Re: [CGUYS] Updater Mess [Was: Apple Now #1]
>When updating iTunes, why is it "unproductive and silly" to not want to >download and install an additional browser (Safari)? It is "unproductive and silly" *for Apple* to not check these boxes. Apple can't predict how *you personally* will vote. Apple does (and should) assume that its products are of good quality and well liked. There is little evidence that this is not the case. For Apple to assume otherwise would be nuts. Heck, even MS thinks its products are of good quality and well liked, despite lots of evidence to the contrary. Their last major IE update was forced down on everyone as a "critical" update. You had to stand on your head to avoid it. If you want to be annoyed, what MS did was far more objectionable. Apple is not forcing anyone to run Safari. They are not denying you updates if you fail to use Safari -- just try going to update.microsoft.com with anything other than IE and read their friendly greeting. Now that is annoying! * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Updater Mess [Was: Apple Now #1]
So did you get my resume yet ;-) ? Richard P. What a strange interpretation. Why should Apple assume and encourage rejection? What you are demanding is unproductive and silly. It would be like saying "I sent you my resume. You don't want to hire me do you?" Only a sick mind would do that. (If you write back that I wrote you have a sick mind I will sigh QED.) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Updater Mess [Was: Apple Now #1]
I was simply replying to the quote: "I think that Apple's updater has pre-checked what a typical person would want to check. Why should they cater their settings to please a small number of Apple haters?" When updating iTunes, why is it "unproductive and silly" to not want to download and install an additional browser (Safari)? What does one have to do with the other? Is Safari required to operate iTunes or will Safari make listening to iTunes safer and more enjoyable? How is asking for the default setting of unrelated and unasked-for add-ons to be unchecked "unproductive and silly"? Richard P. It is interesting to note that just because someone mentions that they don't like having pre-checked add-on software that has nothing to do with the original program which they are updating, that they suddenly get thrown into a group called not "typical" as well as "Apple haters". Snip... What you are demanding is unproductive and silly. It would be like saying "I sent you my resume. You don't want to hire me do you?" Only a sick mind would do that. (If you write back that I wrote you have a sick mind I will sigh QED.) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Updater Mess [Was: Apple Now #1]
Actually it's not like that at all. It's more like we asked for Apple's resume and after getting it said no thanks. The next day they try to send us pics of the family vacation...uh no, thanks! Two days later we get their grandma Bertha's recipe for goulash. Mike On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Tom Piwowar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Why should Apple assume and encourage rejection? What you are demanding > is unproductive and silly. It would be like saying "I sent you my resume. > You don't want to hire me do you?" Only a sick mind would do that. > > (If you write back that I wrote you have a sick mind I will sigh QED.) > > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Updater Mess [Was: Apple Now #1]
>It is interesting to note that just because someone mentions that they >don't like having pre-checked add-on software that has nothing to do >with the original program which they are updating, that they suddenly >get thrown into a group called not "typical" as well as "Apple haters". What a strange interpretation. Why should Apple assume and encourage rejection? What you are demanding is unproductive and silly. It would be like saying "I sent you my resume. You don't want to hire me do you?" Only a sick mind would do that. (If you write back that I wrote you have a sick mind I will sigh QED.) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Updater Mess [Was: Apple Now #1]
Disabling Adobe Photo Downloader might be an option, although I've not tried that. If it is a solution, then one would have remember to do that each time after boot before trying to access data files on a flash drive. Unfortunately, this bug/feature and it's possible solutions are not easily visible to the average user, especially when they all they know is that their data files have suddenly disappeared after updating Adobe Reader. This wouldn't have become an issue in the first place had only the Adobe Reader update been checked and downloaded in the first place, without having to deal with Adobe's pre-checked add-ons. Richard P. A quick Google reveals this to be one very unpopular component to an otherwise much appreciated program. I guess you are supposed to right-click on the Adobe Photo Downloader icon in the Taskbar and select either "disable" or "exit" from its menu. Doesn't that work? To clarify, we are talking about Adobe's Photoshop Album Starter Edition 3.2. I never said the data was erased, only that it doesn't allow it to be seen. Adobe installs its application "apdproxy" in startup for its Photoshop Album Starter Edition 3.2. This startup application, while enabling easy access to the Photoshop 3.2, also only allows an inserted flash drive's photo content to be seen. When inserting a flash drive, Photoshop 3.2 takes over, opens it, and displays any images contained in the flashdrive, including any graphics contained in a document but not the document itself. On one network system, the flashdrive would not even show up in Windows Explorer as long as Photoshop 3.2 had control of it. The only way to see the drive and flashdrive's original data, is to disable Photoshop's "apdproxy" in startup, reboot and start over. Without "apdproxy" running, the drive as well as the data can be seen and accessed normally. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Updater Mess [Was: Apple Now #1]
A quick Google reveals this to be one very unpopular component to an otherwise much appreciated program. I guess you are supposed to right-click on the Adobe Photo Downloader icon in the Taskbar and select either "disable" or "exit" from its menu. Doesn't that work? >To clarify, we are talking about Adobe's Photoshop Album Starter Edition >3.2. I never said the data was erased, only that it doesn't allow it to >be seen. Adobe installs its application "apdproxy" in startup for its >Photoshop Album Starter Edition 3.2. This startup application, while >enabling easy access to the Photoshop 3.2, also only allows an inserted >flash drive's photo content to be seen. When inserting a flash drive, >Photoshop 3.2 takes over, opens it, and displays any images contained in >the flashdrive, including any graphics contained in a document but not >the document itself. On one network system, the flashdrive would not >even show up in Windows Explorer as long as Photoshop 3.2 had control of >it. The only way to see the drive and flashdrive's original data, is to >disable Photoshop's "apdproxy" in startup, reboot and start over. >Without "apdproxy" running, the drive as well as the data can be seen >and accessed normally. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Updater Mess [Was: Apple Now #1]
It is interesting to note that just because someone mentions that they don't like having pre-checked add-on software that has nothing to do with the original program which they are updating, that they suddenly get thrown into a group called not "typical" as well as "Apple haters". Richard P. No, but consumers should ALWAYS have the option to "opt in" rather than "opt out". Leave the stupid check boxes _unchecked_ unless someone opts to check them when installing updates. Having all the boxes checked automatically is pushy marketing...something I will always shy away from. Over twenty years ago Apple made a quiet innovation. When presenting a dialog box full of check boxes, radio buttons, and menus they took the trouble to make all the initial settings the most likely settings. This broke from the earlier tradition of always presenting the user with the most unlikely and destructive settings pre-checked. I don't think Apple's change was a bad one. I think that Apple's updater has pre-checked what a typical person would want to check. Why should they cater their settings to please a small number of Apple haters? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Updater Mess [Was: Apple Now #1]
To clarify, we are talking about Adobe's Photoshop Album Starter Edition 3.2. I never said the data was erased, only that it doesn't allow it to be seen. Adobe installs its application "apdproxy" in startup for its Photoshop Album Starter Edition 3.2. This startup application, while enabling easy access to the Photoshop 3.2, also only allows an inserted flash drive's photo content to be seen. When inserting a flash drive, Photoshop 3.2 takes over, opens it, and displays any images contained in the flashdrive, including any graphics contained in a document but not the document itself. On one network system, the flashdrive would not even show up in Windows Explorer as long as Photoshop 3.2 had control of it. The only way to see the drive and flashdrive's original data, is to disable Photoshop's "apdproxy" in startup, reboot and start over. Without "apdproxy" running, the drive as well as the data can be seen and accessed normally. Additionally, "apdproxy" is reinstalled every time Photoshop Starter Edition 3.2 is updated so one has to go back in and disable it. I have seen this issue develop on several Win XP SP2 computers, some standalone and some networked. I would hope that this behavior is an overlooked bug and not a feature. Richard P. Someone that makes the mistake of not un-checking Photo Shop will end up with a nasty surprise when they put their data flashdrive in, only to find out that now they can only see images and their data is nowhere to be found. This is supposedly a reputable company who's program takes over a user's flash drive and won't allow data to be seen. Photoshop does not erase flash drives. You must have your computer misconfigured. Care to provide more detais? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Updater Mess [Was: Apple Now #1]
I read this and I immediately thought of the scene in First Contact where James Cromwell tells Jonathon Frakes, 'Damn, you're heroic.' MIke On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Tom Piwowar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Over twenty years ago Apple made a quiet innovation. When presenting a > dialog box full of check boxes, radio buttons, and menus they took the > trouble to make all the initial settings the most likely settings. This > broke from the earlier tradition of always presenting the user with the > most unlikely and destructive settings pre-checked. I don't think Apple's > change was a bad one. > > I think that Apple's updater has pre-checked what a typical person would > want to check. Why should they cater their settings to please a small > number of Apple haters? > > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Updater Mess [Was: Apple Now #1]
>Someone that makes the mistake of not un-checking Photo Shop will end up >with a nasty surprise when they put their data flashdrive in, only to find >out that now they can only see images and their data is nowhere to be >found. This is supposedly a reputable company who's program takes over a >user's flash drive and won't allow data to be seen. Photoshop does not erase flash drives. You must have your computer misconfigured. Care to provide more detais? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Updater Mess [Was: Apple Now #1]
>No, but consumers should ALWAYS have the option to "opt in" rather than >"opt out". Leave the stupid check boxes _unchecked_ unless someone opts to >check them when installing updates. Having all the boxes checked >automatically is pushy marketing...something I will always shy away from. Over twenty years ago Apple made a quiet innovation. When presenting a dialog box full of check boxes, radio buttons, and menus they took the trouble to make all the initial settings the most likely settings. This broke from the earlier tradition of always presenting the user with the most unlikely and destructive settings pre-checked. I don't think Apple's change was a bad one. I think that Apple's updater has pre-checked what a typical person would want to check. Why should they cater their settings to please a small number of Apple haters? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Updater Mess [Was: Apple Now #1]
At 03:03 PM 04/05/2008 -0400, Tom Piwowar wrote >If apple wants to communicate why not do it the normal expected way via >email? I already said no to them that time, now I have to do it again? >An updater is not for communication, it's for updating, I'm just >commenting it would be nice if they listened. Why bother asking for my >email if they are going to use the updater to 'communicate' ? You really think spam is better? Don't we constantly warn people not to download and install software offered to then in email? I think the updater route is better, safer, and much more efficient. If someone at dinner asks you more than once if you want a second slice of apple pie do you slam the table and storm off in a huff? You objection seems petulant to me. Should Apple be required to keep a database of refusenicks? No, but consumers should ALWAYS have the option to "opt in" rather than "opt out". Leave the stupid check boxes _unchecked_ unless someone opts to check them when installing updates. Having all the boxes checked automatically is pushy marketing...something I will always shy away from. Sue * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Updater Mess [Was: Apple Now #1]
I recently had a problem with a PDF that was put out by the state of Alabama. It was an older state tax form that would not appear correctly in Fox-it. I had to resort back to Adobe tog et it to work right. (These are specialized forms that appear with highlighted fields and will not print until filled out etc.) Fox-it is good but until it can solve problems like this it will not be the be all to end all. Stewart At 04:40 PM 4/5/2008, you wrote: FoxIt is a very nice, lightweight, open source PDF reader. It's fast and I don't think has any exploits, unlike Adobe Reader. I put it on all of our laptops when AR 8.0 was constantly nagging us for updates and locking up the computer when you tried to shut down. > The only better alternative is to upgrade them to Macs so they could use Apple's Preview and QuickLook > (if they get Leopard). Silly rabbit Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Updater Mess [Was: Apple Now #1]
> If you are doing a good job at patch management for your computer users > then automated notification and delivery is irrelevant. Yet, somehow I > feel suspicious of any claim that you have provided your computer users > with the latest version of Safari. I just can't picture you being so > benevolent. You misunderstand. I'm pushing out QT patches, not Safari. My comment was about the self-installing updater. And no, I would go Firefox before Safari, but I honestly don't see the point for supporting 2 browsers in a business environment without a business need. I haven't had anyone complain about not having a 2nd browser. Most have never heard of Firefox, but I put it on all of our PC giveaways anyway. > I can't see how loading your computer users up with a bunch of brand-x > software is going to make them better off. The sad truth with PDF files > on PCs is that Acrobat Reader works best. FoxIt is a very nice, lightweight, open source PDF reader. It's fast and I don't think has any exploits, unlike Adobe Reader. I put it on all of our laptops when AR 8.0 was constantly nagging us for updates and locking up the computer when you tried to shut down. > The only better alternative is to upgrade them to Macs so they could use Apple's Preview and QuickLook > (if they get Leopard). Silly rabbit * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Updater Mess [Was: Apple Now #1]
Who said spam is better, what are you talking about? Apple isn't asking if I want a second slice of something I have, they are asking if I want an enchilada after eating a chocolate mousse. Mike On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Tom Piwowar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >If apple wants to communicate why not do it the normal expected way via > >email? I already said no to them that time, now I have to do it again? > >An updater is not for communication, it's for updating, I'm just > >commenting it would be nice if they listened. Why bother asking for my > >email if they are going to use the updater to 'communicate' ? > > You really think spam is better? Don't we constantly warn people not to > download and install software offered to then in email? > > I think the updater route is better, safer, and much more efficient. > > If someone at dinner asks you more than once if you want a second slice > of apple pie do you slam the table and storm off in a huff? You objection > seems petulant to me. Should Apple be required to keep a database of > refusenicks? > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Updater Mess [Was: Apple Now #1]
>It becomes problematic when it's installed on networked computers where your >users don't run as an admin and it then tries to run and bomb out because it >needs admin permissions. That's always fun to get repeatedly when you're >trying to get work done. Agreed. The latest QuickTime for Mac update fails if it is not run from the 501 account. A 502 or higher admin account won't do. This is a pain. Adobe's CS2 updater had this problem too. CS3 fixed this. >I have a patch management system that pushes out the QT patches from a >central location. I don't need ham-handed developers or marketing trolls >thinking they know what's best for everyone and doing the exact opposite of >what I tell it to do. If you are doing a good job at patch management for your computer users then automated notification and delivery is irrelevant. Yet, somehow I feel suspicious of any claim that you have provided your computer users with the latest version of Safari. I just can't picture you being so benevolent. >Of course, then it sticks its icon on the desktop because, gosh, it's just >that important. To Adobe's discredit, they do the same thing with Acrobat >Reader. I'm ready to chuck that and run FoxIt Reader only. QuickTime is >about to get the axe as well. The only thing that has saved it so far is >that it can open Photoshop files, which we get occasionally from people who >haven't thought things through. Doesn't everyone have an $800 program? I can't see how loading your computer users up with a bunch of brand-x software is going to make them better off. The sad truth with PDF files on PCs is that Acrobat Reader works best. The only better alternative is to upgrade them to Macs so they could use Apple's Preview and QuickLook (if they get Leopard). * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Updater Mess [Was: Apple Now #1]
>If apple wants to communicate why not do it the normal expected way via >email? I already said no to them that time, now I have to do it again? >An updater is not for communication, it's for updating, I'm just >commenting it would be nice if they listened. Why bother asking for my >email if they are going to use the updater to 'communicate' ? You really think spam is better? Don't we constantly warn people not to download and install software offered to then in email? I think the updater route is better, safer, and much more efficient. If someone at dinner asks you more than once if you want a second slice of apple pie do you slam the table and storm off in a huff? You objection seems petulant to me. Should Apple be required to keep a database of refusenicks? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Updater Mess [Was: Apple Now #1]
You never answered my query. No I'm not offended at all, not even a little, not sure why you took that direction except to exaggerate your point. As to 'great' software, this is dubious at best, I mean reallyANOTHER browser on windows? Safari is hardly used on macs let alone another platform. If apple wants to communicate why not do it the normal expected way via email? I already said no to them that time, now I have to do it again? An updater is not for communication, it's for updating, I'm just commenting it would be nice if they listened. Why bother asking for my email if they are going to use the updater to 'communicate' ? Mike On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Tom Piwowar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >How about an updater that just checks the software installed? Firefox > >doesn't push out extensions you don't already have...does adobe ask you > to > >update programs you don't have? Your logic is, MS does it so it's ok? > Odd > >Thomas. > > Let's see if I understand you fully. You are offended because a company > has offered to give you some great software for free? > > This company is already communicating with you about some other free > software that you got from them. When as part of communicating with you > about that software they say: by the way, you might also be interested in > this other thing we can give you for free they have somehow in your mind > crossed the line? > > Have I got that right? > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Updater Mess [Was: Apple Now #1]
> -Original Message- > Every responsible software vendor includes updaters as part of the > package these days. With rapidly spreading malware it is especially > important to keep front-line software patched. To criticize any company > for doing this is just plain silly. To refuse to install or unstall > these components is irresponsible. It becomes problematic when it's installed on networked computers where your users don't run as an admin and it then tries to run and bomb out because it needs admin permissions. That's always fun to get repeatedly when you're trying to get work done. I have a patch management system that pushes out the QT patches from a central location. I don't need ham-handed developers or marketing trolls thinking they know what's best for everyone and doing the exact opposite of what I tell it to do. Of course, then it sticks its icon on the desktop because, gosh, it's just that important. To Adobe's discredit, they do the same thing with Acrobat Reader. I'm ready to chuck that and run FoxIt Reader only. QuickTime is about to get the axe as well. The only thing that has saved it so far is that it can open Photoshop files, which we get occasionally from people who haven't thought things through. Doesn't everyone have an $800 program? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Updater Mess [Was: Apple Now #1]
>How about an updater that just checks the software installed? Firefox >doesn't push out extensions you don't already have...does adobe ask you to >update programs you don't have? Your logic is, MS does it so it's ok? Odd >Thomas. Let's see if I understand you fully. You are offended because a company has offered to give you some great software for free? This company is already communicating with you about some other free software that you got from them. When as part of communicating with you about that software they say: by the way, you might also be interested in this other thing we can give you for free they have somehow in your mind crossed the line? Have I got that right? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
[CGUYS] Updater Mess [Was: Apple Now #1]
>And QuickTime *still* installs the Apple Updater application, even when you >explicitly deselect the option to do so during the install. You have to go >and uninstall it afterwards. Every responsible software vendor includes updaters as part of the package these days. With rapidly spreading malware it is especially important to keep front-line software patched. To criticize any company for doing this is just plain silly. To refuse to install or unstall these components is irresponsible. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Updater Mess [was Apple Now #1]
This is Win XP SP2 and I don't have a Mac to compare with. The Safari add-on has only started appearing last week, so maybe is hasn't shown up elsewhere yet. I don't know if it's Windows specific. Richard P. While I use and enjoy iTunes, I too am annoyed at all the pre-checked software add-ons that come with the updates. Now they are pushing Safari downloads even though I don't have, use or want Safari (wasn't Safari part of the Apple Hack?). For every update, I have to go through and un-check what I don't want. While pre-checked add-ons are obviously becoming a trend with more and more company's software downloads/updates, I thought Apple would show a bit more class than to jump on the band-wagon. I've been using iTunes since it was first released and have never seen any pre-checked add-ons with the installations/updates. iTunes does have reminders for updates when they're available, but it's only iTunes application and nothing extra. Are add-ons a Windows thing? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Updater Mess
And QuickTime *still* installs the Apple Updater application, even when you explicitly deselect the option to do so during the install. You have to go and uninstall it afterwards. I used to think it was a bug, but it's been going on long enough that it's clear that Apple considers this dishonest behavior a feature. > -Original Message- > The only two annoying updaters I have to deal with these days are > Apple and Adobe. Firefox has the good sense, like most apps, to only > check on startup. And nothing extraneous is included by default in the > updates (like "Quicktime + iTunes"). * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Updater Mess [Was: Apple Now #1]
Adobe's updater is just as bad. Adobe Reader's update comes with the optional Adobe Photo Shop Starter Edition pre-checked. Someone that makes the mistake of not un-checking Photo Shop will end up with a nasty surprise when they put their data flashdrive in, only to find out that now they can only see images and their data is nowhere to be found. This is supposedly a reputable company who's program takes over a user's flash drive and won't allow data to be seen. The program shouldn't have been part of the update in the first place. Richard P. Apple provides a consilidated updater for all its software. Microsoft does this too. So does Adobe. Firefox checks not only for its own updates, but also for any plug-ins and skins you are using. Are you mad at all of the above or just Apple? What do you think we would gain by having dozens of individual updaters for every little piece of software? I think that would be one heck of a mess. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Updater Mess [Was: Apple Now #1]
I think I made it clear that it is an annoying trend that__ many companies are adopting. In pointing out Apple, I was responding to the previous poster as well as trying to give Apple credit for (hopefully), being a classier company than the mainstream. When using MS's custom updater, it looks for all MS Updates but allows you to check only the ones you want. When I am updating a particular program, by going through that program, I would hope that only that particular program's update will ultimately be displayed. Another problem example, when updating ZoneAlarm Free, it now comes with the ASK toolbar pre-checked. In order to not download the ASK toolbar, one must un-check the ASK toolbar check-box which also happens to be the same check-box for agreeing to ZoneAlarm's terms. So in order to download ZA's update, one must "not agree" to their terms and then click next. How many users are going to get through that without yet another toolbar/search engine installed? If a company wants to provide a consolidated updater, that's great, just don't have everything pre-checked ahead of time. Let the user decide and check what they want to have installed on their computer, whether it be Critical Updates or optional toolbars, Spy Blockers, Search Engines, Shopper's Tools and so on. Richard P. While I use and enjoy iTunes, I too am annoyed at all the pre-checked software add-ons that come with the updates. Now they are pushing Safari downloads even though I don't have, use or want Safari (wasn't Safari part of the Apple Hack?). For every update, I have to go through and un-check what I don't want. Apple provides a consilidated updater for all its software. Microsoft does this too. So does Adobe. Firefox checks not only for its own updates, but also for any plug-ins and skins you are using. Are you mad at all of the above or just Apple? What do you think we would gain by having dozens of individual updaters for every little piece of software? I think that would be one heck of a mess. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Updater Mess
The only two annoying updaters I have to deal with these days are Apple and Adobe. Firefox has the good sense, like most apps, to only check on startup. And nothing extraneous is included by default in the updates (like "Quicktime + iTunes"). On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Tom Piwowar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Apple provides a consilidated updater for all its software. Microsoft > does this too. So does Adobe. Firefox checks not only for its own > updates, but also for any plug-ins and skins you are using. Are you mad > at all of the above or just Apple? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Updater Mess [Was: Apple Now #1]
How about an updater that just checks the software installed? Firefox doesn't push out extensions you don't already have...does adobe ask you to update programs you don't have? Your logic is, MS does it so it's ok? Odd Thomas. Mike On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Tom Piwowar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >While I use and enjoy iTunes, I too am annoyed at all the pre-checked > >software add-ons that come with the updates. Now they are pushing Safari > >downloads even though I don't have, use or want Safari (wasn't Safari > >part of the Apple Hack?). For every update, I have to go through and > >un-check what I don't want. > > Apple provides a consilidated updater for all its software. Microsoft > does this too. So does Adobe. Firefox checks not only for its own > updates, but also for any plug-ins and skins you are using. Are you mad > at all of the above or just Apple? > > What do you think we would gain by having dozens of individual updaters > for every little piece of software? I think that would be one heck of a > mess. > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
[CGUYS] Updater Mess [Was: Apple Now #1]
>While I use and enjoy iTunes, I too am annoyed at all the pre-checked >software add-ons that come with the updates. Now they are pushing Safari >downloads even though I don't have, use or want Safari (wasn't Safari >part of the Apple Hack?). For every update, I have to go through and >un-check what I don't want. Apple provides a consilidated updater for all its software. Microsoft does this too. So does Adobe. Firefox checks not only for its own updates, but also for any plug-ins and skins you are using. Are you mad at all of the above or just Apple? What do you think we would gain by having dozens of individual updaters for every little piece of software? I think that would be one heck of a mess. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
