PDA

View Full Version : UPDATE OPTIONS: Major Annoyance



tfjern
09-02-2008, 06:08 AM
I have been using BibleWorks almost from the very beginning (I believe I bought version 2.0 during the Hermeneutika Era; not sure, though), and the program is one of the finest of its kind, except for one area in particular: the confusing updating procedure.

This issue has been discussed a few times in the forums, but nothing much has done about streamlining the procedure (I have the feeling that many users don't even bother updating), or at least explaining it in terms a person who didn't create the Rube Goldbergian contraption could understand. Programmers should never, ever write help files. This is the 11th commandment.

I hope we will see a major overhaul of the updating procedures in version 8.0, whenever that comes out, but I'm not holding my breath.

I haven't been using BibleWorks for months, so naturally I wanted to check on updates (BibleWorks does provide excellent updates; it's only the installation procedure for these updates that's confounding).

Some downloaded patches are in bold, some have a hyphen to the left, some no hyphens, some not bold, some this, some that. Yikes!

During this time I forgot what the update options mean:

"Show Downloaded Patches," "Save Downloaded Patches," "Save Patches After Applying" -- should I delete them, should I save them, should I ...? Has this patch been installed? How does one know for sure? Let me check the help file. Better yet, how about searching the forums?

Hmmm, the patch is still there -- in bold! I'd better select it and try to install it again, just to make sure.

[Shouldn't there be some indication that a patch / update (whatever) has been installed?: e.g., "THIS UPGRADE HAS ALREADY BEEN INSTALLED. SO STOP TRYING TO INSTALL IT!", or words to that effect.]

Why not a simpler system, perhaps like this?

A message appears unobtrusively (that can be toggled off on on) notifying the user that there are uninstalled updates available, e.g.:

"New update(s) for ESV (and ...) available. Click here to install."

[The user then clicks and the update [or updates] is installed; OK, maybe the program will have to be restarted, but the procedure could still be much simpler and intuitive, to put it mildly.]

After installation a simple message appears: "The ESV update [updates] has been installed." In other words, you can forget worrying about it, that is, whether or not it has been installed, no fuss, no muss.

Please, Mike, fix this muss.

Michael Hanel
09-02-2008, 09:19 AM
"Show Downloaded Patches," "Save Downloaded Patches," "Save Patches After Applying" -- should I delete them, should I save them, should I ...? Has this patch been installed? How does one know for sure? Let me check the help file. Better yet, how about searching the forums?
....
Why not a simpler system, perhaps like this?
.....


Fortunately there is a place like this to ask such questions and get feedback. Frankly though, I think more people update the program than actually use the Forums (in other words if they use the Forums, they're likely updating the program just fine; it's those who don't update and don't visit the Forums that I'd worry about).

I guess I've never really had any problems with the way BW updates. I like that it's up to me to decide when and how to update (much more annoying to me are "helpful" updating programs from companies like Microsoft that apply huge updates in the background without my permission (ok granted I could have unchecked the Windows option that downloads updates automatically), or updaters like Apple which re-download entire programs to update the whole program (and then don't just download iTunes, but also try to push you QuickTime and Safari) or updaters like Adobe that seem to run every time you start the program (at least I think that's what's happening), slowing down your overall performance). If a patch ever is not successfully installed, you will receive a message that tells you something to that effect, otherwise it's safe to assume that with every time BW restarts itself after the update, that all is well in update land. Even if you are worried it didn't install, and you re-install it from the Download Patches, it's not going to wreck your computer or anything.

I know intuitiveness is a rather vague term, but there didn't seem to be anything uninituitive to me about it all. But as far as whether the Help system explains it, if you press F1 with the mouse held over the Install Updates window (after you've opened it), I guess I find most of your questions answered:


Show Downloaded Patches
If this option is checked all patches will be shown even if they have been already applied. This allows you to reapply patches or revert to a previous patch.


What happens if I remove the check from the "Save Patches When Done" box? Are the previous files removed, or does the system just stop saving patches from that point on?
It just stops saving future patches. The ones you previously saved will still be saved. You can delete them using the "Delete Selected Patches" button.

Would I also need to delete the present files from the "applied" folder? I assume the patches are saved in the "applied" folder. Is that correct?
If you want to delete all previous patches that were saved, select "Show All Downloaded Patches", check the ones you want to delete, and click "Delete Selected Patches."

Why are there files in the backup folder when I have never checked the "Backup Patched Files" box? What are the consequences of deleting these files?
If you ever ran the updater even once with "Backup Patched Files" checked, those files will have been saved here. You can manually delete these files if you don't want them



That said, perhaps your improvements might make things a bit easier. I just don't think the system they have is quite as bad as you make it out to be.

tfjern
09-02-2008, 12:33 PM
MS Word 2007 is full of annoyances, but I still use it. BibleWorks has only one as far as I'm concerned, but the program works fine even if I don't update as often as I should (for reasons I mentioned in my post). Mike, you find the update procedure smooth as silk? Good for you! I don't, and I'm sure I'm not the only one that finds it, well, a little rough around the edges.

David Kummerow
09-02-2008, 06:55 PM
For what it's worth, I'm used to it and like it the way it is also.

Regards,
David.

Mark Eddy
09-03-2008, 12:13 AM
Dear tfjern,
Actually BW7 does all the things you want, just in a less obtrusive way. Let me illustrate by commenting on your requests:

"Show Downloaded Patches,"
You apparently have this checked. That is why when you check for updates you see updates which you have already downloaded. Uncheck this option, and you will see only those updates which you do NOT already have. This one change will get rid of most of your headaches.

"Save Downloaded Patches,"
This is in case a patch causes a problem (rare, but it does happen with .exe files). If you have saved downloaded patches, you can reinstall them without having to go on the web.

"Save Patches After Applying" -- should I delete them, should I save them, should I ...?"
I only deleted them on my old computer when I was running out of hard drive. But you may delete them, if you are sure that you will never want to re-install BW.

"Has this patch been installed? How does one know for sure?"
Just uncheck "Show Downloaded Patches," and then after you reboot BW and "Check for Updates" if you don't see the update any more, it has been installed. They automatically install when you close BW properly, as prompted.

"Let me check the help file. Better yet, how about searching the forums?" You have now done that.

"Hmmm, the patch is still there -- in bold! I'd better select it and try to install it again, just to make sure."
Bold just means that the programmers consider them major patches, or, put another way, patches which apply to everybody. Not everybody installs all the foreign language Bibles, so those will not be bold.

"[Shouldn't there be some indication that a patch / update (whatever) has been installed?: e.g., "THIS UPGRADE HAS ALREADY BEEN INSTALLED. SO STOP TRYING TO INSTALL IT!", or words to that effect.]"
Yes, if you uncheck "Show Downloaded Patches" then you will see only uninstalled updates. You can also use "My Computer" and look in the "applied" folder in BW patches folder, and you can see which patches have been applied. (I regularly copy files from the "applied" folder so that I can install them on my other computer without going online.)

"Why not a simpler system, perhaps like this?
A message appears unobtrusively (that can be toggled off on on) notifying the user that there are uninstalled updates available, e.g.:
"New update(s) for ESV (and ...) available. Click here to install.""
Unchecking "Show Downloaded Patches" will accomplish this. Any patch that displays when you "Check for Updates" will be available. Just click the box in front of the update and it will install.

"[The user then clicks and the update [or updates] is installed; OK, maybe the program will have to be restarted, but the procedure could still be much simpler and intuitive, to put it mildly.]"
The program already does exactly this.
I agree with the others that I don't like programs automatically searching my hard drive from the remote computer and updating what it does not find. BW lets me decide when or even if I want to update. I hope this helps clarify how the updater works.
In Christ,
Mark Eddy

tfjern
09-03-2008, 10:06 AM
Come on, Senior Members! I admire your unflinching loyalty to the product, but in this case you should call a spade a spade. BibleWorks is a great program, indeed, but a few parts of it need tweaking, and proof of that is the amount of verbiage it took several of you (and that goes for the relevant section in the help file, too) to explain the allegedly crystal-clear updating procedures. BibleWorks 7.0's updating function is in need of updating -- to make it a little more user-friendly, that is.

By the way, automatic, in-the-background updating is one of the few good things about Microsoft products, though in Microsoft's case the patches occasionally do more harm than good. But as long as Mike Bushell is in command we won't have to worry about such things.

Michael Hanel
09-03-2008, 02:25 PM
Come on, Senior Members! I admire your unflinching loyalty to the product, but in this case you should call a spade a spade. BibleWorks is a great program, indeed, but a few parts of it need tweaking, and proof of that is the amount of verbiage it took several of you (and that goes for the relevant section in the help file, too) to explain the allegedly crystal-clear updating procedures. BibleWorks 7.0's updating function is in need of updating -- to make it a little more user-friendly, that is.

By the way, automatic, in-the-background updating is one of the few good things about Microsoft products, though in Microsoft's case the patches occasionally do more harm than good. But as long as Mike Bushell is in command we won't have to worry about such things.


My last cent on the topic: I am willing to call a spade a spade. I have criticisms of BW7 and there are things I don't like and/or think could be better (if you want a list just ask me and i'll email you about it, or look around at other posts with wish lists, etc.), but the bottom line on the upgrade feature is simply that I don't have the issues with it that you do. Maybe the next version of BW will update differently, but even if it didn't, I really wouldn't have any gripes about the program in this area. Call it personal preference or call it an utter bias, it doesn't really matter to me, but when I say that it's not confusing or troubling to me, I'm not lying to you (or myself) about it.

Christopher S Wiley
09-03-2008, 06:18 PM
I, personally, have never had a problem with the updater, I thought it was quite straight forward. Of course I have never read the help file on it, but I didn't need to.

David Kummerow
09-03-2008, 08:30 PM
By the way, automatic, in-the-background updating is one of the few good things about Microsoft products
It's personal preference, but I personally detest this feature in any software. I have a slowish 256/64 connection and a plan that provides a greater allowance of downloads at different times of the day. I like to choose when to download and what. That's what I like and appreciate about the BW update process. Further, it allows to automatically save updates so that they need not be downloaded again in the future. It's very good, in my opinion.

Regards,
David.

Adelphos
09-03-2008, 09:25 PM
It's personal preference, but I personally detest this feature in any software. I have a slowish 256/64 connection and a plan that provides a greater allowance of downloads at different times of the day. I like to choose when to download and what. That's what I like and appreciate about the BW update process. Further, it allows to automatically save updates so that they need not be downloaded again in the future. It's very good, in my opinion.

I couldn't agree more. Auto-downloads are one of the most invasive, annoying, disgusting features extant, IMO, and enforced auto-downloads are even more dispicable.

I don't see how the BW updater could be any more user friendly, and nobody who has read my posts would ever consider me to be a shill for BW.

Edit:

As a matter of fact, I'm still waiting for named tabs and command-line control of tabs, just like with limits. -:) I guess we have to wait for eight for that??? Or has it not yet been considered, even after all our requests for it?

tfjern
09-04-2008, 02:22 AM
Well, many of the Senior Members have chimed in, and their verdict is unanimous: the BWW 7.0 update feature (esp. the Update Options explanations) couldn't be more user-friendly, more crystal-clear, and auto-updating is of the Evil One. I guess I can only hope Mike or some kind soul will post someday "BWW Updating Options for Dummies!"

Adelphos
09-04-2008, 02:47 AM
I guess I can only hope Mike or some kind soul will post someday "BWW Updating Options for Dummies!"

I guess we just don't understand what your contention is. Mark wrote a detailed post answering your questions specifically and showing you that BW already does most of the things you complained about in your original post.

You haven't interacted with Mark's reply at all, and since he answered your complaints one-by-one, we don't know what else to tell you.

Did you read Mark's reply? You haven't shown any indication that you have, but if you did read his answers to your complaints, you have not told any of us what you thought were wrong with his answers, as his answers in fact did address your complaints specifically.

If his answers didn't satisfy you, then perhaps you could state specifically what your problem is. If your problem has to do with the help file wherein you think it should be revised, then you should notify BW directly by providing your suggestions to them through the "suggestions" email (found on the BW website).

If you don't understand something about the update process itself, and if Mark's reply didn't address it, then please state specifically what it is about the update process that you don't understand and perhaps one of us will know the answer.

One thing we do agree on is the 11th commandment, i.e., that programmers should never be the ones who write the help file.

tfjern
09-04-2008, 03:58 AM
No, I did read all the posts, and I appreciate all the time and patience spent to explain the update procedure. All I was claiming was that the Update Options, not the actual downloading itself (which works fine and dandy), is NOT as user-friendly as all the posters seem to insist. However, it appears that I am the only one who finds the Update Options confusing, so I will shut up and express humble regret that I even brought up the subject.