to Mac OS 11 (or XI, if they prefer) when Mac OS becomes fully 64-bit. That will obviously take a while, since they'd essentially be dropping support for all pre-G5 hardware; but until then, dot-releases are A-OK with me.

Hmmm. Illustrator 88, anyone?

I agree with changing the product name when the version numbering winds up into high digits (honestly, 16.0 just looks silly). However, as pointed out, the numbering scheme is then ruined. On the Mac, Word went 1.0-6.0, then 98, 2001, the vX. Sensible? Hardly. Apple is in a muddle too, what comes after 10.9? "Mac OS Ten Eleven point Oh"? Right.

What Apple (and Adobe and Macromedia) should have done is rebranded their apps and restarted the numbering scheme. OS X 1.0. Photoshop CS 1.0. In doing so, we avoid the huge numbers and retain sensical numbering. The only weird part in the schema is remembering where the CS or MX or X family starts. That is, remembering that CS starts after 7.0 as opposed to 6.0 or 8.0.

i had the same issue with the very first power macs: the 6100, 7100 and 8100. i thought, what are the names going be in five years? thank goodness the code name of thr g3 chip became so popular, or else we'd be using powermac 12800's now...

I can't remember where I read this (and frankly can't be bother to look right now ;) ), but I heard that MX stood for something along the line of "10 years of Macromedia".
Or sumthin'.
Still, I couldn't agree more with you. As often, indeed.

I like Photoshop CoS (the Cup of Soup version).

The possibilities are endless:
Photoshop AM (a'la Mode version)
Photoshop DJ (the du jour version)
Photoshop LF (lint-free)
Photoshop D&B (dead and bloated)
Photoshop 8675309 (Jenny's version)

I am with Phil. Adobe (et al) should have just rebranded the apps. Particularly since the CS apps are all OSX only it is a significant point (for Mac users) of reference.

Of course it is also of note, though less dramatic, that the apps are WinXP, 2000 only on the other side.

Officially, MX stands for "Macromedia Xperience"

Also of note: Adobe CS products include product activation.

Following up to comment #1: Major versions of Microsoft Office still retain a (logical) numerical nomenclature in development and in production e.g. Office 2002 is version 9 (to see this for yourself, check the Help > About dialog box of any copy of Word, Excel, etc. )

Likewise for the MS OSes; Windows 2000 is version 5.0.xxx of the OS, Win 98 is 4.xxx etc.

This means zilch to the uneducated masses, but for any regular old pro, is immensely helpful (especially when communicating with peers). (Yep, I *do* call it Word 9...not to 'regular' folk though). When a pro, you're always careful with language.

you're using "version control" to mean something that it doesn't mean.

I totally agree with Todd's assessment of the version jumbling going on. Maybe it's something graphics professionals can deal with amongst themselves but trying to explain version differences to a client, who can barely use the outdated versions of programs they have, is difficult at best. Especially annoying is the constant problem I run into with rental computers. I specifically ask for PowerPoint XP (aka 2002) but they always supply a computer with Windows XP but only PowerPoint 2000 because so many laypeople believe Windows and Office are one and the same or upgrading Windows upgrades Office somehow. That's the mistake Microsoft made giving applications a similar naming scheme as the operating system even though they are totally unrelated (Win 98 runs Office XP, etc.).

Product naming should help "brand experience" not sour it. After hearing Macromedia talking about building on the momentum of MX, I still can't help cursing them every time I have a conversation that goes something like this: "Is that a new Flash MX feature?" "You mean MX 2004?" "What?" "Do you mean MX or MX 2004?" "Oh. Well, it wasn't available in MX, but it is a new feature in MX 2004. Actually, it's only included in MX 2004 Professional...Got that?" "Whatever, let's not talk about Flash anymore..." Mix in a few other apps with the same naming problem (i.e. Dreamweaver, etc.) and you're guaranteed a few extra headaches a day...even if you're just talking to other "professionals." God help our confused clients and other "laymen".

I'm a little confused. Is this a new pruduct release version? Is Photoshop CS the new version of Photoshop? Or is it just a name change for the current Photoshop 7?

Photoshop CrS: Creative-er Suite. After that they'll have to go out of business or something. Either that, or they could pull a Netscape and just bump up all their version numbers to be the same, then they'd have the unity I assume they're going for. But I do apprciate the fact that they didn't use an X for no reason. The "x" in "MX" I always associate with all the crap that's coming out that's "X-treme!!" and that's no good at all.

And how bout Mac OS X.III? Actually, their X doesn't bother me so much, because I kind of relate it to the Unix thing, more than I relate it to 10.

Kings used to be numbered. The Pope is John Paul 2.0. Queen Elizabeth is also version 2.0. (Yet how compatible are they?)
Some people still number their children... some are simply all called George.
Last names appear normal in many western countries, yet Iceland does not have last names at all. Russians have last names (three versions), but they like to use the father-names when talking to each other in private.
I guess it makes sense to rename a product if suddenly all the different versions of its components would be just confusing and distracting. ImageReady went from version 3 to version 7 to not being mentioned at all. The upgrade path for the new product appears to be one from Photoshop ("prior" version...hehe) to CS (Creative Suite.) I guess what we are looking at here is a transformation of the idea that there need to be single applications performing some very specific task to environments, to a place where the documents, ideas, projects are the center of attention.
Versions are so 20th Century.
Names are so... hmm... what shall we call this one?
XXI : )

btw...
Does anybody remember OpenDoc?

I agree with the criticism directed towards Adobe and Macromedia, but not regarding Apple nomenclature (and not because I could be an Apple adept). OS X is pronounced OS ten (not 'ex' or 'ix'); it's very easy to change the name to OS XI (pronounced OS eleven) or OS 11 --after all, they've changed from OS 9 to OS X, so why not from OS X to OS 11. As for the OS names: nobody I know (in our out 'the business') calls it either Jaguar or Panther, but OS X 10.2 or 10.3

Also @ Phil Dokas: following OS X 10.9 is OS X 10.10 (or OS X 10.2.10 follows OS X 10.2.9) The '.' is not a decimal sign, but just a delimiter

Photoshop CS!? You mean we can clone *and* frag at the same time? nice one :-)

Actually I am a little concerned about file versions as we often have to save Illustrator files as a particular version. Our RIP for example just doesn't like version 10 files so we resave supplied files as 9.0.

As mentioned above what will happen now, or rather in 5 years time when everyone is using *CS? CS 1.0 anyone?

I think they are doing it so not to remind us of how many versions and upgrades we have bought over the years!

Hell ya I remember OpenDoc, and I'm only 20!

Dragging all those cool "elements" or whatever they were called into your document... then it failed.

Poor Apple. lol

Mike

You're right MT. I wrote the post in a mad rush and got my technical lingo a little crossed.

I can't tell from Adobe's FAQ... does "product activation" mean if I buy a new laptop I cannot un-install my legal copy of Photoshop CS from my old laptop and install it on the new machine? AARGH.

|||||||||||message to Todd |||||||||||||
Todd, could you please be so kind and hide my email address from my comment above? I left it out there by accident (your preview function knocks out the URL, leaves the mail, check it out) and now it is open for all scavenger bots to see...
I sent you an email, but you have not reacted to it. I guess you read this space more often. Please, just add my URL or do something else... just hide my email address. Thanks.
||||||||||| please remove |||||||||||||

I agree with the above comments about the naming, but at the same time I think there's a fundamental shift in release philosophy that actually explains this.

If you follow Apple's new model and plan on one major release a year, then naming the release after the year actually makes a lot of sense. If Adobe plans on updating the full suite every year then the version number is really 2003 and the product name has changed from, for example, Photoshop to Photoshop CS. Likewise with the MX product family. Sure you might need to do point releases to fix bugs, but those are maintenance releases and the version numbers don't tend to affect compatibility or feature availability.

After a while, when all the old non-CS/MX versions slip into obscurity, we'll stop appending the goofy two-lettered marketing badges and just lapse back into good old product names anyhow. I've never really followed the belief that naming products with numbers makes them more appealing or tech-seeming - cars with names always struck me as more memorable than those with numbers (except for the sweet, sweet Porsche 911). Cars often get upgraded too and their version number tends to be the year (Bob: Is that a '92? Jim: No way man. The '92 had flatter door handles and a sloping C-column. That's totally a '93). Everyone, of course, remembers the old joke about what we'd have to do if cars were more like Microsoft Windows, so I'll just leave the rest of this comment to write itself.

Regarding activation:

I talked to one of Adobe's customer service people just to be sure, but the answer lies in their EULA, which states that you can legitimately install Photoshop (or InDesign, etc) on both a desktop and a laptop computer, so long as you don't use both at the same time. In fact they have long had network awareness that prevents applications with the same serial number co-habiting on a network.

So the good news is, that despite the introduction of activation (a la Quark) it will still be possible and legal to install one copy on both a desktop and laptop. Phew!

I think there may also be legal reasons for using letters, ie trademarking is easier I think.

Re: jane
I know that the dot is not a decimal point but rather a version delimiter. The point I made, and I still hold by it, is that having 2 numbers in one level of the version (i.e. 1.10 or 16.1) looks odd and isn't typically smiled upon in consumer software for its look or for the way it staggers off the tongue.

Yeah, but Apple at least had the sense to continue with the regular numbering. MacOS X 10.2.8 is the newest update of Jaguar, for instance, and Panther will be 10.3.0.

Besides, what is this minor confusion compared to that of the Mozilla browsers, changing naming convention every so often. (MIlestones M1-M18, #.#.#],a|b, rc# etc. while the engine tells everybody it's mozilla 5.0. )

RE: Witold's email address

I changed it. Just FYI, all email addresses are encoded with character entities to avoid SPAM harvesters, so its doubtful you would have had a problem anyway. :)

yes, right you are - Hope that Apple will know it too

I think a big reason for the change is psychological. Adobe wants us to think that this is a cool new product we must have. It is not just Photoshop 8. No, it is the totally new and different Photoshop CE!

The higher the version number, the less significant each increase becomes. An upgrade from Photoshop 4 to Photoshop 5 seems a lot more significant that an upgrade from Photoshop 14 to Photoshop 15.

I think that Adobe should have left the photoshop version numbering as they were. It's like a tradition! You know, like 23rd wedding day! Or 18th birthday! Now it's just a piece of new software with a strange name (and new bugs?), not a better Photoshop. If a software never reaches version number 8 or bigger, why is that bad? Doesn't it mean that it has evolved for the better?

Useless marketing naming conventions aside, MX and CS have unfortunately brought on a bad case of McSoftware...

I once pondered why it was cheaper to buy a burger, fries, and coke - than to purchase the burger and coke alone (don't need those french-fried calories, you know?). I don't count the few pennies lost on the lunchtime fastfood bad habit any more, but the hundreds of dollars in excess software is looking to add up quickly. The only apps I'll ever use in the Adobe CS family are PhotoShop and Illustrator. Why will it cost more for those two separately than for the suite with two excess programs I'll never touch (just like those fries)?

And shame on Macromedia for the MX 2004 fiasco - Three extra programs I'll never install, all for the same price as Flash Pro! I have enquired about purchasing Flash at a quarter of the price, as their bundling scheme implies, but still have haven't heard back...

I'll always look fondly on those days of PhotoShop 5, 6, or 7. The days before the software extra value meal.

I thought the new convention was more of a marketing/branding thing since I see "Version 7.0" in Dreamweaver MX 2004 from the "Help > About Deamweaver" menu. Also Dreamweaver MX is labeled "Version 6.1".

I was just typing up some informal documentation, and had to type PS CS. That's just weird compared to PS 8.