"check for updates" menu option

Page 1 of 2 (23 items) 1 2 Next >
This post has 22 Replies | 3 Followers

Posts 171
Danny Zacharias | Forum Activity | Posted: Mon, Jul 26 2010 5:17 PM

I'd like to request a "check for updates" menu option.  On both of my machines today I had to wait at least 10 minutes before Logos decided to go check if there was an update - the very thing I was waiting for. The help menu or main menu are the normal places.

Posts 698
LogosEmployee

Danny Zacharias:

I'd like to request a "check for updates" menu option.  On both of my machines today I had to wait at least 10 minutes before Logos decided to go check if there was an update - the very thing I was waiting for. The help menu or main menu are the normal places.

You can type "Update Now" in the command bar to force it to check for updates immediately.

Director of Engineering for Enterprise and Operations

Posts 216
Dan | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jul 26 2010 8:34 PM

It would still be great (and more Mac like) to have "check for updates" as a menu option. Most Mac programs have it as a menu or as a setting in preference to check daily, weekly or every time I open it.

Posts 2778
J.R. Miller | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jul 26 2010 8:48 PM

DanGiese:
It would still be great (and more Mac like) to have "check for updates" as a menu option.
Not standard though... it is not even in Apple's Mail program

DanGiese:
to check daily, weekly or every time I open it.
Logos will check every time you open the program for any updates.

Blessings

My Books in Logos & FREE Training

Posts 45
Jason York | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jul 26 2010 8:51 PM

the only reason why its not in apple's mail program is because all apple software is updated through the apple menu at the top left of the screen, where you can manually search for updates, but yes that is also automatic in searching every so often for new updates. 

But, most non-apple software does have a "search for update" option somewhere in its menu options, often under the help menu. 

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jul 26 2010 9:18 PM

DanGiese:

It would still be great (and more Mac like) to have "check for updates" as a menu option. Most Mac programs have it as a menu or as a setting in preference to check daily, weekly or every time I open it.

Observation: Apple Menu has "Software Update..." (with corresponding System Preference => frequency).  Many Apple programs do not have update now (e.g. Safari, Preview, Pages, Numbers, Mail, Keynote, iCal, Grab, Address Book).  Noticed iTunes has menu items "Check for Updates..." and "Check for Available Downloads..."; also iLife suite has "Check for Updates..."

Cross platform Firefox help menu has "Check for Updates..." - same as Microsoft Word 2008 and OpenOffice.

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 698
LogosEmployee
Cameron Watters (Faithlife) | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jul 27 2010 10:30 AM

Even if it is firmly established to be common, I suspect it'd be a fairly low-priority task at this point, for two reasons:

1) It's going to be used infrequently. We have automatic updates, which is the most important portion of that feature, even for apps that have the menu item.

2) We already have a mechanism to manually check for updates, even if it isn't easily discoverable.

Director of Engineering for Enterprise and Operations

Posts 171
Danny Zacharias | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jul 27 2010 10:43 AM

Fair enough, let's work with what's there. Is there a reason that there was a 10 minute delay on both of my Macs before it registered the update? Perhaps this can be fixed to be seconds after launch, not minutes.

Second, the manual mechanism isn't discoverable at all. Searching for "updates" in the help menu gives info on the automatic update, and how to turn it off. I searched for "manual update" as well and still nothing. Perhaps the manual mechanism can at least be made discoverable for someone like me who does actually take the time to look in the help files.

Posts 1246
David Mitchell | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jul 27 2010 11:02 AM

Again, as lovely as it would be to have the ability to provide everything that each user wants, the reality is that our capacity is limited, and saying "yes" to this would mean saying "no" to other things that have a larger impact on a greater number of users. Enhancements to the update mechanism have to take a back seat, for now.

David Mitchell
Development Lead
Faithlife

Posts 171
Danny Zacharias | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jul 27 2010 11:07 AM

Yes I understand that. I'm not asking it to become top priority. Should I place this elsewhere on the forum or via email, as now I guess I'm registering what seems to be a bug (a lag in the update time) and a hole in the help files?

Posts 1246
David Mitchell | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jul 27 2010 11:25 AM

Danny Zacharias:
Should I place this elsewhere on the forum or via email, as now I guess I'm registering what seems to be a bug (a lag in the update time) and a hole in the help files?

No. We're already perfectly aware of the issue.

David Mitchell
Development Lead
Faithlife

Posts 762
Patrick S. | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jul 27 2010 11:50 AM

I've read through all the comments, including from C&D, and given that updates are not going to be implemented (properly) now but later then that gives us the  opportunity to clear up some points and get it right - for version 4.01 or 4.1 Smile

Firstly, and I hope the devs won't fight on this point, we are dealing with a Mac application, not a Windows application. So we trust the update mechanism can be done the standard & good & friendly Mac way. If L4M does not implement yet updating in the Mac way we trust that Logos recognises that it's Logos that needs to change its position, not Apple and thousands of Mac users. Currently the update checking method is opaque to users.

OK, preamble done, key points.

1) The Mac way is not, like Windows, to hide update checking programs that start, and keep running, every single time you start your machine filling up system memory with junk. Update checking usually occurs when the application launches.

2) Updates for most Apple applications (iTunes aside) happens through the built in OS X 'Software Update'. For other apps the convention is to put in the app system menu close to 'Preferences...' the menu option 'Check for Updates...'. (screenshot 1) This is for manual checking. The user can, through preferences tell the app to check automatically (screenshot 2)

3) Regardless of whether the app checks manually or automatically, it is a checking for updates, it does not just go ahead and install updates without the users permission. It is not preferable to automatically (unless the user explicitly sets option in preferences) install updates as standard. Why would someone not want updates installed automatically (by default) in Logos? Well imagine you are doing an important assignment using L4M which is working well. On the last day of study you fire up L4M and it downloads 1GB of book updates + program update and decides to do a major reindex of your books. Oops - Logos & index searching unavailable for hours.

Currently even though I have 'Automatically download updates' turned off in my L4M Preferences (Program Settings - what's that?) if I issue an 'Update now' command I have no idea what's going to automatically come down the pipeline and be pushed onto my machine. 

 

 

Also in Preferences there are settings related to updates as below.

When you manually check for updates you may see that the application is up to date...

Or that there is an update to install. If there is an update usually you are given information as to what has been updated and, more importantly, option as to whether you want to update now or later.

 

 

"I want to know all God's thoughts; the rest are just details." - Albert Einstein

Posts 1
Mike Kennon | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jul 27 2010 12:01 PM

Wow. I am just happy with the app all together, and while some users may feel that their is a Mac way, I would be in the camp of whoever writes the software gets to decide what goes in. Then the end user gets to vote by buying the app or not.

Posts 762
Patrick S. | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jul 27 2010 12:09 PM

MikeKennon:

Wow. I am just happy with the app all together, and while some users may feel that their is a Mac way, I would be in the camp of whoever writes the software gets to decide what goes in. Then the end user gets to vote by buying the app or not.

That's fine if you were still to buy the app. If you had already bought and paid for it based on a blueprint and a promise, and if the app was coming from a Windows background then you might be a bit more vocal making sure that you were going to get what you had already paid for - a Mac app.

If I wanted a Windows app then I could just go and buy a Windows machine and/or keep running a VMware virtual machine just for Logos 4. I don't want a Windows app.

"I want to know all God's thoughts; the rest are just details." - Albert Einstein

Posts 171
Danny Zacharias | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jul 27 2010 12:10 PM

I'm happy with the app too, and for what its worth I think L4M has a pretty mac-like interface and I'm grateful to have it.  But there are "standards" especially in the Mac apps world and developers are silly to ignore them.  That's what makes a Mac such a great user experience- reliability.

Posts 762
Patrick S. | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jul 27 2010 12:22 PM

Danny Zacharias:

I'm happy with the app too, and for what its worth I think L4M has a pretty mac-like interface and I'm grateful to have it.  But there are "standards" especially in the Mac apps world and developers are silly to ignore them.  That's what makes a Mac such a great user experience- reliability.

Don't get me wrong (C&D you also) I'm very happy to see Logos making a this major update available on the Mac. I'm also putting my thoughts forward to make sure as much as possible that the app is as good as it can be and... to make sure it follows Mac conventions. However here

http://community.logos.com/forums/t/20341.aspx

for example the devs have recently broken a Mac convention.

Am I trying to make their lives difficult by bringing up points like this?? No - no interest in that, but they have broken a totally baseline Mac user convention. Trying to implement something good, which is great, but it could be done differently without major hassle.

"I want to know all God's thoughts; the rest are just details." - Albert Einstein

Posts 45
Jason York | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jul 27 2010 12:30 PM

David Mitchell:

Again, as lovely as it would be to have the ability to provide everything that each user wants, the reality is that our capacity is limited, and saying "yes" to this would mean saying "no" to other things that have a larger impact on a greater number of users. Enhancements to the update mechanism have to take a back seat, for now.

I realize many of you are rather zealous in making clear your thoughts and desires, but if you go back and read David Mitchell's statement, you might realize that something like what you guys are requesting may show up, it simply won't show up right away, so I think we can all relax and patiently wait for the developers to implement features that are more important first and get to the least important features later on. 

this is just an assumption, but my guess is that the type of people that frequent forums like this are probably more than capable of typing in a quick "update now" if they want an instant search for an update. Just stick with that easy fix, until the dev team has free time to work on features that people request, and would be nice to have, but are not critical to functionality. 

this was just my two cents...

Posts 216
Dan | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jul 27 2010 12:30 PM

Patrick - thanks for the illustrating "check for updates" with screen shots.

I totally agree that if you're going to build a Macintosh application, you should follow Mac standards. In my experience, Mac users do expect Mac applications to work certain ways and are very different from Windows users in this respect. Logos would be wise to give significant attention to doing things the Mac way. Mac users may be willing to let things go in the Alpha stage, expecting alignment with Mac standards as Logos4Mac nears the finished product. I, for one, would be in this camp.

Posts 10731
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jul 27 2010 1:22 PM

DanGiese:
Mac users do expect Mac applications to work certain ways and are very different from Windows users in this respect.

I purchased my first Mac in June 1984, and I still don't know what people really mean when they demand that an application be "Mac-like". Personally, I want an application that works more than I want eye-candy.

Posts 216
Dan | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jul 27 2010 1:39 PM

The issue is not "eye-candy" or personal preference. It's about following Apple's established guidelines (they are written down for programmers) so that Mac applications function like Mac applications.

Even if you can't verbalize what that is, you probably intuitively know when something feels like a Mac application and when it doesn't if you've used a Mac since 1984 (Congrats, by the way!).

Also, this is about potential customers and their expectations. If Logos is to continue developing and supporting the Mac platform then it is to their advantage to make it look and act like a Mac application. Those developers who have ignored this part of developing a Mac application and just porting their application from windows have not historically done well with their sales. And that is how it impacts you and me. I want Logos to have a Mac application for a long time, and that means making it a full-blooded Mac application and not a windows port.

Page 1 of 2 (23 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS