UCheck - Update your software in 2 clicks

Unfortunately that is going to be like this for many entries where more users have the BETA version than the stable one. I'd use exclusions for that, at least for now

 

I disagree. In that case you don't want to update Python at all. As a developer I never update my compilers, this is taking the risk of having all programs broken. You update only on demand, whenever you plan to support newer versions and allocated some time to do so.

 

That's good point, we'll do a merge sprint on those categories.

 

So with other words it's not yet planned that UCheck will ever provide as much supported software as SUMo does now and for what reason is this information collected then? I am confused...

 

Yes you're confused Community feedback is EXACTLY what SUMo is doing today.
In clear UCheck will support as many software as SUMo in a near future (database is getting populated every day automatically) with the COMMUNITY list.
In addition, UCheck supports other software entirely, meaning it knows where to download them and can provide additional information (look into "Download" tab to understand).

 

For your information, as of today Community list has 2400+ programs supported (and growing) only with users that have used the BETA version.
Once we go live it will go exponentially.

 

Thanks for de-confusing me I was too focused on the SUMo functionality so that I missed the UCheck function to install software via UCheck
This is a really good alternative to a well-known online competitor.

 

While the current effort has been focused on adding community-based update notification for installed programs, I think it is also important to start looking at how portable apps might be similarly handled by UCheck. SUMo, Patch My PC (PMPC) Home Updater, and the PortableApps.com platform are examples of tools that already support update notification and related functions for portable software. SUMo implements community-based update notification for both installed and portable software. Other conventional software updaters, however, are largely constrained to supporting a limited list of 100-300 installed programs.

The following are some questions and proposed answers regarding implementing support for portable software in UCheck. Note that the software updaters mentioned here are all closed source. The discussion below is based on my observations of these tools. I have been a daily user of SUMo Pro since 2017, a recent subscriber to UCheck Premium and an occasional user of Patch My PC.

Do installed and portable versions of the same program need to be handled as separate programs?
YES. The generation of the program lists and the method for obtaining name and version data differ significantly between installed and portable versions of the program. The installation process and locations of the two categories all differs significantly. Other software updaters (e.g., Patch My PC) maintain separate lists and approaches for updating installed and portable software, even for the same product.

Do portable programs need to be handled as compatible programs?
NO. I recommend portable apps only be supported as community programs, primarily for efficiency and flexibility, as described below. That means that UCheck would provide community-based notification of available updates for portable software and no automated support for downloads or “installation”. Most SUMo users have already indicated that automated downloads and “installation” are not needed and prefer leaving these tasks to the user. I would like to note that Patch My PC Home Updater, probably the most popular non-Winget based software updater, supports notification and downloading of updates for a list of 32 portable programs but does not support “installation”. Since it tracks and scans for presence of download files rather than program executables, it does not even care or check whether the program is actually “installed” on the machine.

How should UCheck handle portable software?
The only portable program currently handled by UCheck is AdwCleaner and it is treated as a compatible program. I recommend that be changed. Like other program on the compatible programs list, availability of a new update to the program is detected by a UCheck server scrapping data from product websites, not from software data collected from the machines of community users and uploaded to the server by the UCheck client when performing a scan. The current implementation requires the UCheck client to scan the Custom Locations folder(s) to find the AdwCleaner.exe file since the exact file path is not known and to retrieve the name and version from the found .exe file since there is no equivalent data available comparable to the uninstall data in the registry. However, since it knows which program to looking for with only one program supported, this task is much simpler than SUMo’s job of locating portable programs on the users’ machine which requires it to search for .exe files without knowledge of the specific target or a list of target programs. The AdwCleaner downloads consist of the single AdwCleaner.exe file and is delivered to the Custom Locations folder automatically if the download option is selected by the user. No extraction of files is required since the AdwCleaner program download is a single .exe file. Because download support is provided for all compatible programs, the product website and download links for the program need to be maintained and updated if necessary. Automated installation is not provided for the program since the download file is not an installer.

I think this process can be improved by treating portable software as community programs rather than compatible programs and by (1) using an update notification process that tries to mimic the process already being developed for installed community programs, (2) providing a user-supplied rather than program-generated list of executables in the form of shortcuts to the target file, and (3) eliminating requirements for automated support for downloads and “installation”.

For portable software there is no existing list of programs that may need updates like there is for installed programs. That list needs to be built or provided. SUMo does this by scanning the machine for portable executables and adds them or filters them out as it builds its list from scratch. This automated approach is complex and requires software maintenance to keep it accurate. Other updaters like Patch My PC Home Updater specify a limited set of portable apps that the program supports. That alternative approach, however, is very limiting to users since a user’s favorite applications may not be on the list and the developer may be reluctant to add more programs suggested by users.

To establish an explicit but flexible list of portable programs for UCheck to check, I suggest having the user maintain a custom folder that contains a shortcut to the executable file of each portable program that needs to be supported for update notification on his machine. This is an additional task for users, but these shortcuts can be created conveniently at the same time the user “installs” or updates the program and may not need to be subsequently updated if executable file names are made version independent. Separate shortcuts for x64 and x86 programs will be needed where applicable. Since the shortcut provides the full path to the executable file, UCheck will not need to search for the file. Each executable is required to include embedded data for the program name and version number in order to be accepted. The UCheck client can scan this set of shortcuts, extract this data from the target executable, and provide the formatted list of software back to the server. From that point, the process for identifying updates is similar to that already being done for “Community” installed apps. When notified that an update to a portable program is available after performing a scan, the user will need to download and “install” the update manually, update the shortcut if needed, and subsequently have UCheck rescan the machine to update the software list provided to the UCheck server.

To facilitate the process of requiring users to download and “install” the portable updates, I recommend that users include internet shortcuts for the download website, version history/release notes page, and relevant documentation in the program folder, so they are readily available when needed without having to resort to other documentation or notes. I recommend that a single folder be used for each program executable and that updates be extracted and replace the existing files rather than creating separate folders for each version of the program. This will preserve any internet links created in the folder for downloads, etc. and will reduce the need for maintenance of the folders.

Shortcuts and exclusions will be specified at the file level, not at folder level like with SUMo. A program is excluded from being checked by simply not including its shortcut in the shortcut folder. Having to specify individual .exe files will also discourage users from scanning large collections of portable utilities, like Nirlauncher and SysInternals Suite which include over 450 programs just between these two collections, and which will bog down performance. If a user needs regular update notification for a particular utility in a collection, include its shortcut in the shortcut folder. For simplicity and efficiency, I recommend waiting until the full suite is periodically released to download the software and monitoring a software site, such as MajorGeeks.com, in the interim for an announcement of such releases.

--

Comments on the above are welcome. Some details of the above proposal remain TBD.

 

I wouldn't say as "separate programs", but as "separate INSTANCES of the same program". This is what we already do in UCheck with Duplicates.

 

This is not our way to do it, I have to say it.
Yes unknown programs will be handled as part of the community programs. But once these programs have been "promoted" to the supported list, they'll have their own handlers for both installed AND portable.

You have to understand UCheck has its own user-base, and is probably as large as SUMo's. Therefore cannot remove this feature as it would be a regression for our existing users.
What I'm trying to do here, is to ENRICH existing supported database while provide a community list that is automated; That's the goal, I won't deviate from it.

 

And this comment is for everyone.
I really appreciate the feedback, trully. But you have to understand UCheck isn't NEW software, it's been there for what, 7-8 years ?
We have a large user-base (I think around 2000 daily users) and we cannot do anything SUMo former users ask. It has to comply with current features, and extend them. Not regress.

 

This is fine with me as long as UCheck will eventually find as many updates as SUMo does.

 

For my understanding:

If I buy the Pro version and activate the Cache feature without cleaning it up, I should have almost the same situation as downloading the software manually, am I right?

 

@Tigzy I posted a lot in the support ticket, also screen shots (when I copy everything into Word, I get 42 pages).
I am very shocked, that you did not read it yet!

 

SUMo offers a cool feature to report beta versions:
Right click the entry, select "Report Beta", here a new email is generated with all required data already filled in.

 

Yes, but cache isn't really meant to be user walkable. It's there if you want to share a cache between several machines for example, on a NAS.

 

Sorry, too much info

 

Yes but this goes against the full automation... Someone has to pick up the support ticket and do it. Not sure what load this would generate for us

 

Do you mean "someone in your team"?
Or is there anything that I can do?

 

That's exactly what I do with SUMo now. Because I use the same programs on all of my machines!
It's time to grab a license

 

Yes someone from the team. I believe this is what happened with SUMo if an email was generated. But we have time to think about these corner cases as they are showing up...

 

So, all my suggestions are lost?
All the time, that I have invested, was for nothing?
We are talking about days, not hours...

 

Yes, you are right! And every mail was answered personally by Kyle! That's the way how to handle customers

 

Of course not ! I'll have to re-read all carefully. I just meant I may have missed this info with all the exchanges we had

 

Or that's the way how to waste time that could be better used elsewhere