Geesh, had to use firefox to get back into dotnetnuke.com - the "complete registration form" gave an IE error.  I hate this browser with a passion....

Okay, back to topic at hand - great survey actually - I think our users match pretty much to what you're currently seeing on the results. 

For us, the majority are DNN 3.x release level, with a high degree of variation between version levels.  DNN 4 is the second largest #, and a surprising amount of people still on DNN 2.  Oddly enough, we still have people on DNN 1.x in a few sites, I got some support tickets on upgrading from a DNN 1 -> 3 site upgrades over the last week, and even one user asking about a support issue on DNN 1.x - had to actually try and find where the heck I put the darn development database for that version *smile*

It's interesting, but it does tend to follow mainstream convention.  Most of the people that are active in here, update regularly, but the majority - if it isn't broke - they don't fix it.  New features for the most part are for the techies... regular users, if it does the job they want ie: builds there site, sells a few of their products, or gives them a nice landing page for their business - really don't upgrade nor see the need to do so.  Nor do they really care to do it either.  ALot of them have had experiences upgrading their home PC's .. would they think they would really want to try that on the internet without the available hammer like they took to their PC while upgrading from Windows 98 to XP?  Probably not.

We're in a way lucky because supporting the various versions doesn't impede our development - but solidfying the API and nailing it down and not changing it on the threat of dismemberment (okay, really joking there..honest) seems like something that needs to happen.  We're seeing now different releases because of API variations between 2.x (obviously), 3.0/1, 3.2/4.0, and 3.3/4.3 - and no real way on install to "idiot check".  Do we have to?  well, case in point - what if client A is running Widget Master Wizzbang Module Version 2.0 (no, don't try and look it up please) which is binary compatiable and only seems to work right under DNN 3.0.x and they really need that module for whatever reason.  It happens - and does happen, and with continual API changes - will continue to do so.  Some developers try this out, decide they don't want to do it, and that's the last you hear of them.  Which is why some of our clients are still running dnn 2.1.2

Richard
DNN Modules

>Some developers try this out, decide they don't want to do it, and that's the last you hear of them.  Which is why some >of our clients are still running dnn 2.1.2

My setup is a bit different from other DNN hosters - I do not let my clients install any thing - we install DNN , we install modules and skins etc thus all clients are standard as far as version and modules go - we use DNN2 simply because it is stable we do undertake a little customisation - I like the icon bar in DNN3 so I converted it to DNN2 , I also liked the panel approach in the admin pages so again I converted back from DNN3 to Dnn2 I like the template system in DNN3 so I added that to DNN2 - allows me to bulk update client sites with new page layouts etc but my clients do not need the bulk of the changes in DNN3 - so basically any of the improved Gui in 3 was brought back to 2. The reason why I like version 2 is the fact that as it is so stable one can make these changes safely  I think that the DNN1 versions out there would also be customised and thus not true version 1 code. I also use a small number of the new dnn3 modules under dnn2 by using a wrapper to convert the dnn3 framework calls back to dnn2 framework but generally the number of dnn2 modules out there are sufficent for most clients. We provide 24 hour support to our clients thus we needed the most stable version available

I sometines get a bit of a giggle out of posts on the forum where people are asking or more so begging to know when the next version is coming out - one example was a request  to know when the next release of V4 was just a week after a release. For the bulk of the community who just want their own web site I am a bit lost as to why they need to update on every version change.

I agree. 2.12 has some advantages over the newer ones in my opinion. I like the fact that I can look up user profiles properties easily. I like the fact that it runs smoothly, it's easy to maintain and easy to develop for. It doesn't have bells & whistles, but it's stable.

Also, how long has the new VS been out for? A year maybe. In larger companies, upgrading to a new development environment can be long and challenging. I'm sure that you'll see alot intranet evironments still on 2.12 because those take longer to change and can have huge implications on a business.