Messages

1

UCheck / Incorrect update to MS Teams

« on: November 14, 2023, 10:56:36 AM »

Currently it says there's an update for MS teams from 1.6.00.29964 to 1.6.00.30666.

I've let Teams check for updates multiple times, allowing time to install & update itself. No updates get installed, and as such, I have to conclude that 1.6.00.29964 is the latest version.

So my questions:

1) If it knows there's an update, why doesn't it point to where it actually genuinely really is? I don't like being set on a wilde goose chase, which is what it feels like: "hey there such and such update, so go out and find it, good luck mate!"
2) Where is it defined that this purported update exists?
3) How do I make a correction to whatever database is used? I understand it's "community" based, so where is this community?

2

UCheck / Re: A comparison between SUMo and UCheck

« on: November 14, 2023, 10:44:59 AM »

Hi,

We plan to use a Repository (like Github) to allow users to report bugs and vote for future features.
I will update this post when it will be abailable. Thanks for suggestions.

Regards.

Instead of "like github", why not actually go with github and make the whole thing opensource while you're at it?

You can still maintain paid licenses, mind you. But the best thing is that you can recieve help from people willing to contribute to functionality. Currently, everything's on your shoulders, and frankly, it shows.

3

UCheck / Re: Updates for toolkits/runtimes/etc

« on: November 14, 2023, 10:39:51 AM »

But you're keeping the database of available updates, right? So why are these entries in there in the first place, since you agree they shouldn't be?

4

UCheck / Re: Updates vs upgrades

« on: November 14, 2023, 10:37:34 AM »

How could you not know the difference between an update and an upgrade? You're keeping the database of updates, so surely you could split out those versions between major releases of software. At least in software where it matters. And you where it matters, because you're the guys keeping that database.

As a user, offering an update to VS2019 being VS2022 is useless to me, first of all because I don't have a license for it, and secondly because there are also still legitimate updates to the 2019 release.

Same goes for Node.js - don't just offer updates to the very latest version, but to the installed version.

You wouldn't do the same thing with games, if UCheck were to support them.

5

UCheck / Re: Open website missing

« on: November 14, 2023, 10:33:03 AM »

So you're confirming it's a bug?

Because it doesn't take much to add. Or does it?

6

UCheck / Open website missing

« on: November 02, 2023, 05:01:45 PM »

"Open website" is missing for a LOT of listed applications. Can these be added please? I feel for many of them, it's just 10 seconds work, and it looks a bit more professional to provide a direct link to their websites, innit.

7

UCheck / Re: Updates vs upgrades

« on: November 02, 2023, 04:59:34 PM »

It's not just simply the same list as in Settings -> Apps (in Windows settings) right? That would be kind of daft. I do see identical names in the "Installed" list, so... Check the one for Total Commander, for example.

8

UCheck / Updates vs upgrades

« on: November 02, 2023, 04:54:28 PM »

Some of the listed updates are actually upgrades. So for instance, it suggests an "update" from SQL Server 2019 to 2022. I have a specific version of SQL Server for development stuff, and I SHOULD NOT upgrade things like that. For to the point, it's not an update, but an *upgrade*. It's a toally new version, new system, new everything. Unlikely to be 100% backwards compatible, and when using it on a commercial license, it requires a new license.

Same goes for Visual Studio, it lists an update for that as well, but it's an *upgrade* from 2019 to 2022 (or whatever it is).

Also weirdly, VSCode is not listed?... Why not?

9

UCheck / Updates for toolkits/runtimes/etc

« on: November 02, 2023, 04:50:18 PM »

These things should not be updated outside the installer for the application(s) that require them. Programs that require such packages, will install them automagically, and so they don't need updating. In fact, I've seen the weirdest problem pop up after updating these packages. And for good reason, many-a-times program require a specific version.

So, things like "CLR types for SQL server" or "Microsoft Web Deploy". But Also "Mozilla Maintenance Service". There are loads of things like that that aren't really application that you can or should update separately, so all they do in the list, is take up space, and make sure you can't see the forest for the trees.

Same goes for the "Installed" list. I get the feeling this list is heavily (like, HEAVILY) bulked up with like three quarters of non-application packages. Again thing that no one should ever look to update manually, but leave it to the applications that they came with.

10

UCheck / General layout needs more love

« on: November 02, 2023, 04:44:01 PM »

This is what the program looks like for me:

https://imgur.com/a/t9iRsHL

1. The buttons on the left seems a little bit too cramped in comparison to the rest
2. Font sizes are all over the place (inconsistent)
3. Top-right buttons are absolutely tiny
4. The updates notifification pill (the green thing in the updates button) is just straight up unreadable.

Overall, it doesn't look at all as polished as the screenshot on the homepage seems to promise. It just needs some TLC. And the reason why I thing this is worth a forum post, is because this program is already at version 5, so apparently this was somehow not a priority for version 1-4.

11

UCheck / Accept/decline buttons are weird

« on: November 02, 2023, 04:36:04 PM »

Adding an image here doesn't seem to work, but as it is proverbially worth a thousand words:

https://imgur.com/a/CyfUPfQ

I just wanted to report that this is my absolute very first interaction with this program. Not a great start, is it?... I don't know much about desktop application development, but from web development experience I do know that setting the height of buttons in pixels is not usually a very good idea. Especially if those pixels are physical pixels.