Article:  |
The Do's and Don'ts of Shareware, Part 2 | |
| Subject: | I hate installers | |
| Date: | 2002-10-09 15:35:50 | |
| From: | sanford | |
|
Response to: I hate installers
|
||
|
If I had a nickel for every user that asked me how to install software or its update, I'd be a millionaire. Well, maybe. Installers are simple easier to support than other mechanisms.
|
||
Showing messages 1 through 4 of 4.
-
I hate installers
2002-10-10 11:34:36 Corvus [View]
-
I hate installers
2003-05-11 05:41:47 anonymous2 [View]
installers are a nuisance. Programs should just be directly executable, full stop. Worst of all are those on windows that don`t ask you where you want to install a program, but just put it in a default location, which I don`t wish to use, and then refuse to work when you move them because of the equally stupid registry (give me the os/2 config.sys any day). The people who write such crap must be idiots, and overall I can`t stand the way that windoze assumes it knows best what you want. -
I hate installers
2002-10-21 23:28:40 anonymous2 [View]
I'm confused: I can't remember a Mac OS installer ever asking me anything more complex than what folder to put the application, except for Internet software (or OSes) that wanted to pre-configure things like e-mail addresses.
Windows is another world...
Also, have you tried installing an update that was little more than a resource change, without an installer? The average user doesn't know, or WANT to know, what a resource is, nor does he know how to open a package (in OS X) or use ResEdit.
Windows is a Nightmare world, in that regard... what with the infernal registry, and programmers thinking their code belongs in the Windows/System directory; THOSE are people that give me urges to commit mayhem!
micsteel at jump.net -
I hate installers
2002-10-22 10:43:44 anonymous2 [View]
corvus, what if the shareware enhances a piece of existing software? How do you know where to install it.
Not every shareware is an application. Sometimes they have to go in specific places. For example, suppose I write a server program that runs all the time without the user having to log in. Users don't always know where to put it, or how to make it start up by itself when you boot your computer. An installer can do that for you.
What about installing system extensions that need root privileges, to be available to all MacOS X users? Do you expect the user to manually change permissions, and to know where to place the extension?
Simples applications don't need installers, true. But it sounds to me like you believe all shareware is simple applications.
And BTW, when you run MS Office, which is not a complex piece of software (it's just big), it actually runs an installer the first time you run it.
I don't understand why this is a problem. Click-click, type your password, and it's done. What's the problem?
I believe you. I have provided computer support to education institutions for many years, and no end user can understand installers. If you want to stop people asking you how to install something, don't use an installer.
"Installers are simple easier to support than other mechanisms."
This is totally false. The easiest thing to support is a runnable application file. Users deal with these things every day, if they want to "install" one somewhere else, like on their local hard drive, they can drag and drop it there, the same way they "install" every other file they use on a computer.
"Problems arise on MacOS X when some modules are just plain hard to get into the right place."
They do not. If I want the shareware in my Applications folder I drag it there, if I want it in my Documents folder I drag it there, if I want ... Ohhh, you mean it's hard for *the programmer* to figure out where to put the files.
You're right, but someone has to figure out where the files go and what installers do is move the work from the programmer to the user. That's why users have so many problems with installers; they don't know where all these files go. Programmers are in a much better position to know where all the files go than users are, and the programmer only has to figure it out once. With an installer, every user has to figure it out every time they install.
"Although programmers should try to avoid writing software that requires the above, sometimes they can't."
They most certainly can. Microsoft Office is one of the most complicated Mac OS applications going, and installing it consists of inserting the Office CD and dragging whatever applications in the CD window you want to wherever you want to run them. Yes, those applications want to install all kinds of executables, extensions, fonts, sample files, etc., etc., but the application knows what files it needs. It knows where they go, where to get them, and copies what it needs where it needs them. It doesn't ask the user to do it.
Now, no doubt this is harder for Microsoft to do than to have the user run an installer that asks her or him to figure all this stuff out, but it's much easier for the user.
I apologise if this reply sounds confrontational, but when I read "Delivering an installer is a really great idea ... they make users really happy" I was astonished. Not only is this not true in any universe I've ever inhabited, I cannot comprehend how anyone could have this opinion.
Installers are a hold-over from the days when only computer programmers used computers. The fact that programmers still have to go through such contortions to get people to use their programs should be a clue to everyone that something is wrong with the entire concept.