Big-O Software

The next version of AIM+ includes a very cool system to check for updates automatically. It simply loads a webpage from big-o-software.com that has the latest version #, and then the program lets you know if it is newer than your own. The dialog is very slick (IMHO ), it tells you everything you'd get from reading the website [what's been changed, when the new version was released, its "importance" (high/low)], and most especially: it lets you choose if you'd like to be about this new version later, be told when the next version comes out, or never be told about new versions again..

Almost all internet-aware apps do this now, and it's quite convenient for the user. But I know that when a non-internet application, like hkSFV32, does it, it can be a bit unsettling. It isn't that it is disruptive, it won't try to dial into the internet if you're offline, it's simply that if you run a firewall like ZoneAlarm, it will inform you that hkSFV is accessing the internet, and it might make you nervous if it didn't seem like it had any business being on the internet.

It would certainly be an option that you could enable or disable alltogether.

Please let me know what you think, any comments/questions you have, as well as the simple vote above..

really nice feature..... i have an idea, for people that wouldn't know that it can check for a new version and will be scared by a firewall alert, have a dialog box the first time that asks about checking for an update ... and buttons with now, always, never. something like that, so when they get a popup from a firewall they will know why

chris83us: That does sound like a good way of handling that problem.

I hadn't noticed that this poll had received more votes, recently. I'm glad to see that people are in favor of it - I received one e-mail from someone who would prefer not to have this feature. I'm glad that most people seem to be in favor of it, though, because it's a feature that I really enjoy in most of the software that I use.

AIM+ currently has this feature, and hopefully I will get a chance to bring it into hkSFV soon. It will take some work, though, since AIM+ can assume that you are always online, and we don't want hkSFV trying to dial your modem when you're not connected.

lol, this is my first post pertaining to hkSFV, so I'll make it a good one.

I personaly like it when software will check for updates itself. It saves me the time to think of what needs updating. Instead of visiting the website every week or so to check if a new update is available, the software could do it every time it's launched. Saves time and effort for the user.

Big-O Ryan wrote:The next version of AIM+ includes a very cool system to check for updates automatically. It simply loads a webpage from big-o-software.com that has the latest version #, and then the program lets you know if it is newer than your own.

Was this AIM+ 3.0 that had this? It's a great idea--I wish more software did that.

An FTP utility I used did something like that. It would tell you you what version you had, what the latest version was, and if you needed an update or not. Very cool I thought. Maybe all of your software should have something like that?

DADINK13 wrote:

Big-O Ryan wrote:The next version of AIM+ includes a very cool system to check for updates automatically. It simply loads a webpage from big-o-software.com that has the latest version #, and then the program lets you know if it is newer than your own.

Was this AIM+ 3.0 that had this? It's a great idea--I wish more software did that.

Actually, there has been an upgrade monitor in every release of AIM+. The one Ryan is describing in this post was added in AIM+ 2.0. If you started using AIM+ with 2.2.1, you never got the opportunity to see the upgrade monitor in action. Whenever we turned it on for a new version, MySQL would cry out in pain.

Personally, I love upgrade monitors for all of my software. It's so easy to click a button and have the program tell me if there's a newer version .

There is no need for this function, it will only bloat hksfv unnecessary. Hksfv is an sfv checker, as long as it works there is no need for an update! Your main focus for hksfv should be speed. I am only waiting for an update so I can get rid of the shell extension...

I agree with Mark about having the upgrade check availability in programs. For some reason, I just like knowing that at least there is a newer version out. If people don't like having it, its easy to keep it from happening.

Plus, that would make the decision more user based in that it would allow for more resources on the server by having them make the decision to do so before it has connected to the site, instead of less when they make the decision after the connection is made.

I agree with Meag with her first part but I did not understand the second part . This was took out of AIM+ because it over loaded the server right?

I was talking about something similar to user-based and server-based applets and such. When things are user-based, they allow for resources on a server to be utilized for more important things that the server would be doing. If it waited until the decision was made after connection to the server as to whether to be shown in the future to the user, it would use server resources that might be allocated for other things.

Does that help?

Okay if I did not get it I'm just going to give up I think.

You meant that instead of the program checking everytime it is loaded it only check when the user tells it to... right?...

ughh... I'm confusing myself too I think...

Ok... in AIM, and AIM+, in the preferences there is a way to tell the computer to alert you when there is a new version: all versions, new versions, never.

From what I understood, the decision to do so for hkSFV is done from the server and Ryan is thinking of implementing it into the program so the user can do so without connecting to the server.

What I was trying to say is that by including it into the program, the server's resources could be used for other things instead of asking a user when he or she wanted to be alerted about new versions...

Frode B. wrote:There is no need for this function, it will only bloat hksfv unnecessary. Hksfv is an sfv checker, as long as it works there is no need for an update!

Thank you for letting us know how you feel on this issue.

Frode B. wrote:Your main focus for hksfv should be speed.

"Speed" isn't likely to be the focus of hkSFV in the future. The time that it takes to caculate a file's MD5 or CRC isn't likely to get noticably faster than we have now. These algorithms are relatively simple (and have been whittled down to a few lines of assembly code) -- their speed will always be dependent on your HD - the processor time they consume will never be enough such that your computer is not simply waiting around for data to stream in off your hard drive.

Now, I may yet pull some tricks out of my sleeve to speed things up a little, for some users, but it's unlikely to affect most users, and the speedups will be negligible. The biggest speedup we've ever done is the powerful & intelligent caching system that we added to 2.0 -- this has saved far more time for our users than any algorithmic improvments could have. Additional improvements are still in the works, but it's quite likely that no one will notice (I don't think anyone but me noticed when I converted the core routines to assembly..). Some different methods of reading files may help in the future, but it's likely to be so specialized that few will really take notice (for example; if you're checking 2 sfv's, and they each reside on a different drive, we may be able to check them each simultaneously much faster if we did them sequentially).

But, at this point, "speed" improvements will really come from a more streamlined interface, that lets you get what you need to get done quicker.

Frode B. wrote:I am only waiting for an update so I can get rid of the shell extension...

I'm really glad to hear that hkSFV already meets all your needs! Thank you

I would like to see an optional update check in hksfv. Thanks.

would be cool, of course but i'd say that you shouldn't bother, it's not 2 much trouble 2 check for an update once a year

I'm going to agree with emperor. Just have a link to the download page and let the user check for himself.