Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Clarification on Updates (Read 3979 times) previous topic - next topic

Clarification on Updates

Major problems with these updates. I have 1.70 with service packs 1 through 5 installed and working nicely. I downloaded Service pack nwc32-75.exe which should be Service pack 6. When I try to install that SP,it states it is Service pack 7 and updates the program to state that the service pack 1-7 is there. NWC32-76.exe which should be Service Pack 7 also states that it is Service pack 7 and then fails to update due to "Noteworthy Composer in not already installed" or "Your existing version does not match the version targeted by the service pack"

Hope this helps. From the look at the messages in this forum. Many are having problems with these updates as well.

Re: Clarification on Updates

Reply #1 –
If you have up to Service Pack 5 and wish to upgrade to 7, you need nwc32-75. The numbers mean the following:

32 - for 32-bit Windows, i.e. Win9x
7 - this is an upgrade to service level "7"
5 - this upgrade is to be applied to a system presently at level 5.

In other words, having installed nwc32-75, you're already at upgrade level 7. You can always check this in Help --> About.

HTH

Fred

Re: Clarification on Updates

Reply #2 –
At the risk of redundancy, let me quote what it says on the Service Pack download page:

"Once you download and install the program that matches your current version, you will be up-to-date (you only need to download the one program that matches your current version)."

This means that it's not true that "Service pack nwc32-75.exe . . . should be Service pack 6". Running *any* of these programs, including 32-75, will leave you at Service Pack level 7.

<flame on>
Here speaks a computer programmer: enormous amounts of trouble could be saved if people would read the directions before trying to run the software, or, failing that, at least before complaining when the software doesn't appear to work.
<flame off>

Re: Clarification on Updates

Reply #3 –
Greg,

Grant speaks from experience (helping ME!). Check
out the NWC Web Service Pack 5 thread for details
on what to do to cure this problem.

Re: Clarification on Updates

Reply #4 –
Of course, the Solution here is to have the same program irrespective of which version you are upgrading from, and for the upgrade program to check which version you currently have.

Is there a patch generation program that will do this? Seems like a sensible thing to do.

Re: Clarification on Updates

Reply #5 –
Thanks everyone. I think we can close this thread now. Fred explained the numbering system within the file name and now it makes sense to me. Robins suggestion sounds good but I think that it would make for a much larger file. But I'm not the one that writes the programs, so my comments in that area are only worth 1/2 a cent.

Thanks again

Greg

Re: Clarification on Updates

Reply #6 –
Grant

Just my thoughts on the "if users would just read the docs" (paraphrased) comment.

[opinion on]

Here speaks an IT professional who must deal with things from not only the perspective of the programmer but also the end user.

Often what makes complete and perfect sense to the programmer from their technical perspective, is complete and total gibberish from the user's perspective. Of the two, users win unless there is a compelling technical reason they should not, for as we know users are the sole justification for a (paid) programmer's existance.

Therefore, as users are conditioned to the application of service packs in sequential order, meaning that SP1 must be installed before SP2 which must be installed before SP3, and as common thought would support the sequential application of updates that are sequentially enumerated, and as this was the established methodology for prior service packs released for NWC, it was a poor decision relative to the end user to change the service packs to the current scheme. Though there may have been compelling technical reasons to do so, there is no compelling reason from the user's perspective. The only possible justification for the end user is a potential reduction of the aggregate download size in that not every service pack is required to update from SPx to SPy; however, as many users will tend to download every service pack as it becomes available, even this justification is of dubious value.

On the other hand, the "one service pack fits all" approach as stated by Robin would have been an acceptable solution. It simplifies the question for the end user as to which service pack to download. Instead of downloading seven and installing in sequence, download and install one. Instead of having to determine current revision level and relating that to which service pack to download, download and install one. From an aggregate size perspective, for a user who has not updated since the original 1.70 release, the all-in-one approach is likely no larger than the current approach, and a far better deal than downloading seven individual service packs. (Check the size difference between the 32-70 and 32-76 SPs, it is not substantial.) For the faithful updater who remains current with each service pack, there would probably be a penalty.

There is yet another position that would greatly alleviate the problem of aggregate size. Many patching systems carry more weight in the patching program itself than in the patch data. In the case of NWC, there is also the burden of the flashy setup program that wraps the patch. Were the patching program either embedded in NWC itself (preferred from an end user's perspective), or distributed as a separate executable, then the service packs would contain nothing but the patch data. This would help in both the sequential and all-in-one service pack models.

I used to program for a living, and still do write quite a bit of code, and know from experience at several levels that just because something makes technical sense or is possible to do, does not mean that it is the best or even appropriate thing to do to the end user. I also know that most programmers are not able to make that distinction as they are often blinded by the technology. For example, just yesterday I came across a web site that has a very cool menu system -- from a technical standpoint. Very slick, does lots of neat stuff. But it was confusing to the point of being unusable. I called a half-dozen people into my office, from secretary to developer, and all agreed that it was horrible and they would never get past the home page. Here's the topper -- the page had been given a couple of design excellence awards by a few programming groups! No doubt these were for the technology itself and not the usability.

The current NWC service pack scheme is not quite that bad, but IMO it is leaning that direction.

[opinion off]

;-)

Re: Clarification on Updates

Reply #7 –
I suspect that NoteWorthy Software's approach to updates is evolving, as is every other aspect of their software. I found that the sequential approach was getting unwieldy, admittedly because I'm personally something of an experimenter; for instance, I uninstalled/reinstalled NWC several times trying to help chase down an icon display oddity that someone pointed out on the newsgroup; the sequential patches were a bit cumbersome.

Also, the earlier patches were rather "busy", involving several Winzip pop-up windows, whereas the later ones have a more standard-looking BSOI (Blue Screen Of Install). Switching to the parallel approach was definitely an improvement IMO, but I agree that a "one patch fits all" approach would be best. Especially since the patches essentially only appear to replace the main executable (and sometimes the help file); a "universal" patch would basically just have to check the executable and/or help file against a table of valid checksums (CRC's?) for the various upgrade levels.

Re: Clarification on Updates

Reply #8 –
Grimblefritz -

Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I agree that the current NWC patching scheme is not optimal (what is?), and would add in particular that the patch kits behave rather badly when users try to apply the wrong patch. It would have been a lot clearer to all involved if they had merely said something like "This patch kit is designed to upgrade NWC from version <x> to version <y>, but cannot find an installed copy of NWC version <x>." Or, perhaps even better, "... but the installed version of NWC is already at version <y>." Maybe the tool used to create the patch kit executables wasn't capable of this.

In any event, programmers need to be aware that there is a general disinclination to read the instructions. It could have been predicted that changing procedures in midstream would cause problems for users who have applied patches in the past and expect the process to continue working the same way. NWS did do some things that might have alerted the attentive user that something had changed: the contents of the tables were different, as was the naming convention for the downloaded files. Probably a more obvious warning should have been posted in large type at the top of the download page.

Therefore, it's hard to fault a user who wasn't paying close attention for trying to do things the same old way. However, once a user has encountered a problem applying the patch, his or her first step should be (IMHO) to go back to the download page to see if anything about the patch procedures might have changed. It is at this point, if not sooner, that the user would encounter the sentence I quoted above. I've gone over this sentence several times and I must say that although you speak of "gibberish", it seems perfectly clear to me. The least one should get out of it is the idea that if you're trying to download more than one file, you're doing something wrong.

- Grant

Re: Clarification on Updates

Reply #9 –
I suppose I oughn't to mention that I had problems loading NWC32sp2.exe, when in reality I was trying to load NWP32sp2.exe then?
Robert