Sane version numbering?

[Binky]

The pandora had silly version numbering:

• Classic
• Rebirth
• 1GHz

These don't follow any obvious scheme, and were never really official until quite late on.

I think that, ideally the Pyra should have a logical, consistent version naming system from the beginning. This system should be both a realistic way of describing what's actually going on from a technical point of view, and be simple enough that a normal user can understand what's going on.

I propose the following:

(Only versions made available outside of the hardware development team get these numbers)

First digit =  case revision, starting at 1

second digit = CPU version, starting at 0

letter = main board version, staring at A

For example:

10A = original Pyra, OMAP5, no 3G

10B = original Pyra, OMAP5, 3G

10C = future version, OMAP5, 4G

11B = future version, A80, 3G

21D = new case, A80, new mainboard with additional sockets (or something)

32E = completely new everything

Not all combinations would be possible (e.g. an 'A' mainboard with a '2' case) - but an upgrade could take you from a 10A to a 10B, or an 11A or even an 11C.

 

[TrashyMG]

Also plausible:

5150 = original Pyra, OMAP5, no 3G

5160/588 = original Pyra, OMAP5, 3G

5271 = future version, OMAP5, 4G

5170 = future version, A80, 3G

5170/599 = new case, A80, new mainboard with additional sockets (or something)

5140 = completely new everything

Spoiler

Hopefully some old git will get the references

 

[Binky]

Hopefully some old git will get the references

Moxie?

 

[Grench]

Also plausible:

5150 = original Pyra, OMAP5, no 3G

5160/588 = original Pyra, OMAP5, 3G

5271 = future version, OMAP5, 4G

5170 = future version, A80, 3G

5170/599 = new case, A80, new mainboard with additional sockets (or something)

5140 = completely new everything

Spoiler

Hopefully some old git will get the references

5150 = original IBM PC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Personal_Computer

 

[rohezal]

I think there should be a codename next to the version number. And the most significant number (like 1 in 120) should be the Cpu.

Original Pyra:

Pyra (00A)

Pyra 3G (01A)

Pyra 4G (02A)

New case Pyra (maybe blue):

Pyra Blue  (00B)

Pyra Blue 3G (01B)

Pyra Blue 4G (02B)

New cpu and an other new case (maybe red):

Pyra 2 (10C)

Pyra 2  3G (11C)

Pyra 2  4G (12C)

For normal audience the numbers could maybe start with a 1 not with a 0.

 

[Neelix]

I think there should be a codename next to the version number. And the most significant number (like 1 in 120) should be the Cpu.

Original Pyra:

Pyra (00A)

Pyra 3G (01A)

Pyra 4G (02A)

New case Pyra (maybe blue):

Pyra Blue  (00B)

Pyra Blue 3G (01B)

Pyra Blue 4G (02B)

New cpu and an other new case (maybe red):

Pyra 2 (10C)

Pyra 2  3G (11C)

Pyra 2  4G (12C)

For normal audience the numbers could maybe start with a 1 not with a 0.

I disagree.

The more you separate things out like that the harder it is to search for information relevant to your unit. If you add extra code names then someone searching for information may end up having to run several different searches to find what they need because some people will just use the code name, (or part of it) and others will just use the model number.

Also if different models have similar code name elements it can lead to ambiguity in support requests with regards to which model the customer is actually using. ("I'm using the 3g model" - Which CPU do they have OMAP or A80? "I'm using the Pyra 2" - do they have the 4G, the 3G or the no modem version?) The more times you have go back to an end user to clarify such details the more frustrated they will get. Also, given that the primary mode of support (the forums) is not a real-time medium it can drag things out unnecessarily.

If we are going to setup a model numbering scheme then the resulting model number should be a single alphanumeric string. (like what Binky was suggesting to begin with)

- Neelix

 

[skeezix]

In a world where a billion dollar company can go From Xobx to Xobx 360 to Xobx One ... obviously ED does not have the budget to work out sequence numbers

 

[Exophase]

In a world where a billion dollar company can go From Xobx to Xobx 360 to Xobx One ... obviously ED does not have the budget to work out sequence numbers

Not quite as impressive as calling it Xobx three times in a row though

 

[Glyph Reader]

In a world where a billion dollar company can go From Xobx to Xobx 360 to Xobx One ... obviously ED does not have the budget to work out sequence numbers

Not quite as impressive as calling it Xobx three times in a row though

This just goes to show that there is no such thing as 'sane version numbering."

-Glyph Reader

 

[Neelix]

In a world where a billion dollar company can go From Xobx to Xobx 360 to Xobx One ... obviously ED does not have the budget to work out sequence numbers

Not quite as impressive as calling it Xobx three times in a row though

This just goes to show that there is no such thing as 'sane version numbering."

No... It just shows that Microsoft's marketing department doesn't understand the concept.
- Neelix

 

[Binky]

And the most significant number (like 1 in 120) should be the Cpu.

Why?

I thought it was going to be relatively easy to replace the CPU board?

The most significant number should be the thing which is hardest to replace, or changes the least often.

 

[thatgui]

The pandora had silly version numbering....

Why would somebody want such a practical and logical thing while a big part of the industry is doing the exact opposite by half officially slapping the release year behind the model name ? This would take all the fun out of searching for problems a certain version may have. Honestly, who would want that ?

 

[_wb_]

Why not just Pyra 1.0 for the first model (and maybe Pyra 1.0-3G for and Pyra 1.0-no3G if you want to distinguish those). And then increment the minor version number for small upgrades and the major version number for big ones?

 

[comradekingu]

Dragonbox -

Pyra

Aura or Arva

Unda

Hell-grau

Nacht-schwarz

Winter-rot

QQ

GGG

GGGG

 

[Ziz]

Hm, I don't really get, why Pyra 0815 is more "easy" for new users than Pyra Classic, Pyra Resurrection and Pyra 2.0 Ghz (I just invented names, I have no idea, what kind of models will exist, however I don't think, that ED will produce thousands of different CPU boards...). For both name structures the newbie user have to look up, which version means what. But imho it is more easy to get the order with names than with numbers. And right now there are Pandoras without Wifi. We don't have a name for them, we just call them Pandoras without Wifi. So we could just tell, that 3G is missing if it is necessary... Because for most cases it will not matter.

 

[rohezal]

Why?

I thought it was going to be relatively easy to replace the CPU board?

The most significant number should be the thing which is hardest to replace, or changes the least often.

I think the most important part of the Pyra is the Soc, since it determines what you can do with the device. This is why I think it should be the biggest number. A new case doesn't make a big difference in a PC, a new cpu and gpu can be big difference.

The more you separate things out like that the harder it is to search for information relevant to your unit. If you add extra code names then someone searching for information may end up having to run several different searches to find what they need because some people will just use the code name, (or part of it) and others will just use the model number.

True but would a normal person buy a Pyra 12C instead of a Pyra2 4G? The ipad is using this sheme (ipad1, ipad1 3g, ipad2, ipad2 3g) and it works flawlessly. People know when they read the name what they will get. And the version number behind the name, helps you to easy identify your unit type. Maybe some people will use the number and other people will use the nickname. But with one google search you can understand which model they are talking about.

 

[Neelix]

That might be a g

The more you separate things out like that the harder it is to search for information relevant to your unit. If you add extra code names then someone searching for information may end up having to run several different searches to find what they need because some people will just use the code name, (or part of it) and others will just use the model number.

 True but would a normal person buy a Pyra 12C instead of a Pyra2 4G? The ipad is using this sheme (ipad1, ipad1 3g, ipad2, ipad2 3g) and it works flawlessly. People know when they read the name what they will get. And the version number behind the name, helps you to easy identify your unit type. Maybe some people will use the number and other people will use the nickname. But with one google search you can understand which model they are talking about.

The point of the model number isn't to sell the product, it's to identify what product the customer ended up buying, and yes, people buy devices with abstract model numbers all the time. Usually it's not something they actually tend to care about except to make sure they are getting the right one.

That said there's no reason the model number itself can't be made to be sound good when combined with the product name. Personally I suggest going either completely numeric (like Trashy's suggestion) or starting with letters and ending with numbers - eg PY-1701

- Neelix

 

[x1212]

Well as long as it is more sane (or more precisely: easy to remember) than whatever the creators of the anno-series where thinking (1602->1503->1701->1404->2070), I don't really care ...

 

[Grench]

The pandora had silly version numbering:

• Classic
• Rebirth
• 1GHz

These don't follow any obvious scheme, and were never really official until quite late on.
I think that, ideally the Pyra should have a logical, consistent version naming system from the beginning. This system should be both a realistic way of describing what's actually going on from a technical point of view, and be simple enough that a normal user can understand what's going on.

I propose the following:

(Only versions made available outside of the hardware development team get these numbers)

First digit =  case revision, starting at 1

second digit = CPU version, starting at 0

letter = main board version, staring at A

For example:

10A = original Pyra, OMAP5, no 3G

10B = original Pyra, OMAP5, 3G

10C = future version, OMAP5, 4G

11B = future version, A80, 3G

21D = new case, A80, new mainboard with additional sockets (or something)

32E = completely new everything

Not all combinations would be possible (e.g. an 'A' mainboard with a '2' case) - but an upgrade could take you from a 10A to a 10B, or an 11A or even an 11C.

Not bad - but will need more detail. There are two primary boards - and there is the potential for different displays to be used.

So - more like this? Use base 16 for each digit - 0123456789ABCDEF

Pre-production units should start with 0.

Pre-digits = production run 01 = beta 0.1. 10 = first production version (1.0).

First digit =  case revision, starting at 1

Second digit = SoC board type. 1 = OMAP5.(implies which CPU/SoC)

Third digit, SoC board reversion starting at 1

Fourth digit = Peripheral board version, staring at 1

Screen version = Screen source/type used, starting at 1.

Serial number = order produced in this batch

So...

01-1111-000001 would be the first one off the line.

02-1111-000001 would be the first one off the line of the 2nd batch assuming no changes get made.

etc...

The idea being that the first 6 positions in the code show revisions of major components.

 

[FaeMinx]

If this is sanity, I'm glad I've lost mine.

=~. O =