It’s fallen a bit out of favor. Among those still unwilling to use plain version numbers, vintages are still popular. Office 2007, Norton Security Suite 2006, etc. Even though Apple still uses the X to promote its operating system, the last two have put a lot of emphasis on the cat-themed code names: Panther, Tiger, Leopard. And then there’s Windows Vista.

What do you think the next naming fad will be?

*ActiveX was actually a cross between two naming fads. For a while, everything Microsoft did seemed to be Active—Active Desktop, Active Directory, etc.)

One problem is the upgrade path. It’s one thing to provide an updater that goes from version N to version N+1. But what if someone doesn’t run the updater until N+2 is available? Or worse, N+3?

Let’s say someone needs to upgrade from version A to version C, skipping version B. There are three approaches I’ve seen to this problem.

• Sequential Updates. Update from A to B, then run the updater again to go from B to C. Simple for the vendor, but a pain for the user. This is the way Microsoft Update works, which is why you need to re-run Windows Update a million times when you set up a new system (rebooting every other time).
• Multiple patches. Provide an extra patch that goes straight from A to C. This is how phpBB provides updates, and I seem to recall it’s the way Apple’s software update works. This is simplest for the user (assuming the updater picks the patch automatically), but can get really complicated once you start adding versions D, F, G, H, and I.
• Fallback. If someone skips a patch, just send them the whole installer. This assumes most users will be keeping up to date, so it’s most useful if the users check regularly or if the system checks automatically. This is the way Firefox’s updater works.

There are hybrid approaches out there. You could provide multiple patches for N+1 and N+2, but fall back to a full update for N+3. You could automate the sequential updates so that the installer grabs the A→B patch and the B→C patch at the same time, installs the first one, then installs the second one. You could even use different approaches for each version. Adobe Reader provides a patch that will update any 7.0.x version to 7.0.5, then another one that updates 7.0.5 to 7.0.7.

There doesn’t seem to be a “right” method, at least not yet. It seems to be a matter of balancing out priorities, and it probably depends heavily on the number of products you need to manage.

In general, I think that making every application re-invent the update wheel is kind of pointless when you have centralized update systems on every OS*…but I suppose sometimes re-inventing can lead to finding a better solution. Just last week I had to reboot Windows to uninstall Acrobat 6.

*Windows: Windows Update. Mac: Software Update. Linux: varies with distribution, but the most common are probably Apt, Yum, Up2date and YaST.

Interesting cost comparison: the 5-system “Family Pack,” which can be used for both upgrades and fresh installs, costs $199. That’s only $70 more than a one-system package. It’s also the same as a one-system full install of Windows XP Home or two copies of the Windows XP Home Upgrade. And while Microsoft does offer additional licenses, the only pricing references I can find are three years old and only a $10 discount per extra system.

Of course, you also have to take into account Apple’s faster release cycle (IIRC this is the third version of Mac OS released since Windows XP shipped), though that’s slowing down.