I am a software developer, and have been for more than 40+ years.
Love your products - All 4 of them as of today.
Please lose the last 4 digits of your version number control that you publicly display, and keep it for for internal purposes only.
It is confusing. Why would you release Product V 4.xx.yyyy and then release Product V 4.xx,yyzz.
The crazy part is that Windows (+other utilities) only show the version as Product V 4.xx, as the remaining 4 digits do not get registered in the "REGISTRY".
Who are you trying to CONFUSE?
Get a better management of your version control.
Sorry. Critical, YES. Just trying to help.
Ram Todatry.
~email address removed by moderator to avoid spamming
I'd also vote for keeping it, and CCleaner doesn't in my opinion have annoying version numbers and is more-or-less in line with allot of other software I use when it comes to how the version is listed.
Some programs have weird version numbering such as one program going from version 3.0a to 3.0b, and then 3.1. What's weirder is how something can be at a high version number from years of releases lets say 15.2 and then out of nowhere they go back to 2.0, talk about confusing.
Some others use the date as the version, yet again weird but it sort of makes since with Linux derived stuff that's feverishly active such as daily or weekly builds (makes much more sense with anti-virus/anti-malware definitions though):
20140227
I guess it really isn't for us to fully understand why someone chooses a particular format, just something the developer probably uses for their own sanity and we just have to succumb to it and put up with it.
Some programs have weird version numbering such as one program going from version 3.0a to 3.0b, and then 3.1. What's weirder is how something can be at a high version number from years of releases lets say 15.2 and then out of nowhere they go back to 2.0, talk about confusing.
Lol reminds me of Miranda instant messenger which never even made it to 1.0 in its at least decade long development life
Firefox and Chrome are classic examples of companies not following any sort of normal, standard versioning.
FF goes from a major release (based on the version number) to a couple of bug fix release to another major version number.
It's all about major jumps to give a visual effect rather than reflecting a major code release.
Back in my coding past we only had a N.nn standard where N was a major release entailing either a complete rewrite of the code or a system wide new feature and nn were either minor improvements or bug fixes. Hmmm, the good old days.
Lol reminds me of Miranda instant messenger which never even made it to 1.0 in its at least decade long development life
Things like that have the potential of getting out of hand if they're too number happy which can result into people missing an important update due to not seeing a specific number difference. At least with software that can check for a new version either automatically or via the Help menu missing an update isn't an issue so much anymore.
Back in my coding past we only had a N.nn standard where N was a major release entailing either a complete rewrite of the code or a system wide new feature and nn were either minor improvements or bug fixes. Hmmm, the good old days.
It would be nice if those were good now days! Some developers still go by that.