Really? the best way to fix a botched update?

Here is the problem: I assumed that the new installer intelligently would "see" all of the resources, including dozens of personal books, etc already on the system and just fix the program itself, but noooo

Uninstall uninstalls everything, as you've discovered.

If this is the BEST method of dealing with the botched update, why wasn't I told to backup the resources and personal books, so I would not have to re-download 15+Gb?

Installing using backed up files is unsupported. It's an unofficial method of speeding up the install.

Why didn't we try a less drastic method first?

Somehow, I got the feeling that the CSR did what was easier for him (and cheaper for the company) at a huge time expense on my behalf.

I'm afraid this is common practice amongst all tech support companies. Most of the time I've rung tech support (not Logos) I've been told to reinstall Windows. I stopped ringing years ago.

To be fair to Logos, re-doing the download didn't cost you personally a lot of time, although it obviously delayed your using Logos until the download was complete. All you had to do was initiate the download, and then wait.

If this is the BEST method of dealing with the botched update, why wasn't I told to backup the resources and personal books, so I would not have to re-download 15+Gb?

I have requested Logos to change the uninstallation & installation programs to take advantage of your existing resources using a procedure similar to Method 3 - which could easily have been suggested as the scan command is supported!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545452#Comment_545452

I disagree with the assertion that this did not personally cost the OP a lot of time. To say all it personally cost the OP was to initiate the download is a silly, unhelpful statement that does nothing to encourage Logos to consider whether they need to take a different approach to this issue in order to better serve their customers. There was a huge opportunity cost in the time lost by the OP in using the software due to a failed upgrade installation, and the lack of an elegant recovery option - the quick and dirty uninstall and then download and reinstall everything is not an acceptable solution with a program like L5 due to it's large data footprint and indexing requirements. The user community has come up with some unofficial workarounds that have proven the test of time for those who know about them. It's about time Logos looked at implementing something along the lines of these unofficial solutions to make them official and thus be able to offer a more robust solution through it's after sales care and support.

On issues like this it's not about being fair to Logos - they have ignored more elegant unofficial solutions which could be incorporated into a repair install routine. Their continued neglect of this 'unfair' to customers and their tech support who are forced to tell people to uninstall and reinstall because that is the only 'official' solution available to them to offer customers.

To be fair to Logos, re-doing the download didn't cost you personally a lot of time, although it obviously delayed your using Logos until the download was complete. All you had to do was initiate the download, and then wait.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545462#Comment_545462

It's about time Logos looked at implementing something along the lines of these unofficial solutions to make them official and thus be able to offer a more robust solution through it's after sales care and support.

On issues like this it's not about being fair to Logos - they have ignored more elegant unofficial solutions which could be incorporated into a repair install routine. Their continued neglect of this 'unfair' to customers and their tech support who are forced to tell people to uninstall and reinstall because that is the only 'official' solution available to them to offer customers.

But to be fair to logic:

we don't know that Logos hasn't evaluated the unofficial method - it is more likely that they have
we aren't privy to the technical reasons they chose to go the full re-download route
we do know that occasionally the unofficial method fails (personal experience) and one is forced into the almost fail-safe official method (was I thrilled? no. Was I resigned? yes)

I agree that Logos needs to look into better methods for identifying & repairing bad indexes, into software repair without re-downloading all resources, to inbetter QA on new releases ... but I'm also a stickler for recognizing the limits of what I know about the application code and micro-architecture that is Logos. So just let me push for change without implying I'm buying into speculation. And yes, I think pressure without attack is more effective - a defensive stance inhibits listening.

N.B. Yes, you are correct in assuming that I hate political speeches - all that unsubstantiated innuendo, gross simplification and omission of critical counter-information drives me nuts.[;)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545468#Comment_545468

N.B. Yes, you are correct in assuming that I hate political speeches - all that unsubstantiated innuendo, gross simplification and omission of critical counter-information drives me nuts.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545468#Comment_545468

[:S]

But to be fair to logic:

we don't know that Logos hasn't evaluated the unofficial method - it is more likely that they have

we aren't privy to the technical reasons they chose to go the full re-download route

we do know that occasionally the unofficial method fails (personal experience) and one is forced into the almost fail-safe official method (was I thrilled? no. Was I resigned? yes)

i don't disagree and am not suggesting they just copy the method as is into a 'script', but it is a better option than doing nothing i.e. developing some solution along these lines. The method occasionally fails is not a reason for rejecting looking at some form of this method, after all the reason for this thread is Logos is using an install method that occasionally fails. Your logic hence to me on that point fails.

I agree that Logos needs to look into better methods for identifying & repairing bad indexes, into software repair without re-downloading all resources, to inbetter QA on new releases ...

On that we do agree...but

[for change without implying I'm buying into speculation. And yes, I think pressure without attack is more effective - a defensive stance inhibits listening.

N.B. Yes, you are correct in assuming that I hate political speeches - all that unsubstantiated innuendo, gross simplification and omission of critical counter-information drives me nuts.

you are beIng totally unhelpful here like the previous person with a star next to their name. You are in fact being speculative and attacking with these comments but think yourself above other forum users and so it is actually ok for you to speak to them in this way. You are taking away from the OP's issue , just like the first starred person did with their response in saying poor Logos we need to be fair to them, - the reason for my comments was to redirect the topic back to the problem - nothing more, nothing less - sorry I am not trained in reason and logic like you pride yourself and seem like to rub it in to us less elegant wordsmith's like myself. I am sure you are a good hearted person - or is that speculation - and I have no interest in running for POTUS so am not making any political speeches. And my intent is not to be attacking but people on these forums who defend Logos, even when there is a glaring problem drive me nuts because they take away from the real user issue - in this case a better way to recover from failed installations

Toughski, I agree with you. And thense Dave. Or at least allow selection of downloaded resources as with Logos iOS. A few now; the rest later.

I'm not convinced the subject got further than Bob's morning Post Toasties.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545478#Comment_545478

over 6 hours later, and I am still downloading...

I don't think this was the best way for Logos to handle my situation.

First of all, it was like performing a major surgery without trying less intrusive methods first. Secondly, this "surgery" was suggested without INFORMED consent. Yes, I pressed the button for uninstall, but I was not aware I would have to re-download all the resources and re-compile personal books, and lose a day for Logos5 to get back into shape. Had I known that, I would have insisted on trying other things first and I would definitely "unofficially" copy my resources to use the scan command (which I was aware before). this one-size-fits-all solution did not consider individual situation.

Logos rep COULD have looked at the user's library and estimated that complete wipe - reinstall option would take an enormous amount of time. with such a time and cost (much of the world still has download limitations and costly per Mb/Gb charges) intensive program as this, LOGOS as a company should be MORE RESPONSIBLE with suggesting complete wipe - reinstall option. It should only be used as a last resort. If it was my doctor, I would have fired him after this.

Bad call, Logos!

Mike Pettit

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545484#Comment_545484

you are beIng totally unhelpful here like the previous person with a star next to their name. You are in fact being speculative and attacking with these comments but think yourself above other forum users and so it is actually ok for you to speak to them in this way. You are taking away from the OP's issue , just like the first starred person did with their response in saying poor Logos we need to be fair to them,>

It is pretty juvenile to accuse people of being unhelpful just because they do not agree with the way you see things, if you want propaganda then write a blog where no one else can comment.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545489#Comment_545489

Toughski, I agree with you. And thense Dave. Or at least allow selection of downloaded resources as with Logos iOS. A few now; the rest later.

I'm not convinced the subject got further than Bob's morning Post Toasties.

I think Bob eats oatmeal. [;)]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545484#Comment_545484

DOC

We agree on the issue that the OP raises; I agree because I've been there, spent time on the unofficial update method and then had to do the official method. Where we appear to disagree is one whether or not Logos has looked into the issue and made a considered opinion. Long time involvement in the forums and in betas leads me to believe that they have - and come down on a different side than I would have hoped. Stars or defense of Logos had no relevance to that belief. I did not mean to annoy you - merely to inject a bit of objectivity into a thread that was turning the corporate equivalent of personal.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545492#Comment_545492

I think Bob eats oatmeal.

Cold-cut premium Irish oatmeal? or the kind with the Pilgrim on the box?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545495#Comment_545495

I think Bob eats oatmeal.

Cold-cut premium Irish oatmeal? or the kind with the Pilgrim on the box?

Neither. He's frugal so he buys the store brand.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545494#Comment_545494

DOC

We agree on the issue that the OP raises; I agree because I've been there, spent time on the unofficial update method and then had to do the official method. Where we appear to disagree is one whether or not Logos has looked into the issue and made a considered opinion. Long time involvement in the forums and in betas leads me to believe that they have - and come down on a different side than I would have hoped. Stars or defense of Logos had no relevance to that belief. I did not mean to annoy you - merely to inject a bit of objectivity into a thread that was turning the corporate equivalent of personal.

thank you. I've got no problem with you having a different view and apologies for being harsh with some of my words but I really felt frustration the OP was facing and felt this was being ignored by some posters. If we keep being accepting of these sorts of issues, having the view "It is what it is", then we allow Logos the comfort zone to not prioritize these issues and instead think what we want is for them to tinker with things like where a resource opens - this only seems to bring complaints - at least from my limited observations - when they actually changes these things, not beforehand.

Logos is a wonderful piece of software that allows for small through to extremely large libraries. But they have failed to keep up with the need for more robust ways of recovering from failed installs. There will be occasions when even a 'repair install' fails and a complete reinstall will be required but that should be the last option, not one of the first because it is far too time consuming.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545494#Comment_545494

Where we appear to disagree is one whether or not Logos has looked into the issue

My proposal is based on the fact that the Installer does scan for resources (in Libronix locations) and the Uninstaller has merely to ask if the user wants resources to be saved. And they will be removed after the Installer has finished scanning them in.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545537#Comment_545537

My proposal is based on the fact that the Installer does scan for resources (in Libronix locations) and the Uninstaller has merely to ask if the user wants resources to be saved. And they will be removed after the Installer has finished scanning them in.

That's a very sensible suggestion.

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545537#Comment_545537

My proposal is based on the fact that the Installer does scan for resources (in Libronix locations) and the Uninstaller has merely to ask if the user wants resources to be saved. And they will be removed after the Installer has finished scanning them in.

I really like this and think it would be a great addition and could potentially prevent a lot of frustration.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545537#Comment_545537

My proposal is based on the fact that the Installer does scan for resources (in Libronix locations) and the Uninstaller has merely to ask if the user wants resources to be saved. And they will be removed after the Installer has finished scanning them in.

[Y]

Patrick S.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545537#Comment_545537

My proposal is based on the fact that the Installer does scan for resources (in Libronix locations) and the Uninstaller has merely to ask if the user wants resources to be saved. And they will be removed after the Installer has finished scanning them in.

Of course this only really applies to Windows installations correct? The Mac installation seems to be less fussy because it does not have to deal with all the convoluted guff of Windows' registry etc. etc.

I do agree fully with you though that given the huge amount of time involved in a) downloading resources, then b) indexing all resources, that it would be a 'good thing' if the Windows installer figured out that there was an existing Logos library on the machine then asked the user if they wished to reconnnect to that existing library. There could be a routine in the installer which could do some health checks on the library — check folder structure, validate indices and so on — as part of the install.

Of course this would also presuppose that the uninstaller asked the user if they optionally wished to leave an existing (we assume fully functioning) library on the machine.

Again though the key point is that, given the very large time to get resources complete again, it should be a development goal to avoid redoing that wherever possible.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545592#Comment_545592

Going back to MJ's point, and I certainly don't have Dave's expertise, but I easily imagine a versioning problem. It's easy to watch when people have trouble with L5's install and the logs show a series of versioning mixes.

In the Libronix case, the readin is pretty innocent (LHI being a major irritant). But Logos 'says' they're hard pressed to distinguish versioning on resources.

I think the argument on this vs selective downloads is the same. Managing versioning correctly. If they fix either, they would fix both.

Patrick S.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545593#Comment_545593

~ but I easily imagine a versioning problem. It's easy to watch when people have trouble with L5's install and the logs don't match.

~ But Logos 'says' they're hard pressed to distinguish versioning on resources.

I think the argument on this vs selective downloads is the same. Managing versioning correctly. If they fix either, they would fix both.

Hi Denise - don't know if you were replying to my just posted point. In case you were and re: your comments above I believe (from a general programming perspective, obviously can't speak specifically about Logos) that it is definitely possible to have a file or something in the data folder which is updated when a) the Logos application is updated and/or b) when the Logos resources are updated.

The installer could then refer to that file to find out things like - the application version being installed is exactly the same or higher than was previously installed (and which interfaced with the data folder) or the 'revision' of the resources in data folder which would be something along the lines of when was the last (successful) library resource done.

I don't believe it would be impossible - and to be clear we would not be talking about doing partial resource updates - and again it has to be taken into account the major benefit which would accrue to the user (as well as saved bandwidth for Logos) not having to go through very painfully long download and indexing.

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545595#Comment_545595

Dave's suggestion is terrific. Assuming the "scan" function checks file integrity (e.g. hash-check) there should be nothing to prevent a re-installation process from recycling those files. Even if file permissions are a problem, a copy (with correct permissions) as opposed to a move should solve this.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545595#Comment_545595

Hi Patrick! No, I wasn't speaking to your input; your expertise is on the same level as Dave! (I think anyway). It's just that Logos seems incapable of determining what in the library demands a specific version and what doesn't (so the discussion on selective downloads). So, when one discusses reading in an existing library (from an uninstall), one can easily imagine a user bringing down an newer program-install against an earlier library (in theory measured in minutes difference). And Bob hates user support (telephone-call type = $$).

But I agree with you, the issues are certainly not insurmountable. My favorite software seems to be able to figure it out (Libby of course).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545599#Comment_545599

It's just that Logos seems incapable of determining what in the library demands a specific version and what doesn't (so the discussion on selective downloads).

You've misunderstood what Logos have previously posted in this regard. It's perfectly capable of not installing resources that require a more recent version of the program, and it's perfectly capable of downloading new resources when they're available. What Logos won't do (and it's won't, rather than can't), is maintain complex dependency trees whereby they maintain different version of resources for intercompatability with any combination of software/resource version. Instead they have a simple rule that you either keep the current versions of your resources, or you update all your resources.

The beauty of Dave's suggestion is that the SCAN command already checks compatibility, so if there were incompatible resources they wouldn't be installed, and Logos would download compatible versions instead.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545592#Comment_545592

Of course this only really applies to Windows installations correct?

Correct.

it would be a 'good thing' if the Windows installer figured out that there was an existing Logos library on the machine then asked the user if they wished to reconnnect to that existing library.

There is no no need to ask. Whatever is left behind by the Uninstaller is implicitly reusable.

Of course this would also presuppose that the uninstaller asked the user if they optionally wished to leave an existing (we assume fully functioning) library on the machine.

One reason for uninstalling is to remove damaged or invalid databases and start over, so it is only sensible to ask about preserving resources if that is the intention.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545614#Comment_545614

Mark, we're getting Bob's excuses mixed up. He was pretty clear he couldn't figure out what demanded a version (download required) vs optional (not versioned; optional). This is why Logos was unable to match Libronix, Microsoft, and the 'big dog' software teams.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545537#Comment_545537

This is sensible, it would be unrealistic to expect a corrupt database to be fixed - and much safer to rebuild them all. It would mean re-indexing, but at least would mean a large library does not need to be re-downloaded. It does still leave the potential for a corrupt resource - maybe startup process could identity and quarantine such resource continue loading. just a thought - could this work ?

Where we appear to disagree is one whether or not Logos has looked into the issue

My proposal is based on the fact that the Installer does scan for resources (in Libronix locations) and the Uninstaller has merely to ask if the user wants resources to be saved. And they will be removed after the Installer has finished scanning them in.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545625#Comment_545625

He was pretty clear he couldn't figure out what demanded a version (download required) vs optional (not versioned; optional).

I'm afraid I don't understand this sentence.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545625#Comment_545625

This is why Logos was unable to match Libronix,

Still in mourning? [:'(]

Peace, Denise,

Everything is gonna be alright.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545667#Comment_545667

This is why Logos was unable to match Libronix,

Still in mourning?

Peace, Denise,

Everything is gonna be alright.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkje4FiH9Qc

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545632#Comment_545632

It does still leave the potential for a corrupt resource - maybe startup process could identity and quarantine such resource continue loading. just a thought - could this work ?

Resource discovery will identify old resources and download current ones. Logos also knows about many incompatible resources, but corrupt resources are usually found when indexing and there is a different strategy to fix those.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545677#Comment_545677

I don't think a corrupt database was the issue in my case. But I would have opted for re-indexing as it still would have given me a 6+ hour head start. Even while indexing I would have been able to use my Bible and read every resource, just not search effectively.

Mike

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/545681#Comment_545681

Hi Toughski,

I apologize for the inconvenience.I have emailed you regarding this issue.