There are two extremes in software development: on the one hand there is the program that is in constant development and releases updates almost weekly (e.g. Miranda, Filezilla) and than those that have much slower development cycles (IE) or are dead in the water (PG). What are your preferences? Personally I like to see improvements and look forward to new versions but feel that if the changes are very minor, I would rather wait and not have to bother with an update that always has the potential to break something.
I can update once a week, but no more than that. Usually updates all software ASAP. Guess I'm a upgrade junkie
I want upgrades when after sufficient development the app is ready for an upgrade release, and not before.
If it ain't broke, stop fixing it. I don't want to see upgrades for the sake of upgrades. If there's a security issue, fix it and release the patch. If there are new reasonably useful features, release an upgrade. I'll install the security patches, and if the new features are useful to me personally, I might even install upgrades with just new features and no security fixes. Other than that, I'm not upgrading if I'm happy with what I've got now.
I'm all for upgrades if there's a valid reason for it. Security fixes, the need for a new version because some other programme changed, breaking the existing version. What I absolutely abhor is the practice of SOME vendors who are constantly turning their users into guinea pigs with broken, not ready for anyone to use crap just to see what happens. COMODO, Adobe and a small handful of others come to mind here. If you're SELLING software, the very last thing you want to do is put out unpolished turds. Paying customers and even your "free users" want software that works reliably and was properly tested prior to release. They're willing to accept the need for a new version if a surprise that nobody including the developer expected occurs and requires a new version, but even here one has a reasonable expectation that when software is released it didn't escape untested resulting in a neverending cycle of mandatory updates and broken installs. Most people want to use their computer and not have to spend their time applying bandaids and looking for them. To my mind at least, upgrades should add desirable new features and shouldn't be a way of life. In other words, constant upgrades is a sure sign that a particular vendor's work doesn't belong on my machine.
When a vendor shows up hawking his wares, promising that the next version "will be even lighter and faster and offer more protection as well"... that's the sure sign for me. Btw, good to see you, Kevin. My vote goes for, "I prefer stability and only want to see major upgrades".
Bigger is always best........ oooooohhhhhh sorry I mean updates... of course..and as often as possible Best Regards to all
That's because most people can't use it properly. A hotfix indicates implementing a software fix without interrupting the service in question. E.g. you playing a game and it being hotfixed without you restarting it. On topic, probably a developer note: Upgrade as necessary, don't feature creep, follow KISS, and learn to say NO more often.
Love to install new updates as soon as they came out. Before installing to real system, I try them first in VM and on real system with ISR (Returnil/Deep Freeze) to check for new features and enhancements (if any) and stability. Also before installing anything, I love to read change log thoroughly.
I only upgrade when a new version has a feature I want or fixes a known issue that affects me. I don't allow any auto-updating of apps or system. For the most part, if it works right, leave it alone. Frequent updating is for beta software.
I also prefer stability and want to see upgrades only when they're needed or when they add something new.
