My "apps and features" (in Settings) has a couple of 'NoUiEntryPoints' "apps". And the start screen - many more.
Is it safe to delete them? I know there is a question about how to remove them. I'm asking if it really is safe to do that without checking first what they are. (How can that even be done?)
Yes, it is safe to remove them. At one point these "apps" were generated whenever you used the Visual Studio Designer which used this approach to display the preview. This has been fixed since, but the "apps" will remain installed in your PC unless you uninstall them manually.
Related
So I ended up downloading both AutoCAD and MAYA for my education, but it turned out that I only needed MAYA for my classes and not AutoCAD. I never used my student license on AutoCAD, so I shouldn't have to worry about the licensing. However, for uninstalling, there are many different Autodesk programs inside my control panel Programs and Features area. I looked up how to uninstall AutoCAD, and it said I needed to remove the extra things first. My question is, how do I know which ones are for MAYA (because I need to keep those) and which ones are for AutoCAD? Thanks in advance!
Go to the start menu. Search for the "Uninstall Tool." Select which programs you want to remove. It will also remove any extra media involved with them.
Search for the Autodesk Folder in your Start Menu.
Click on the Uninstall Tool.
Select the program you want to uninstall and it will alone delete everything related to it with the rest remaining untouched.
Uninstall tool with its tree structure
I'm using InstallShield AdminStudio 2014 (integrated in VS, but I can edit stand-alone too) and I want to close an application if it's open before installing. I have found the Custom Action KillProcess, and that works, however, it's a non-UI immediate kill of the processes no questions asked. I see the built in FilesInUse Dialog that most of us have seen before when running an install warning us to close the listed applications before continuing with a RETRY button once you've closed them. The problem is, I can't seem to find any documentation or posts online, even in the Users Guide and sample installs on how to populate the list; and what other, if any, actions are required after that. I was able to put the dialog in the UI sequence but when I select retry it immediately ends the install, ignore continues. So I know I'm missing some pieces to it. At a minimum how do I populate the list of files. I know some things are not entirely obvious like KillProcess requires you to populate a semi-colon delimited property called ISTermiateProcesses and not a property of the Custom Action.
Any help on this would be greatly appreciated. I've reached out to known IS users and they didn't know how to use this feature either, many searches later, I'm posting here. This is the last step holding up a project ready for QA.
Thanks in advance...
The FilesInUse dialog is a Windows Installer thing, and Windows will populate it with the processes it can discover that are using files that will be replaced. In general you don't need to populate it. Older versions of Windows are not as good at detecting the processes using files that are to be replaced. It's not obvious why you want to kill the process if Windows hasn't found that it impacts your install, unless you have an older OS version.
There's lots of questions about installers but I haven't seen one about whether or not to actually use one in the first place.
What is the logic behind using them in the first place? Can't the user just extract it somewhere? But I guess it depends on the target user.
And on the subject of the actual setup: Can't that be done on the first startup?
It very much depends on your target audience, and what your installer needs to accomplish.
If your audience is technically savvy, and the installer just has to extract some files, and create shortcuts, I probably wouldn't bother.
If you need to modify system variables, register services, etc, definitely create an installer to make life easier for your users - regardless of how technically savvy they are.
You can always offer the option of installer / no installer, and let your users decide what they want. The number of downloads and resulting support requests will tell you whether you should utilize one or not.
And on the subject of the actual setup: Can't that be done on the first startup?
uTorrent used to do this (I'm not sure if it still does... I update automatically) and I found it a little confusing at first, since I'm used to installers. For users that are possibly clueless though, it's perfect.
For more complicated applications that have multiple files installed to several locations, I think it's better to have an installer. For a series of products we produce where I work, we have several 'flavours' of installer for each product: auto-update installers can be smaller as we know the user already has prerequisites. New users, though, get a larger installer.
I can't see any reason not to use an installer. When you use something like Inno Setup, creating the installer is no more difficult than creating a zip file, and you don';t have to explain to the user how to install.
Having an installer will help your users a lot.
The application will be installed at the right place
The user won't have to set links in program files himself, or copy the extracting content you suggest in a directory
Your application will looks more professionnal
Moreover:
The user will know that using the uninstall system of windows will safely remove your application without affecting the system
You need something which can set up the registry and install prerequisites before starting the app, that's why you need an installer :)
Including a well designed installer can also add value over the lifetime of the application by enabling the application to be updated and enabling the application to be uninstalled cleanly. Eventually the user will want to uninstall the application, and the ideal is to leave their computer in the same state as prior to installation.
Personally I hate auto-created desktop shortcut icons, but some folks seem to think that unless your installer clutters up your desktop, it hasn't worked correctly!
Are there definite guidelines for this (for Windows?)
(Having a "Leave clutter on my desktop?" checkbox in the installer is one option, but to my mind, that's just put MORE clutter into the installer...)
From here: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/uxguide/winenv-desktop
If your users are very likely to use your program frequently, provide an option during setup to put a program shortcut on the desktop. Most programs won't be used frequently enough to warrant offering this option.
Present the option unselected by default. Requiring users to select the option is important because once undesired icons are on the desktop, many users are reluctant to remove them. This can lead to unnecessary desktop clutter.
If users select the option, provide only a single program shortcut. If your product consists of multiple programs, provide a shortcut only to the main program.
Put only program shortcuts on the desktop. Don't put the actual program or other types of files.
My take is this: the installer must ask me if I want a desktop icon - to which I can reply yes or no.
Any app that just blindly and without asking installs its icon on my desktop is a bad installation in my opinion.
Ask for permission - if I deem your app important enough to me personally, I might say yes (but most likely I won't). Give your users a choice - don't just assume since it's your app, it's so darn important to everyone that everyone will want to clutter up their desktop with your program icon.
The same goes for the installation directory - unless you have a very good technical reason why you can't install anywhere, allow me to change the program's installation target directory. Not everyone is a big fan of the "c:\program files" folder hierarchy (I'm not, for one - I like to keep my apps in C:\bin for instance).
So in general: any decent installer should ASK the user installing for these things and present sensible defaults - but always give me the option to change the settings to my liking (to my standards).
I don't know of any meaningful guidelines, other than your conscience. As a programmer, I sympathize: I don't want icons on my desktop, either :-) However, having watched non-technical family members struggle with installing software and then trying to run it, I think it's worth noting that
1) There are more non-techies than techies
2) Techies can cope with checkboxes on installers
Based on that, I usually go for having a checkbox on the installer for creating icons, which defaults to on. I don't mind anything other than the "always create icons" approach. (I'm looking at you, Adobe.)
I think that depends on what you see your client doing with the app, the level of the client's expertise with computers and how frequently you see him using it.
If the client is not very well versed with computers he would prefer to have the icon on the desktop where he can access it. If you target market is experienced users you don't need to bother because he can make the icon himself if he wants it.
If the application is for daily frequent use like a web browser the client would want it on his desktop for quick access.
Finally the decision rests on you. If you're being obnoxious you can create 4 icons on the desktop (I've seen apps that do that).
I don't think asking for permission is a bad idea. After all the installation needs to be done only once and it's just one checkbox to tick.
I've no particular love for desktop (or quick launch) shortcut icons either, but I think that you should still give your users the option in the installer to install neither, one or both of these shortcuts.
Depending on how computer literate your users are (if it's possible to determine this) you can default the two options to either enabled or disabled accordingly.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I recently had to struggle with one installation project (which uses most popular product for creating installations: InstallShield) to make it work for product upgrades (migrating from one version to another). In the end it turned out that I needed to use one long package code but was using some other. It wasted my 8 hours (testing and debugging installers is a pain).
Now if I think about it, once you are done all the hard part of coding, all you want to is that correct applications, libraries are copied to target computer and user just runs it. Period. This apparently simple task normally turns out to be a tricky one and "being closed to finish date" makes in even harder.
Don't you think deploying a product is made damn difficult on windows which should have been simpler? (or installer really deserves that much attention and I am just being crazy about it?)
Have you ever used simpler deployment schemes such as "copy the folder to wherever you like and run the exe. When you want to remove it, just delete the folder!"? Was it effective and made things simpler?
Painful as it is you need to wrestle with the windows installer for the benefit of your customers. Otherwise you will need to do a lot more work to
Handle situations where for some reason an error occurs during the installation. What do you do next?
Handle issues like security. What if the installing user does not have rights to particular folders/registry keys?
Correctly cleanup after installation
Patching and patch management
Performing additional tasks -- registering COM objects, creating databases, creating shortcuts, creating an un-installation shotcut and so on
Installing prerequisites
Letting users choose which features to install
Your own custom scripts to solve all these problems eventually become a bigger problem than the installation itself!
I recommend that you check out Wix. It's not exactly child's play but it gets the job done. If you install Votive as a visual studio add in you get intellisense to help you strucutre the tags correctly. With the help file you can create pretty functional flexible installations
I don't think you'll see too many disagreements here, especially regarding MSI. I think one thing to keep in mind is to watch the way many programs are using MSI files these days. Displaying UI dialogs and making complex configuration choices with an MSI is very weak simply due to the way Windows Installer was designed, so I've noticed a lot of programs being split into a bunch of baby MSIs that are installed with the minimal UI by a parent setup program. The SQL Server 2008 setup wizard does this. UPS WorldShip does this. And Paint.NET does this, too--the wizard you see is a Windows Forms app, and it launches msiexec itself (you can see the minimal UI of the Windows Installer pop up on top of the white wizard window), passing any configuration parameters as property arguments to msiexec.
A common scenario where this comes up is where someone is tasked with building an installer for an application that has both server and client counterparts. If the user chooses the server option, then they may or may not want a new database to be installed, which means installing SQL Server. But you can't just install SQL Server while you're in the middle of your own installation because Windows Installer won't let you do that. So a frequent solution is to write an app that displays a wizard that allows the user to configure all of the setup options, and then your app launches the MSI files as needed for SQL Server, your server application, and your client application in the minimal UI mode; basically, eschewing the "features" aspect of Windows Installer entirely and moving it up to the MSI level. 4.5's multiple-package installations seems to be a step further in this direction. This format is also especially useful if you also need to loop in non-MSI installers from third parties as part of your installation process, like installing a printer driver for some bizarre point of sale printer.
I'll also agree that Windows Installer lacks built-in support for common deployment scenarios. It's meant for when setup isn't XCOPY, but they seem to miss the fact that setup usually isn't just "files + shortcuts + registry keys," either. There are no built-in actions for setting up IIS Web sites, registering certificates, creating and updating databases, adding assemblies to the GAC, and so on. I guess they take the opinion that some of this should happen on first run rather than being a transactional part of the install. The freely available tooling and documentation has been awful--flat out awful--for the better part of a decade. Both of these issues are largely addressed by the WiX project and DTF (which lets you finally use managed code custom actions), which is why we're all so grateful to Rob Mensching and others' work on that project.
I've had the same experience. Installation can quickly suck up your time as you go down the rabbit hole of "Oh God, I guess I have to become an expert in this too." I second the idea that's it's best to address it early on in your project and keep it maintained as part of your build process. This way, you can help avoid that scenario of having developed a practically uninstallable product. (Trac was an example of this for a while, requiring to track down specific versions of weird Python libraries.)
(I could go on about how Windows Installer sometimes decides to use my slow, external USB hard drive as a place to decompress its files, how it seems to sit there doing nothing for minutes on end on computers that have had lots of MSI installs on them, and how that progress bar resetting itself a bazillion times during a single install is the most idiotic thing I have ever seen, but I'll save those rants for another day. =)
My two cents; please note that I really just know enough about Windows Installer to do damage, but this is my assessment coming from a small business developer just trying to use it. Good luck!
Well, its a lot easier if you build your installer first, make it part of your build system, and let it grow with your project.
I agree, the windows installer drives me insane. But there are a lot of situations that xcopy just doesn't solve. Sometimes you want to install for multiple users, not just the current user. Sometimes you have to register COM objects. Sometimes you have to make a whole bunch of changes to the system, such as registering services to run at startup, connecting to network servers, etc. Sometimes you have users that can't use a command prompt. And you always want to be able to role the whole thing back when something fails halfway through.
Was the whole MSI database approach the best way of doing it? I'm not sure. Would I rather pound nails into my head than write another line of WiX code? Probably. But you have to admit, it does a good job of doing everything you could ever possibly want. And when it doesn't there is always the CustomAction option.
Really, what I would like to see, is better documentation (really, what is a type 50 action? How about giving it a name?) and a lot more easy-to-usurp templates.
And the WiX users group alias does a good job of answering questions.
You should read RobMen's blog. He does a good job explaining why things are the way they are. He has done a lot of thinking (more than any human should) about the problems of setup.
Have you looked at NSIS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullsoft_Scriptable_Install_System ?
And 1: Yes, 2: No
Personally, I mostly agree with #Conrad and #John Saunders. I wrote about this topic a long time ago on my old blog. I think #jeffamaphone has a point about the Windows Installer complexity (and my over attention to setup, in general ) but I believe the Windows Installer is still the best all round option for installation on Windows.
"Once you have done all the hard part of coding", you haven't done a thing if all your hard work doesn't install. Installers need to be built and tested on every nightly build, every night, almost from day one. You need to test that the installer can be built and run, and you need to verify the installation.
Otherwise, who cares how much hard work you've done coding - nobody will ever see your work if it doesn't install!
Note that this also applies to XCOPY.
Another thing: what is your QA testing if they're not testing what your installer installs? You have to test what the customer will get!
For exactly the reasons you state, we've done internal releases, handled by the dev team by copying the required files, and then done the rest of the setup using scripts and our own utilities.
However, for end users you have to have some kind of hand holding wizard, I've used the MS installer from within VS and found it confusing and clunky. After that experience I've avoided the pain by getting others to do the installation step. Can anyone recommend a good .Net installer?
I use Installshield and if you are not trying to do anything too fancy (I why would you) then it's pretty straighforward - set initial setting, select files, set up shortcuts and create setup.exe.
All future updates I handle inside my code - much more convinient to the user