Product Naming Conventions - Does it make sense

Maybe it’s just me, but with some of the MS Products being released in 2010 with "2010" in their product name, is the naming of the SQL Server product suite being released with product name that doesn’t make sense, our latest SQL Server Release which is now just about to be released is "SQL Server 2008 R2"My question is do you think this product name is ? Good, Bad or just plain confusing IMHO I think we could have been better placed if this was named "SQL Server 2010", rather then  "SQL Server 2008 R2" I sometimes have to explain this next release is not just a service patched version of the 2008 version but actually a NEW release, with some GREAT features, generally the comments that follow are usually in the vain. So why isn't it named with a different product date in its description if it’s a new release.The various naming conventions in use don't help us to clarify this either when explaining it to others who are not familiar with these - Consider the following, it contains a mixture of naming conventions.Microsoft SQL Server 2008 R2 (CTP) - 10.50.1352.12 (Intel X86) Oct 30 2009 18:22:17 Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation Enterprise Evaluation Edition on Windows NT 6.0 <X86> (Build 6002: Service Pack 2) Interested to see how others perceive this naming conventions topic

 

Published 21 March 2010 12:41 by NeilHambly
Filed under: ,

Comments

21 March 2010 14:16 by NeilHambly

# re: Product Naming Conventions - Does it make sense

Should have probably added that this is deemed a minor release of the product, in that it is only adding addition functionality - predominantly in the BI area, few improvements to the engine, however now does Unicode compression (note: not nvarchar(max) or when data is stored off row)