Windows 2000 Support

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Friday, 10 December 2010

Why the update checker says there is no update when there is a newer version ...

Posted on 10:43 by Unknown
I often get users and partners who think I've forgotten about something because they don't get notified of a minor update. They know there is a newer version. They click on 'Check for updates', but it tells them there is none. It is easy to assume something is wrong. This strange seeming behavior is by design though. The point of it is to avoid pushing out updates to those who don't need it. We all know how many minor updates I like to issue, and does anyone really want to be notified of every single one all the time? Even if you do, the masses who don't follow this blog may not have the same preference. At the same time, new users who are downloading the product for the first time, well I like to get the latest and greatest code in their hands.

The system works like this. Each build has an internal version number. For every new release, I essentially tell the database and script 'only tell users who have an internal version less than X of this update'. That means, in the case of v4.00.24 that only users of v4.00.22 and below were notified of it. Users of v4.00.23 weren't. Why? I didn't think it was important enough to bother them with... especially when v4.00.25 is coming around the corner (today). It has many more little changes and fixes.

Also, I have the ability to later go back and change that 'update version'. So, say I decided not to release this new .25, then I could push .24 out to users.

So, I could either keep doing it this way and continue letting people sometimes think I made some sort of mistake in the update system, or unnecessarily bother people, release fewer minor updates, or perhaps just quit changing the displayed version number with every minor update. It is a tough call, but I'll stay with the current system and just keep explaining my rationale for now.

Truly, if the update is if importance, it will be pushed out to you. Like I said, v4.00.25 is being pushed out to everyone when released. So, everything can be back 'in-sync' and this confusion can hopefully end.

I do apologize for the confusion that my methodology sometimes causes. No methodology is perfect, but I try to do what works best for the product and its users.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted in | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • Process Lasso v3.65.3 beta released
    I've released the first new beta that is 100% UNICODE. I've regression tested almost all the software, though there may still be som...
  • Process Lasso v5.0.0.28
    This build continues maintenance, fixing several items and also making a nice improvement to the graph's display. Further, the last sele...
  • Next update, Options menu gets some changes
    I decided to make the Options menu a little more consistent and move the ProBalnce configuration down with the rest of the rules configurati...
  • WARNING: Cracks for Process Lasso may modify HOSTS file
    WARNING:  Cracks for Process Lasso have been seen to modify your system HOSTS file so that you can no longer access  bitsum.com  and/or  bit...
  • Optimizing process icon memory use & New core feature coming..
    Two in one post. Yes, here at Bitsum we're going Green by conserving bandwidth ;). Of course, that's just a joke and I fully support...
  • Performance tests pass
    I'm happy to say that the GUI and governor uses virtually EXACTLY the same amount of CPU as the last version, despite all the new featur...
  • Anti-virus software - the #1 cause of PC performance troubles
    Many users realize their anti-virus software consumes massive amounts of system resources, and hope that Process Lasso will somehow keep it ...
  • Tightening the Governor
    Most users of Process Lasso are familiar with its core engine, ProcessGovernor.exe. It is the silent background process that applies all pro...
  • Process Lasso and WDFME
    Since Process Lasso can be complex for the layman, something we are working on, I wanted to list a set of steps to address the commonly abu...
  • Indonesian language added - That makes 11
    Thanks to the work of Ivan Chin, an Indonesian (Bahasa Melayu) translation will be included in v3.99.36. This will be the first time even he...

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (1)
    • ►  March (1)
  • ►  2012 (6)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  July (1)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2011 (166)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (2)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (6)
    • ►  August (12)
    • ►  July (14)
    • ►  June (17)
    • ►  May (19)
    • ►  April (13)
    • ►  March (27)
    • ►  February (31)
    • ►  January (20)
  • ▼  2010 (203)
    • ▼  December (23)
      • Taking it up a notch with v4.1
      • v4.09.08 beta - More I/O priority levels (for expe...
      • v4.09.07 beta - Default I/O priorities now impleme...
      • I/O Priority Control
      • New low-level optimization further lowers CPU util...
      • Process Lasso Pro Commercial Licenses sales switch...
      • BETA language woes being fixed in new upload
      • Language lost in last BETA? No worries, fix coming...
      • New Portable Edition beta released, but we're gonn...
      • New Portable Edition in final stage internal testing
      • New update mechanism being coded
      • v4.1 beta coming - New logical core avoidance (avo...
      • When almost free isn't enough
      • Process Lasso enters China, Singapore, Hong-Kong, ...
      • v4.00.28
      • v4.00.26 - Fixing a GUI bug seen in XP throughout v4
      • v4.00.25 released
      • New minor update coming soon
      • Why the update checker says there is no update whe...
      • Updated Terminal Server guidance
      • Blog Update
      • Why you should *never* use a cracked copy of Proce...
      • Tying up loose ends on the activation system
    • ►  November (34)
    • ►  October (38)
    • ►  September (17)
    • ►  August (19)
    • ►  July (19)
    • ►  June (11)
    • ►  May (16)
    • ►  April (8)
    • ►  March (6)
    • ►  February (6)
    • ►  January (6)
  • ►  2009 (43)
    • ►  December (6)
    • ►  November (1)
    • ►  October (10)
    • ►  September (3)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  July (9)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (4)
    • ►  March (4)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile