An example of unhappy customers and the Update Manager

[NealC804]

http://www.nc-software.com/Forums/?f=6&m=5020&p=1

Sure would be nice to have the Update Manager as a "Feature" in IS 10.5 so that end-users can have the option to install or not.

[neildavidson]

Kelly,

You personally have been very responsive and helpful - thank you.

I submitted a support request about one of the issues I had. After 3 weeks I was told it would be fixed in 1-2 weeks and the issue was closed off by somebody from Installshield despite it not being resolved. Hopefully it will be fixed in the update tomorrow, but this might be wishful thinking. Incidentally, the support pages at epeople.com are near incomprehensible.

The feedback link on the publisher site links to a generic feedback page on InstallShield's site. I have submitted things there before and have never heard back.

[KellyF]

neildavidson wrote:

I submitted a support request about one of the issues I had. After 3 weeks I was told it would be fixed in 1-2 weeks and the issue was closed off by somebody from Installshield despite it not being resolved.

Could you please PM me the support request ID you had so I can dig into why it was closed?

neildavidson wrote:

Incidentally, the support pages at epeople.com are near incomprehensible.

I'm afraid that I have no visibility into those pages, so I cannot comment, though I do believe that changes will happen to the support mechanisms as we further integrate into Macrovision. So perhaps things will get better there.

neildavidson wrote:

The feedback link on the publisher site links to a generic feedback page on InstallShield's site. I have submitted things there before and have never heard back.

Hmm... that's somewhat disturbing to hear. I cannot promise anything as my work queue has piled up significantly, but I will communicate to the persons who maintain it to send me a CC when things are posted so I can just check that they're followed up.

KellyF

[NealC804]

Noel Kuriakos wrote:
If you advise your user to turn UM 'off' then you have closed the door to update your software.

I tell ya, this one just has me steaming, and I don't think it's accurate:

Are you telling me without UM installed that...

1) If I have the InstallShield 10.5 Shortcut to check for updates (AppUpdate) won't work?

2) If I make the API calls from my app it won't work?

3) If I have the AppUpdate from my menu system it won't work?

How did this work before UM forced its way onto our systems? Did not the agent run in the background, checking for updates on a schedule and ONLY appear if something was available, in a polite, controlled manner?

The UM is one thing, the design of the UM is another thing! Users have no clue how to use it as the buttons and text are just a swing and a miss! Who knows what "HIDE" means when they don't want to see a message? How can the message be revmoved from their system once they view it, i.e. mark it as read so it never bothers them again? I want to publish a message and have it never expire, and on the users machine once it's read, they are never bothered with it again AND do not have to interact with UM to "HIDE" it even though they want to "DELETE" it from existence!!!

Finally, if I have to TRAIN my users to use this little "helper" so that it distracts from MY APP then YOUR APP is history! If I have to train on using UM, UM was not designed properly. If you have to create a web page to explain how to use UM, UM was not designed properly. Can you point me to a web page where it walks people through how to install a software application with the dialogs that IS 10.5 creates? Not necessary as 1) we can customize them, 2) They are designed for people to understand and they can get through them.

UM is a very small piece, I'm surprised it has been such an issue.

Neil, don't you feel good you're paying through the nose for 25,000 users but you can get 50,000 users for free with the starter edition? Shouldn't the starter edition have say 500 users and then you can pay for more? It just makes no sense and it's a slap in our faces to be honest. I think the first tier for paid subscribers should start at 50,000 users then and not be an arm and a leg to use as again, this just isn't that hard to implement, and based on this forum activity, I don't quite think many are using it anyways!

[Christopher_Pai]

I don't want to hijack this thread but I thought I'd share a few thoughts over here:

http://community.installshield.com/showthread.php?p=308644#post308644

Let's here your thoughts over there also.

[NealC804]

Here is another one:

http://www.nc-software.com/Forums/?f=6&m=5081

Now in this case, the 1.9.8 version was not updatable nor did I want to push it out to force an update as it requires a fee for some new features. So instead, I sent out a MESSAGE. So the user got the MESSAGE and they think it's a SOFTWARE update notification. They have no clue what the difference is, all they know is "Version 1.9.8 is available" and they don't know what the hell to do with the UM!

Do you need any more real world stories?

[Brad_Peterson]

Noel Kuriakos wrote:
We have advised our customers to provide additional information to the user as to how they can control the behavior of the Update manager.

For example by providing the following links or including text from these links have drastically improved the user's understanding of UM.

http://consumer.installshield.com/settings.asp
http://consumer.installshield.com/about_us.asp

If you advise your user to turn UM 'off' then you have closed the door to update your software. We have had many customers thank us for automatically including UM with IS becasue they were able to sent critical patches and updates quickly.

With the heightened awareness of adware and spyware, we have found that education is the best option.

Ouch, that was the exact opposite answer that I wanted to hear. I disagree 100%.

Our users are not very computer literate. Our customers are generally older than the average population, most have only been introduced to computers within the several years, and their technical experience is very limited. One of our greatest challenges is making an already very simple program easier to grasp the first time they use it.

The *last* thing we need is to complicate matters by explaining why UM is desperately needed, even though our application has no use for it. Educating users on complicated matters is near impossible. I know from experience that if we try to educate them on something like UM, the majority will immediately forget it right when we hang up the phone.

Noel Kuriakos wrote:
With the heightened awareness of adware and spyware, we have found that education is the best option.

For a good reason why education would be pointless, check out my experience with update manager.http://community.installshield.com/showthread.php?t=142710. Keep in mind, that a solution was found to the ISUS v3, but no solution is present for my needs in ISUS v4. So I have to continue using v3, and pray that another product isnt installed which includes UM, which would then get in the way of our program. So how would I educate a user about this? Do I say InstallShield didn't think things through, and that UM serves no practical purpose for our program, and that they just have to live with UM's annoying intrusions? Because this was essentially the only answer we could give to our customers before I was shown the v3 merge module that doesn't include UM.

I don't mean to rag on you too much. I really like the Update Service...most of it is well thought out. But I really want to drive home the idea that many of us really really really hate the Update Manager, and we don't want it so tightly integrated when we don't want to use it. And it is so bad, that if we are forced to live with UM, then it would be better for our company to not renew our Update Service subscription and instead write our own.

Noel Kuriakos wrote:
We have received similar comments about the Update Manager and we will address some of the user experience issues in our 4.5 release coming in June.

I'm very glad to hear that. 🙂

[Brad_Peterson]

KellyF wrote:
It's actually rather depressing to see threads such as this... we do listen. And as I've said before, any customer can submit their feature requests or vent their spleen via the feedback mechanism on the publisher site. That link goes directly to the persons who make all the decisions, so please use it if you feel so very strongly.

You and Paul M. have helped greatly in these threads. In fact, I owe Paul M. greatly for getting me out of my current ISUS bind. I think both of you provide a valuable role that InstallShield needs to focus more on. Including the customers in the conversation and design process.

Yes there is a feedback mechanism, but I've found it to be very confusing (such when InstallShield submitted a Firefox bug I reported). Or often, I receive no replies at all when I do submit bugs.

We just need more communcation back. That's what's lacking. I mean, this thread had been heavily commented on for a full week before we heard back from someone at InstallShield over this issue. We sometimes think that given UM's design problems, and the lack of feedback in these forums, that we are being ignored.

Now, I understand InstallShield wants us to pay for technical support, and so the forums can't turn into free tech support. But InstallShield needs to do more of what you and Paul M. are doing, responding more in these forums when users like us have a very real design problem that ultimately would affect our continued purchases of InstallShield products.

[NealC804]

Why can't we have a API Call "RegisterWithUpdateManager" that now attaches our application to UM if it exists? Or the opposite API call? In other words giving us control! I could thing of many variations "UseWithUpdateManager" or "HideFromUpdateManager" on and on...

We can't control whether or not UM is going to appear. I may install it, Neil may install it, Corel may install it, it just may be there. Now we need granular control on whether or not our app can play with UM or not, install or not, and by "Release" in our IS installers, not by Update Service setting. I may need a special release for an enterprise IT department that doesn't have this built in and another release for the general population.

Lastly, I'd like to build my own user-interface (skin) the UM so I can have it look, work, feel like I want it to feel. Give me the core, I'll build a custom UM that appears for "MY" applications so it's skinned for my apps. When Neil's app calls UM for whatever reason, it's skinned for his programs, and I'm not talking about some logo option like you have now.

We've been through this branding discussion years ago, I see both sides, but UM stands out as NOT part of our app and causes quite the anxiety. If it blended better with our apps, it may settle some of the disappointed.

[ljbreedt]

Hi,

I recently installed IS12 Pro again, and since then my machine (fairly high spec, heaps of memory) has ground to a halt, Agent.exe is continually running at 50% or higher CPU usage, making my machine unusable.

I solved it last time by completely uninstalling IS12 from my machine, but that is no longer an option as I am required to use IS12 to create deployment packages :mad:

What the hell gives? How can I get rid of this agent.exe garbage? I'll update on my own time, thanks, I don't want an incredibly incompetently coded update checking application that RUNS ALL THE TIME to make my machine unusable, as I have to, you know, write code and compile as well.

Which of the four to five half-gig patch downloads fixes this? The other posts along these lines say this issue has been fixed but I dont have time to download 2GB of patches and hope for the best. Agent.exe isn't exactly the best thing to Google on.