Yet more 'check for updates' madness: OpenOffice
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Aperture 3
Next: newsreaders for iPhone?
From: Chris Ridd on 13 Feb 2010 05:09 On 2010-02-13 09:55:03 +0000, Ian McCall said: > Would love an actual Sparkle app that knew about Sparkle-based > self-updating apps on your system and allowed you to do them en-masse. Something like that was mentioned recently on the MDN podcast. It isn't obvious from <http://www.mac-developer-network.com/> which one... -- Chris
From: Rod on 13 Feb 2010 05:29 On 13/02/2010 08:20, David Pitt wrote: > Ian McCall<ian(a)eruvia.org> wrote: > >> Tech news sites all over are proclaiming the release of OpenOffice 3.2. I >> fire up OpenOffice 3.1, and go to 'check for updates'. It checks >> and...tells me I'm fully up to date. > > Check for updates told me, "OpenOffice.org 3.1 is up to date.", no mention > of 3.2 being available. > > OpenOffice 3.2.0 now downloaded, and up to date. > Check for updates told me, "OpenOffice.org 3.1.1 is available.", no mention of 3.2 being available. (On PC at the moment.) Can't be bothered to see if updating to 3.1.1 then says that 3.2 is available. -- Rod
From: Geoff Berrow on 13 Feb 2010 06:14 On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 10:53:08 +0000, David Pitt <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> Check for updates told me, "OpenOffice.org 3.1.1 is available.", no >> mention of 3.2 being available. (On PC at the moment.) >> >> Can't be bothered to see if updating to 3.1.1 then says that 3.2 is >> available. >> >3.2 is available, http://www.openoffice.org/ > >The 3.2 download is the complete application that needs to be installed from >scratch, an in situ upgrade from 3.1 to 3.2 is not on offer. (This is on a >Mac, I have not got OO on a PC.) Opening OO on a PC shows nothing automatically. Checking for updates manually gives: "OpenOffice.org 3.1 is up to date." -- Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email) It's only Usenet, no one dies. My opinions, not the committee's, mine. Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker
From: Steve Firth on 13 Feb 2010 07:36 Ian McCall <ian(a)eruvia.org> wrote: > I then go to 'About...' to see if there's > a shortcut to the website. There is, sort of - a link to their Welcome > page. But is it clickable? Is it hell. Cut'n'paste'able? Nope. Heck yes, I must say that when it came to updating my copy of OpenOffice.org that it took me hours to work out what to enter as the URL to download a copy of OpenOffice.org. A real puzzler. I sat and stared at my copy of OpenOffice.org for several hours puzzling about what URL could possibly be associated with OpenOffice.org. <rolls eyes>
From: Jim on 13 Feb 2010 07:44
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > Heck yes, I must say that when it came to updating my copy of > OpenOffice.org that it took me hours to work out what to enter as the > URL to download a copy of OpenOffice.org. A real puzzler. I sat and > stared at my copy of OpenOffice.org for several hours puzzling about > what URL could possibly be associated with OpenOffice.org. . <- the point what you wrote -> . |------------------------- a long way ------------------------| Jim -- "Microsoft admitted its Vista operating system was a 'less good product' in what IT experts have described as the most ambitious understatement since the captain of the Titanic reported some slightly damp tablecloths." http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/ |