10 Cool Chrome Extensions and Apps
How to rotate video with VLC
How to set up Ultrasurf with Firefox
Desktop alternatives to Megaupload
The most important thing to me about technology is that it functions. Over the last couple of years, most of the computing devices I use have gotten worse. Why? Updates. 50% of the time I switch them on I am informed I need to update software.
My Mac, Xbox, iPhone and PC at work are all victims, and they are stealing my precious time! I used to be excited about new versions of applications, but now I hardly ever even notice the difference after updating, and couldn't care less.
I'm not against cool new developments or security fixes, but I can't help feeling many of the updates I receive aren't really for me, but for the developers. When I turn on a machine I want it to start, and when I open an application it's because I want to use it: I don't want to be told to update things. If I find the application doesn't work properly for me, I'd be happy to look for an update. I don't need reminding.
I have had iPhone apps update twice in a week, the Steam client seems to need attention every time I load it, and the best music manager, iTunes, is really spoiled by its constant updates. These programs work already, so what's the deal?
My beloved browser Firefox is one of the worst offenders. Why should I update to 3.6? 3.5 works fine thanks, and until they add something that really looks great, they should stop bugging me! As of right now I am boycotting updates until Firefox 4 comes out, as I am sure I gain nothing from these dull incremental downloads. I don't even want to get started on extensions. But that's beside the point - mainly I just don't want to be asked at all!
I propose some balance. Development is important and driven by competing companies, but for the sake of the users, why not limit app updates to about twice a year? Obviously security issues have to be dealt with when they arrive, but otherwise why not leave us alone?
If you dont want updates notifications... just turn them off! In Firefox go to Tools>options> Advances>updates In the time it took you to write this post you could have turned off the updates of 100 programs.
You're right, I could have turned off notifications (and I have done!). But the default setting for most programs seems to be for automatic update checking to be on, and also developers are in such a hurry to push out products, the result is a ton of updates until finally the product is finished. Also, not all products do allow you to avoid auto-updates. My iPhone App Store this morning grew 5 update notifications, and Steam and Xbox updates are mandatory if you want to use them properly. Don't you agree that there are too many Firefox updates, too often?
If anything there's not enough Firefox updates actually. Or should I have used past tense here as Mozilla is changing their policy regarding new versions now. The thing is that as an end user you may not notice the changes immediately but they are there and ultimately they make your experience a lot better. In the past all the little but useful things in Firefox had to wait for a major new version to be introduced to the users. It not only left Firefox behind it's competitors in some fields but also slowed down an introduction of a lot of useful technologies to the web (like custom fonts). Recently Mozilla changed this approach so future minor versions of Firefox will feature all the stable features. That would also mean a splash screens like the one pictured in the article won't bother you so much. That's because updating to a minor version is made without an user prompt. However updating extensions is indeed a problem. It's purely a Firefox thing though. And Mozilla is working on that too. With a Jetpack they hope to change the way the add-ons are written. The new way should solve a lot of issues. Basically they going the same path as Google Chrome, which is IMHO a perfect example of how software updates should be handled. Chrome updates itself in background, making the whole process seamless for the user. Some say it's no good that the user has no control over it but I think having the latest version of a given software across the entire user base is worth the price. Maybe it's not the way all the apps should approach but for a very specific kind of software - which a web browser is - it's simply the best possible solution. And Chrome proves it just works.
Firefox updates I can accept. The really annoying ones are phones. I have a Samsung that uses Symbian S60V5. An update means: backup system; update phone; restore system; put shortcuts etc. back to how you wanted them. Why? This is a modern operating system. What has happened to patches?
@ Jon. A great article - you had me roaring with glee. Actually, due to the nature of the service they provide, Steam and Microsoft Games for Windows LIVE (PC) must update constantly. I don't use XBOX but I do use their Games for Windows PC's - same concept. Steam remains the world's largest distributor of PC games for online download. Here's a kick - have you ever bought a game on Steam and validated your copy on (1) Steam (2) Games for Windows LIVE (3) the game publisher's site? Games from EA, 2K and Bethsoft are good examples of how not to do this right. Games from Crytek, Ubisoft and (yep ...) Valve are good examples of how to do this right. This is a work in progress, so we'll have to see how it plays out, but as of this past year, purchases from the latter three no longer require online validation except from the publisher which makes sense - if it's a single player game, you can play these offline to your heart's content, with the only requirement being that your physical game disc must remain installed for your gaming session, as that's where your save's etc are kept. No more SecureRom,, no more rootkits in disguise (of any and all flavors) are required. This is a step in the right direction. I can now game on my 16" laptop while travelling overseas on business - it's really nothing to carry a few game discs along. Some of these houses are getting the clue that while we love computer gaming, we detest being online and it's frequently not even an option. Electrical outlets are available everywhere on earth - but broadband internet service is hardly available many places on earth. And who really cares? I bought the game legitimately at Best Buy, I stuck it in online immediately in order to get activated with the publisher. The publisher put me on their email list reserved for game owners to alert me to new patches for my games - if I receive more than three emails For everyone else who excitedly asks me to participate in the beta for this or that, I just click "no thanks." Many won't let you off quite so easily when you say "no." They will demand that you fill out a research form about your frightening decision - I double check the software house has nothing else on my hard drives and snub those by closing the window or tab with no comment. Then there are the shrewder outfits that seek to understand your decision by answering a quick "why did you decide not to ..."? To these, I "would" respond if an open-ended response is encouraged: "Because I've never had the opportunity of working for you. Please let me know about your pay scale for contributing to your Beta builds - I have a system just for such tests. So far as this system, no software still in development is allowed on here. You must be thinking of our Kill System - you can reach me there @ ... . Our mission on the Kill System is transparent: we make every effort to kill software programs still in development. If we succeed, you owe us money. If we fail, we applaud you and you do not owe us money." But it is rare to find open-ended responses being encouraged. Instead, they give you the one from column A Chinese menu sort of format which is worded to discourage constructive criticism. Close the window or tab - click! Say, you should follow this article with one about why content publishers bless upon us the opportunity to throw money at them for doing nothing. This has been called the Pre-Release Scam. It's brilliant, really. I'm only sorry I didn't invent it!
@ Jon one typo sorry about that. I left the sentence dangling, so I'll finish it here. "If I receive more than three emails per game per year with patch notifications, that's a lot." Hearing this, some friends and family respond "well, Steam seems to be constantly updating" and of course they're right. What's not right to assume from this constant update state would be that Steam is updating your particular games or anyone's particular games. Usually, it's the Steam client that's being ...er... "refined."
Hey, cheers for the input - there's a lot there! @ JD Mason - I agree there's a bad tendency for developers to expect their games to be able to connect whenever they want. I really dislike online DRM, but there seems to be enough of a backlash against it (it makes piracy more user friendly than purchases!), and I feel it will die out. As far as beta testing goes, lots of teenagers especially like to be able to get things early, and free, so I think both developer and user are happy. On the other hand, some things seem to get released in such bad shape, needing so much refinement they should really still be in Beta testing... @ Neil: that sounds irritating! I have an iPhone, and every time I sync with my computer it insists on backing up which takes ages!
@ jon what u are saying, isn't correct always. Firefox's new version is much more faster than it's previous (3.5) version and new version takes less time to start.opera's new version 10.5 beta is way ahead of it's previous version.
@ vivek I took Jon's comment in the spirit in which it was made - between the day he published the article an today, we've already been updated to 3.6.2. - need I say more? On a serious note, Tom's and Anand have both done speed tests this past month of most recent stable builds of the big five browsers and yes - FF 3.6 did score 1st, but in the Anand article, they make clear that the test was performed without add-on's and extensions. Had the latter been allowed, by installing the five most popular of each, FF drops from 1st to 5th in the rankings. The point was well taken that Mozilla aggressively encourages users to load up on add-on's and extensions but never takes a moment to share with their non-tech users that you use these at your own risk and that they will slow if not crash the browser, with the most popular extensions in the security area, frequently so.