What is the best tool to create an installer for asp.net application? My objectives are to:
Install an asp.net application on iisexpress
Install sqlexpress (as a prerequisite)
Configure IIS for my application
Restore data on sqlserver
Either will do the trick, so it comes down to what your needs are, and how they stack up against each other
InstallShield
Will guide you through the process a lot more than WiX, and so will get you off the ground quicker
Has built in functionality for talking to IIS, SQL and a bunch of other sources
Has built in functionality for installing a number of prerequisites, such as .NET. I believe installing sqlexpress as a prereq is supported.
Can target InstallScript, MSI, or a mix of the two
WiX
Is free & open source.
Is much more flexible in how you organise your code. It uses XML like InstallShield, but unlike InstallShield you have pretty much complete control over how the code is organised, and it's generally much easier to compare and merge the code in your source control system.
Is very extensible - you can hook into the compiler mechanism through WixExtensions
Has functionality for talking to IIS and SQL via custom actions and syntax extensions
Comes with Burn, a flexible and powerful bootstrapper, install chainer, and install host. This can handle your prerequisite installation for you, and even host your UI.
Conclusion
Personally, I recommend learning WiX - the code is easier to manage for large projects over time, and you are less likely to reach that brick wall where stuff just can't be done because of how extensible it is.
However, it will take you longer to get off the ground because you have to actually understand what's going on to a greater degree than with InstallShield.
I am currently migrating projects from various versions of InstallShield to Wix. You need to put more effort into Wix, but it is worth it in the long run. The problems I have found with InstallShield is it is relative expensive to license, and once you start using it you become hooked into paying out more money to upgrade it or get the latest version, because the person who used it last is no longer around, license keys have gone astray, there are not enough license keys anyway, a license key that used to work no longer does for some strange reason...etc, etc. Without a up-to-date and functioning license key InstallShield will not work.
Because an installation project is not something we use all the time, but when we do use it we need it to work, I have decided to junk InstallShield for something more reliable (in terms of licensing).
Related
I am supporting a vb6 application. I am trying to transfer the executable and DLL to a new server and I am prompted with component not registered errors. I have got round this by manually registering the components on the new server.
I have found two files with file extensions of 000 and 001 that have registry commands in them (registering components) Can anyone explain how these files are generated? I have experience creating installation files in vb.net to a certain extent.
Repackaging and redeployment is not a developer issue and really doesn't belong here. Such issues are more appropriate for someplace like ServerFault.
It is one thing to have lost all of the source code of an application, but even worse in some ways to have lost the deployment package. Sadly some shops fail to archive either of these.
However it was also common enough for shops to see RAD tools like VB6, Delphi, PowerBuilder, etc. as things to shove off on the worst of the worst of their developers. These poor slobs seldom got official Microsoft training that should have emphasized the importance of creating proper installers. For that matter even those courses tended to marginalize the topic. It doesn't help that the Web is full of "Mort teaching Mort" half-baked development even today, or that the pioneers who wrote many of the early serious VB programming books tended to be loose cannons and contrarians who didn't really believe deployment was a serious concern.
The end result is that lots of shops have machines with VB6 programs shoehorned onto them in a half-baked way. Often when deadlines loomed they let Old Mort install VB6 right onto the production server and let him hack away right there! So it's no wonder people get into trouble once a server needs to be replaced or its OS updated.
Those REG files with .000, .001, etc. extensions aren't anything normal that I'm aware of. For all I know they've fallen out of REGMON runs or some 3rd party packaging tool. Manual registry exports created using REGEDIT would normally have .REG extensions.
If you are actually "supporting" this application it implies that you have the source code, VB6 compiler, developer install packages for any 3rd party controls, and a writeup describing any special packaging and installation requirements (target machine DCOM/COM+ configuration, system requirements such as IIS or MSMQ or 3rd party DBMS Providers and Drivers, special folder requirements, software firewall rules, etc.).
From those it ought to be possible to compile a clean new copy of the EXE, DLLs, etc. and create a clean deployment package - even if some configuration still needs to be done manually before and after running the installer.
Without those you are a computer janitor and your question belongs over at ServerFault. It is no fun, I know. I've had to take part in such janitorial services myself all too often.
I've used WiX, InstallShield, and other installation generators and have experienced nothing but headaches.
Are there any installation libraries out there that can be linked in to an actual C++/C# program and run as a setup executable and doesn't need to be written in a custom declarative-installation-language ala WiX/InstallShield?
Edit:
The problem is putting complex decision logic in WiX is tedious. Debugging custom actions is a nightmare and debugging managed CAs is even worse. Our CAs need to execute on remote machines due to AD requirements which adds even more hell to the debugging process. When I sit back and ask "What is WiX giving me" the answer is "very little". I'm spending most of my time fighting the WiX system than improving/maintaining. If a library exists that gave transactional file/registry entry support and focused on installer-related functionality, that's what I want.
You're not saying the exact problems you encountered, but you seem unhappy with the usability of the tools you tried. I recommend trying other setup authoring tools to see which one fits your needs best. You can find a list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_installation_software
As a rule of thumb, free tools are hard to use but get the job done and commercial tools are easy to use but they are not free.
Regarding your actual question, no there aren't any installer libraries you can use in your application. You will find only installation engines. You basically choose between Windows Installer (MSI packages and Active Directory support) and proprietary engines which may or may not work the way you want.
When you can live with support for your installer to Windows Vista+ then you should have a look at the Transaction support of Windows for the registry and NTFS. A very good overview can be found at CodeProject.
Yes MSI is very complex but I do think many of your headaches originate from the fact that you are trying to do too much during install.
There is a time to do stuff after installing your software. This time is called first startup where you can do complex things like AD deployment with a user interface that is under your full control which is much easier to debug. But I doubt that you will get rollback support done for failed AD changes.
A rule of the thumb is that you should not change the AD schema to make your software happy since many customers do forbid schema changes. Manager should read this as: You will loose customers due to AD deployment issues. IT admins can have a big influence what software is bought and which not.
If you had problems with MSI it is likely that you hit a wall with not working updates due to unintended MSI component violations. I have done a small writeup about the issues I have encountered so far. There are also many issues lurking with combined x32/x64 installations.
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 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm comparing these two tools. The impression I have is:
Inno Setup does not produce an MSI, but can do everything WIX can do
WIX does produce an MSI, but has a steep learning curve
Do you agree with this characterization? What other differences are there? How does WIX# shake-up this story? Since Inno Setup does not use the windows installer, does it have difficulty with uninstalls? Can Inno Setup, upon command, downgrade an installation to an earlier version - or can it only install / upgrade applications?
It's been a long time since I worked with MSI, when I switched to InnoSetup I never looked back.
I did not want my installation to be a headache. I needed something where I could "Set it and forget it"
By default InnoSetup produces an uninstall.
It can handle simple or complex install and uninstall needs.
With InnoSetup You have a few different ways you can upgrade applications.
Initially we did use the overwrite method which just overwrote the existing installation.
Recently we switched an automatic uninstall of the previous version when new version was installed.
With InnoSetup downgrades are typically uninstall and reinstall the older version.
You are right about the MSI not MSI part and you are right that learning curve of MSI is steeper. But both have features others don't. Let me quote Glytzhkof on the advantages of MSI.
Glytzhkof says hi ;-). Please do read both my original answers on serverfault.com for a summary of common problems with MSI resulting from its steep learning curve. This answer here focuses on the theoretical benefits, the other answer (in the same thread) summarizes common MSI problems off the top of my head. Additions there are most welcome - I just added the most common issues.
Transparency (Open installer format)- An MSI can be reviewed and
inspected. This is a huge issue for
large corporations. With the exception
of compiled custom actions an MSI file
is a "white box". If the setup changes
something crazy such as the
system-wide network settings, you can
actually see it.
Customizability - An MSI can be customized via transforms to fit an
organization's needs and standards
whilst still allowing interoperability
with the vendor's installer updates.
You don't change the installer itself,
you create your customization in a
separate, organization-specific file
called the transform. You are free to
disable custom actions and in general
anything in the installer, and "black
box" custom actions can be approved by
contacting the vendor for explanation.
These transform files are also
sometimes used to localize an MSI file
to different languages. Several
transforms can be applied to a single
MSI.
Standardization - MSI does not lend itself to "allowing anything". It
provides a comprehensive framework for
the installer, which crucially also
includes the uninstall - all in
standard format. The installer GUI is
also standardized with built-in
features to support silent
installation and uninstallation which
can be triggered remotely.
Management and reporting - Windows Installer maintains a
comprehensive database of all items a
product has installed. You can
reliably determine if a product is
installed, what features were
installed, and what file versions were
installed. In addition you can get a
list of any patches that have been
applied to the base product, if any.
Security - following from the comprehensive installation database it
is possible to detect security
vulnerabilities in the installed
products. MSI also encompasses
"elevated rights" principles which allows a restricted user to trigger
the install of a product that requires
admin privileges to install. This is
part of the "advertisement feature"
which allows an administrator to make
installers available to users without
actually installing them on all
workstations. There is no need to mess
with temporary rights to get things
working.
Validation - MSI files can be checked with validation rules to
ensure it is in compliance with a
number of internal consistency rules
(referred to as ICE). Corporations can
create their own ICE checks to enforce
special corporate rules and
requirements. This helps greatly with
QA.
Resiliency - The Admin install feature of Windows installer
provides a standard way to extract the
source files from an MSI. These source
files can then be put on a share and
be available to all workstations for
installation. This ensures repair,
uninstall and modify operations
complete without requesting the
installation media on CD or similar.
This is particularly important for
patching and update operations which
may require access to the old versions
source files in special circumstances.
Rollback - The installation of an MSI file will normally trigger the
creation of a restore point.
Furthermore all files and registry
items replaced or overwritten during
the installation will be saved and
restored if the install fails to
complete. This ensure that the
workstation is left in a stable state
even if the install should fail. As
you might expect poorly designed MSI
files can violate the built-in
features of Windows here, see my other
post in this thread for more details.
Patching & Updates - though highly complex patching in Windows
installer is fully managed and
registered on the system so that a
systems security state can be
determined by checking what has been
installed. Updates are standardized to
a few basic variants, and this allows
updates to be performed with a higher
degree of certainty. Deployment
systems will be able to report what
updates failed and why.
Logging - Windows Installer provides a standardized logging
feature which is greatly superior to
previous incarnations, though almost
excessively verbose. Log files can be
deciphered using log analyzers, and
custom log levels can be used to
eliminate generating too large log
files with unnecessary information.
For debugging purposes verbose logging
is extremely useful. See Rob Mensching's blog for a good manual way to read an MSI log file.
I'm late to responding to this thread. I have used Inno Setup for my company's product for years. It does most things very well but the biggest hurdle for me is custom actions. In Inno Setup, one must use a variant of the Pascal language. With the WiX Toolset, I can and do use C# for my custom actions which is much more comfortable for me. Admittedly, that is a personal preference but it is the primary reason why I switched from an otherwise excellent Inno Setup platform to an also excellent WiX platform. That, and the fact that there were so many benefits from using MSIs which have already been mentioned in another response.
Frankly, for me, the learning curve of Pascal was greater than that of WiX using the book, WiX 3.6: A Developer's Guide to Windows Installer XML.
I realize this answer comes VERY late. But I ran into this post and figured one answer to the question could simply be: "Why not have both?" (eat cake and have it too) and also "Why expend the effort on implementing both when I could just expend the effort for one and get the second one for practically free?"
Toward that end, I present an Inno Setup script w/ MSI support:
https://github.com/cubiclesoft/php-app-server/blob/master/installers/win-innosetup/yourapp.iss
There are some custom Pascal functions in use here that kick in when passed /MSI={GUID} on the command-line that trigger useful changes to the script (e.g. no Uninstall icon in Start or Add/Remove Programs).
And I present a WiX script w/ support for the above Inno Setup script:
https://github.com/cubiclesoft/php-app-server/blob/master/installers/win-wix/yourapp.wxs
The WiX script wraps the Inno Setup-based installer EXE (the only payload) in a way that triggers the Inno Setup script to do things in a more MSI-compatible way and cranks out the MSI. It isn't perfect, but it saves a ton of time by letting you do things the Inno Setup way and then get most of the benefits of MSI (e.g. GPO/SCCM/DSC silent deployment) without pulling hair. This works best if mostly just deploying files to the system and a handful of registry entries (i.e. a basic app). I wouldn't recommend this approach for a larger application where there are lots and lots of components, but if you try it and it works, let me know! Having a MSI version that launches the Inno Setup EXE at least gives sysadmins doing deployments something reasonable to chew on.
Note that the WiX script depends on the custom Pascal functions on the Inno Setup side of things. You can't just take any ol' Inno Setup installer and wrap it with the WiX script and expect it to work (it probably won't). But maybe a future version of Inno Setup will natively support something similar.
We integrated both into our build system.
But we decided to promote innosetup exe files for non business customers and msi only on demand for one simple reason.
You can't ship a multi-localized version of setup program with MSI. You would need one installer for every language and this sucks huge. There might be some heavy hacking allowing you to rewrite the whole GUI but this is not well documented and no open source to steal and a lot of work.
The GUI is infact tbe worst part on WiX which otherwise is technically superior to Innosetup.
With Innosetup it's easy to ship one exe in 5 languages. We already have 6 binaries [Free,Home,Pro - each 32/64bit] so the variant explosion would be just huge and if you market a japanese version with a japanese webpage and the first thing that comes up is an english only installation it is a bad impression.
The MSI for business users who need group policies etc. is english only and thats fine for business users.
Need to create a Installation Package that would need to
a) install a Database,
b) create database and tables,
c) installed already created installable in Visual Studio,
d) create ODBC datasource,
e) copy files.
f) create shortcuts, etc
Can you please suggestion which one to use? To simplify following would be my criteria(Descending Order)
Stable
Fullfill all my needs.
Easy to learn
Can you please suggest?
If you want to use WiX, you need at least a basic understanding of how Windows Installer works. The best reference around is The Definitive Guide to Windows Installer, which runs through the all basics with examples using Visual Studio and Orca.
WiX is very easy to learn once you understand Windows Installer.
A properly written Windows Installer package will be more stable and resilient than anything else you can imagine. It'll take a month or so to get your head around it, and you'll get better and learn more about it over time.
On the other hand, NSIS only takes a day to learn - it's just a simple scripting language.
#wcoenen - I'd agree that you definitely will learn more by reading various blogs of those on the WiX team, but I personally find that particular book gives a really solid foundation which makes it easier to understand the concepts they're talking about.
#Sandeep - You need an MSI package for corporate software, if you have no intention of selling your product to customers who need automated deployment in a locked down environment then NSIS will suit you just fine :)
#romkyns InnoSetup is fairly limited in my opinion, you can do just as much with a batch file and a self extracting EXE - it all comes down to your target market, corporate/enterprise clients demand MSI - home users don't care as long as it works and would happily double click on a SETUP.BAT file :)
I would like to suggest another installer which is InnoSetup combined with ISTools
Innosetup has very good scripting language, and has a wizard to make it easy for you do the installation package and ISTools have the GUI interface for most of Innosetup options,
I was able to Install Mysql, its service and creating tables and other things with it, and it's much easier to learn than others.
It depends on what you are trying to install. If it is a simple application installation, then NSIS is fast and easy to implement (wix has a very bad documentation).
But if your installer does some changes in Windows OS, like, creating restore point, installing kmdf or umdf driver, then WIX is much better than NSIS.
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 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I have been evaluating the wide range of installation and web deployment solutions available for Windows applications. I will just clarify here (without too much detail, these tools have been covered in other questions) my understanding of the options:
NSIS - Free tool that generates setup executables. Small binary. Specialized, sometimes obtuse, scripting language.
Inno Setup - Free tools for setup executables. Various binary compression schemes. Pascal scripting engine.
WIX - Free toolset to generate MSI binaries. XML definitions language.
WIX ClickThrough - Additional tools for packaging, web download and auto update detection (now part of WIX core).
InstallShield - Commercial development environment for installation packaging. Generates MSI binaries. C-like InstallScript language.
Wise - Commercial development environment for installation packaging. Generates MSI binaries.
ClickOnce - Visual Studio supported framework for publishing applications to a webserver, with automatic detection of updates. No support for custom installation requirements (INI files, registry etc ...). Packages setup as an MSI binary.
Install Aware - Commercial development environment for installation. Generates MSI binaries. Automatic Update framework (Web Update).
If I have missed any, please let me know.
And found some useful discussions of these technologies on StackOverflow:
Best Simple Install System
Best choice for Windows installers
Alternatives to ClickOnce
I have worked with a few of these solutions, as well as a handful of proprietary internal installation solutions. They are mostly concerned with packing installations and providing a framework for developers to access the run time environment. With the growing requirement for web deployment and automatic software updates, I expected to find more of a consensus among developers on a framework for web delivery of software and subsequent updates, I haven't really found that consensus. There are certainly solutions available (ClickOnce, ClickThrough, InstallShield Update Service), but they each have considerable limitations (please correct me if I mis-represent any of these). I would be interested in a framework that provided some of the following:
Third party hosting/management of updates.
Access to client environment (INI files, registry, etc..).
User registration/activation.
Feedback/Error reporting
This is leaving me with the strong impression that the best way to approach the web deployment problem is through a custom built proprietary solution (possibly leveraging existing installer packaging). I have seen this sort of solution work well for a number of successful applications:
FileZilla - HTTP request to update.filezilla-project.org to check for updates, downloads an NSIS binary (I think) and then shuts down to run the install.
Automatic updates for Massively Multiplayer games are entirely necessary and universally implemented using proprietary systems.
So, at last, to my questions:
Have I missed a web deployment framework that will provide the functionality I need?
Are my requirements too specific to reasonably expect a third party framework to deliver?
Should I buy or build?
I would urge caution on Installaware. We recently had a shocking experience with their customer support.
We followed one of their sample projects to the letter which failed miserably. Raised a support ticket with customer support and were told it was going to cost us $199 for them to look at fixing their own code.
We then raised the same issue in the user forums and were promptly banned because this constituted cross posting and was not allowed. Even though this is not mentioned in their terms and conditions. In fact, they banned our IP so no one in our company can post to the forums.
A very poor experience and one we wont repeat. We are now looking to replace Installaware as soon as possible.
Purchase Installaware at your own peril.
Absolutely agree with poster who said to stay away from InstallAware. They've had a long history of really absurd ethics problems, and they treat their own customers horribly. They can be downright abusive and insulting.
Beware InstallAware!
I completely agree about InstallAware.
After using WiX, NSIS and InstallAware, I have to humbly admit that they were all overkill for what I really need as a software developer. There are no projects that I've done so far which couldn't be deployed using the Visual Studio deployment project.
Is it limited? Yes.
It is also very simple to learn an use. Moreover, you actually can do really neat things like automatically create patches (.MSP files) by using techniques as described here
I fully understand that you can't do everything inside of a Visual Studio setup project, but it's rather surprising what you can accomplish. It's free, it's easy and, frankly, for general use is a better option than spending endless hours learning WiX's mind-boggling XML (impressive as it is), or InstallAware's verbose scripts...
With VS Setup, it's drag'n'drop & build'n'deploy. Every other solution I've tried had set backs... they can't automatically detect your project output... or need special filters so as not to include unwanted outputs from the build.
My suggestion is thus: If you simply wish to get your project deployed, then learn:
How to build a custom installer class, and
How to author your own pre-requisite packages
These are both reasonably easy skills to master, and satisfy the needs of most developers.
If your specific requirements are core to your business; ie part of your business is to provide a smooth and user-friendly deployment/installation and you feel that none of the available deployment libraries can let you achieve this, then certainly go ahead and build your own.
If your specific requirements would be nice to have but they do not make a significant part of your business; ie the end user will not typically be expecting or needing a smooth installation procedure, or will never need to do that themselves (ie they pass that step onto their IT department), then the need to build your own just for your own specific requirements is likely to be outweighed by the extra effort that would involve.
I think that your impression that you will be needing a custom solution is a sound one; it seems like your requirements are going to be key to the experience of your product, especially if you need really smooth automatic updates and feedback.