Hmmmm....
-
402/345. I don't even.
-
@stillwater said in Hmmmm....:
402/345. I don't even.
Many of the downloads are from external sources, and are independent of Visual Studio itself. This is a bit part of the reason for the move to the new installation architecture, and the elimination of the .iso form.
For better or worse, this means that the size is not known at the start.
There are good arguments what the size should be updated as part of the UI, but that is not the current approach.
-
@thecpuwizard said in Hmmmm....:
There are
good argumentsabsolutely no doubt that the size should be updated as part of the UI, but thatis not the current approachwould require doing some work."that is not the current approach"... really... and then you wonder why people like @blakeyrat get worked up by stuff like this...
-
@thecpuwizard said in Hmmmm....:
There are
good argumentsabsolutely no doubt that the size should be updated as part of the UI, but thatis not the current approachwould require doing some work."that is not the current approach"... really... and then you wonder why people like @blakeyrat get worked up by stuff like this...
Hey, I am not attempting to justify it or put any opinion out there.... "Hmmm" implies "I wonder why", and I was posting the reason what it happened....This could change ones reaction from "hmmm" to "WTF", or an of another views.
-
-
@thecpuwizard said in Hmmmm....:
that the size is not known at the start.
Make a HEAD Request to get it then. Boom, I'm better than a MS developer.
-
@thecpuwizard Yeah well I sort of went from "I wonder why" to "I have seen so much WTF this seems minor in comparison".
However I will tell you why accuracy of estimated size is important to me. I was updating this shit via a mobile hotspot. And I have a daily data cap. I sometimes only download if I know the estimated download size is <= Data remaining on my daily data plan. This is the only reason I would give a shit about the number being right or wrong. I would not care if I always used Home Internet. Maybe this is an edge case but still seems wrong.
What about 825 / 350 mb? Would that be okay? :(
-
I have a problem with CANCEL and OKAY. I would have preferred GO BACK and YES. Maybe this is just me but I literally clicked on CANCEL and after a fleeting microsecond I realized cancel was not CANCEL. Goddamnit.
-
@stillwater said in Hmmmm....:
I have a problem with CANCEL and OKAY. I would have preferred GO BACK and YES. Maybe this is just me but I literally clicked on CANCEL and after a fleeting microsecond I realized cancel was not CANCEL. Goddamnit.
Are you okay with cancelling this request?
View Settings Restart Now
-
@ben_lubar It's all fun and jokes up till when a frustrated user looks at shit like this, throws the computer out the window which falls directly on top of you walking outside the building.
-
@stillwater said in Hmmmm....:
@ben_lubar It's all fun and jokes up till when a frustrated user looks at shit like this, throws the computer out the window which falls directly on top of you walking outside the building.
ha ha joke's on you i don't go outside
-
@tsaukpaetra said in Hmmmm....:
@thecpuwizard said in Hmmmm....:
that the size is not known at the start.
Make a HEAD Request to get it then. Boom, I'm better than a MS developer.
If it was a simple file, then yes.... but that is not the case. Many of the various bundled components have their own downloaders that are not under control of Visual Studio [or even Microsoft]. All that is available is the anticipated size of the version that was current at the time that the original installer was created.
Not saying it is a good design, but the issue is not nearly as simple as a issuing a HEAD request.
-
@thecpuwizard said in Hmmmm....:
have their own downloaders
Then they should use the "offline" installer version. This isn't an insurmountable problem!
-
@ben_lubar said in Hmmmm....:
@stillwater said in Hmmmm....:
@ben_lubar It's all fun and jokes up till when a frustrated user looks at shit like this, throws the computer out the window which falls directly on top of you walking outside the building.
ha ha joke's on you i don't go outside
Fine:
@stillwater said in Hmmmm....:
@ben_lubar It's all fun and jokes up till when
a frustrated useryour mother looks at shit like this, throws the computerout the windowdown the basement stairs which falls directly on top of youwalking outside the buildingplaying Dwarf Fortress.
-
@hardwaregeek said in Hmmmm....:
throws the computer down the basement stairs
ha ha joke's on you the heaviest computer upstairs is her Dell laptop from work
-
@ben_lubar Still hurts if it hits you in the head.
-
@tsaukpaetra said in Hmmmm....:
@thecpuwizard said in Hmmmm....:
have their own downloaders
Then they should use the "offline" installer version. This isn't an insurmountable problem!
There is not one any more [in terms of an ISO]. The "offline" is you do one with the "layout" option, select the components you want and it creates a local directory tree. Thus, for the actual download, the same symptoms exist [but the work can potentially be done over a different/faster/unlimited connection]
-
@thecpuwizard said in Hmmmm....:
@tsaukpaetra said in Hmmmm....:
@thecpuwizard said in Hmmmm....:
have their own downloaders
Then they should use the "offline" installer version. This isn't an insurmountable problem!
There is not one any more [in terms of an ISO]. The "offline" is you do one with the "layout" option, select the components you want and it creates a local directory tree. Thus, for the actual download, the same symptoms exist [but the work can potentially be done over a different/faster/unlimited connection]
Download https://aka.ms/vs/15/release/vs_BuildTools.exe and then run it with the
--layoutoption. For some reason, it still asks to elevate even though it isn't installing anything.
-
@thecpuwizard said in Hmmmm....:
@tsaukpaetra said in Hmmmm....:
@thecpuwizard said in Hmmmm....:
have their own downloaders
Then they should use the "offline" installer version. This isn't an insurmountable problem!
There is not one any more [in terms of an ISO]. The "offline" is you do one with the "layout" option, select the components you want and it creates a local directory tree. Thus, for the actual download, the same symptoms exist [but the work can potentially be done over a different/faster/unlimited connection]
Methinks reading comprehension fail... I didn't claim that Visual Studio has an offline installer version, I claimed that most other packages that have "web install" downloaders also have an "offline install" package (that the web installer downloads, natch). Just skip the middleman and get the target!
-
-
@ben_lubar said in Hmmmm....:
@thecpuwizard said in Hmmmm....:
@tsaukpaetra said in Hmmmm....:
@thecpuwizard said in Hmmmm....:
have their own downloaders
Then they should use the "offline" installer version. This isn't an insurmountable problem!
There is not one any more [in terms of an ISO]. The "offline" is you do one with the "layout" option, select the components you want and it creates a local directory tree. Thus, for the actual download, the same symptoms exist [but the work can potentially be done over a different/faster/unlimited connection]
Download https://aka.ms/vs/15/release/vs_BuildTools.exe and then run it with the
--layoutoption. For some reason, it still asks to elevate even though it isn't installing anything.Isn't that exactly what I said????
-
@tsaukpaetra said in Hmmmm....:
Methinks reading comprehension fail...
When you're on a mission to defend the
of Visual Studio's installer... 
-
@timebandit said in Hmmmm....:
@tsaukpaetra said in Hmmmm....:
Methinks reading comprehension fail...
When you're on a mission to defend the
of Visual Studio's installer... The opposite. What makes you think I'm defending the asininity of using a launcher to download launchers that download downloaders that we don't know how big they are?
-
@tsaukpaetra said in Hmmmm....:
What makes you think I'm defending
What makes you think I was talking about you?
-
@timebandit said in Hmmmm....:
@tsaukpaetra said in Hmmmm....:
What makes you think I'm defending
What makes you think I was talking about you?
You responded to me...?
-
@tsaukpaetra said in Hmmmm....:
You responded to me...?
Just because I'm talking to you doesn't mean I'm talking about you
-
@timebandit said in Hmmmm....:
@tsaukpaetra said in Hmmmm....:
You responded to me...?
Just because I'm talking to you doesn't mean I'm talking about you
Fair enough.
Edit: dammit ever since I typoed...
-
Shit escalated pretty fast around here. :(
-
@stillwater said in Hmmmm....:
Shit escalated pretty fast around here. :(
Did it? I dunno, seemed pretty much normal rate as far as I can tell.
-
@stillwater I think this is another case of people making weird choices about which button is on which side. That example seems to be Mac positioning, which, if you're used to Windows, is awful. It completely flies in the face of your expectations.
-
It completely flies in the face of your expectations.
What's even better is an OS like Android, which is mostly Mac-like with the button positioning, but every so often someone coded their own dialog box and it's like Windows.
-
@tsaukpaetra Which is why, regardless of the OS, you should be using whatever they have built in.
-
@tsaukpaetra said in Hmmmm....:
@timebandit said in Hmmmm....:
@tsaukpaetra said in Hmmmm....:
Methinks reading comprehension fail...
When you're on a mission to defend the
of Visual Studio's installer... The opposite. What makes you think I'm defending the asininity of using a launcher to download launchers that download downloaders that we don't know how big they are?
At least it's better than the Get Office app, which is unable to download the Office installer and instead opens a browser on the Office website so you can log in (again) and download the installer from there.
-
@tsaukpaetra said in Hmmmm....:
@timebandit said in Hmmmm....:
@tsaukpaetra said in Hmmmm....:
Methinks reading comprehension fail...
When you're on a mission to defend the
of Visual Studio's installer... The opposite. What makes you think I'm defending the asininity of using a launcher to download launchers that download downloaders that we don't know how big they are?
At least it's better than the Get Office app, which is unable to download the Office installer and instead opens a browser on the Office website so you can log in (again) and download the installer from there.
struggling to parse. Jesus Christ why would anyone wanna do that?
-
@stillwater Because Microsoft wanted to pin something to the Start menu, and at the time the only thing that could be pinned was an app.
-
@twelvebaud And yet they took down the Google Chrome app, whose only purpose was to download the Google Chrome installer.
-
@pie_flavor The reason Microsoft gave was that the Chrome downloader app didn't provide any value or function other than downloading Chrome, whereas the Get Office app allegedly provides the added value of "education" (read: marketing) about Office. I think they both suck and neither should exist; I wish the year was 2014 and Microsoft was actually trying to let Chrome and Firefox be apps right alongside Edge, and that Office was a thing you could install from the Windows Store without any stupid "Get Office" bullshit, and that Discourse never existed. But that's not the world I live in.
-
@twelvebaud Chrome and Firefox could absolutely be apps alongside Edge. Step one is developing them for UWP. Actually posting the Chrome 'app' was just them thumbing their nose at Microsoft and I honestly don't know what the fuck they expected to happen. I just find it funny that Microsoft literally does the same thing.
-
@pie_flavor They can't. Microsoft explicitly forbids it. They had a pilot program for browser desktop apps to act like UWP apps (including store listing and Live Tiles and the works) from 2013-2015 but never actually allowed any full releases, and UWP apps can only use Edge for their rendering or JavaScript.
-
@twelvebaud Probably because when they did allow Google and Mozilla to make UWP apps, Firefox was completely awful and the Chrome one was the entirety of ChromeOS, with a window manager and everything. If someone tries to embed their OS in your OS under the guise of a browser, it's probably a sign that they're not worth working with.
-
This is another case of "Apple does it and nobody cares, but when Microsoft does it suddenly there's gnashing and wailing".
-
@blakeyrat said in Hmmmm....:
Apple does it and nobody cares
[citation needed]
Apple's behavior in this area has been the source of heavy criticism practically since day 1.
-
@blakeyrat said in Hmmmm....:
This is another case of "Apple does it and nobody cares, but when Microsoft does it suddenly there's gnashing and wailing".
Fun fact: under Apple app store rules, an app like Firefox, Edge, or Chrome must be labeled as "for adults only" due to the fact that they have the ability to visit the internet, which contains porn.
Which means that by Apple's own rules, iOS devices come with a porn app pre-installed.
-
I'm not even mad. Mindblown.
-
-
@thecpuwizard said in Hmmmm....:
For better or worse, this means that the size is not known at the start.
Then the very first thing it should do is calculate how much it needs to download. And if that is literally impossible, it should not fucking put a wrong size as the total size, but should tell you how many things it's downloading ("x of y frameworks"), and how much total has been downloaded so far. And if it doesn't even know from the start how many frameworks it'll need to download, it should just count every framework that it could possibly need, and then skip the ones that it doesn't.
-
-
The fucking tone on this one. It's asking me to fuck off. Sounds like refusing to comply with a request more than a statement of no current reminders to track.
-
@anotherusername said in Hmmmm....:
it should just count every framework that it could possibly need, and then skip the ones that it doesn't.
But seriously, the key issue is that the first thing it needs to do is to get the descriptors for all the frameworks/libraries that it needs. That could be fast or could be very slow; the slow option would be expected if an HTTP connection was needed for each, whereas if there's a single service which knows it all and which can provide all that stuff in effectively a single query, the key initial stage will be fast.
Once you're going to the effort of downloading descriptors at all, they might as well include the sizes of the actual artefacts in the descriptors and that makes computing the overall progress bar length trivial. (BTW, there should also be a bit of overhead per downloaded file; those per-file overheads often dominate on high-speed connections…)
-
@dkf Windows Update tells you how many tens of thosuands of registry keys it has left to update, and that goes fast. Telling you how many out of a few hundred or thousand files it has left -- and then most of them going fast because it's actually skipping them -- would be better than presenting numbers that are clearly wrong. It's not like progress bars ever actually work smoothly anyway; they typically proceed by leaps and jumps.
