I have an application that has to support modifying some registry data depending on the kind of 'installation' that is desired. At present, I have no problems hard-coding to either get elevation and do the changes to the entire local machine, but it is far from nice as ideally, I would also like to support per-user installations. I could hardcode that, but then I lose the local-machine stuff. To be precise, the changes in question involve file association changes, COM stuff etc.
How can I properly support both usage scenarios? Currently I use a set of ON/OFF checkboxes for the variety of associations.
Should I change this meaning on, for example, a MachineInstall file existing in my apps directory, and if not assume User install?
Is it an expected/valid/whatever usecase to say that someone might want to do some things for the entire machine, and some things only for the user? (E.g. mixing of the two.)
Or should I change the entire UI, move away from checkboxes and move to some sort of combobox going 'None/User/Local'? Then again, I think this might have some sort of breakage once you involve multiple users and combinations.
To give an indication, I personally expect the application in question to have its uses for everyone on a computer and as such lean towards the Local-Machine as a 'default', if that makes any sort of difference.
I am likely overthinking the matters quite a bit, so any and all input is very much appreciated. :)
P.S.
Now, someone is probably going to say 'do not do all that stuff from your app, do it from the installer instead'. And they probably have a point, but the point is to allow easy changing of these settings from within the application. To top it off, I am not using .MSI install packages because they make working with 32/64-bit specific executables a disaster requiring merge modules, spawning other MSI's depending on the situation, and so forth (I forgot the details last time I dug into it and forgot about the matter). I don't have that knowledge, nor the time to learn all the intricacies of MSI installations, so it is out for as far I am concerned. To boot, my application is perfectly capable of functioning without any of those registry entries being present, and that is by design. In a way, one might compare it to be like Process Explorer from Sysinternals, which does not require an installer, but can be unzipped and take over the task manager etc without a problem if a user wants, or simply run stand-alone.
Related
My application currently writes files to its installation directory which means Program Files isn't a valid option (I know this isn't ideal). But I would also prefer my installer (Inno) not to require admin rights i.e. no UAC; I think Google Chrome does this.
Which common location would make sense to default to with both these restrictions in mind?
If you really want to make a per-user installer that does not require admin permissions, the correct settings to use are:
[Setup]
PrivilegesRequired=lowest
DefaultDirName={userpf}\YourAppName
Note that (addressing Glytzhkof's concerns) this is a local folder, not a roaming folder. If you want settings to roam then you will still need your application to keep them in (your language's equivalent of) the {userappdata}\YourAppName folder. Regardless, the user will have to separately install the software on each machine that they intend to use it on (but this is typically the best option anyway).
Some of the downsides of making a per-user application are:
You cannot use admin permissions when installing. In particular this means that you cannot install many other components (runtimes, libraries, etc) that you might have wanted to use in your application. You also can't use features like regserver and restartreplace. (This doesn't necessarily mean that you cannot still use these components, just that it's a larger hassle if the user does not already have them installed.)
If a single machine has multiple users (common for families and in some workplaces) then they will have duplicate independent copies of your application, which have to be individually upgraded by each user. This particularly annoys IT departments as they prefer doing central upgrades, and if your app is large it may waste disk space.
If the reason you don't want to make a normal {pf} based application is simply that you want to be lazy and store settings files in the program's folder, then it's probably better overall to rethink this decision. It's not hard to do it "right".
There are basically 3 types of files: 1: user data, 2: application settings, and 3: binaries. Plus a few exceptions. I assume Harry is suggesting to write to a user's application data folder with configuration and settings files, and not the whole application. Don't ever put binaries or data here, but do save settings files here.
The whole concept of "roaming files" is a bad idea in my opinion. It clogs your userprofile and increases logon time on each computer and causes all kinds of synchronization issues when people leave multiple machines logged on simultaneously for weeks at a time. The whole roaming concept works only in theory in my opinion - but it depends on user discipline and application quality in its data management. Rarely edited and mergeable files can work, if the application is good. I have seen it work well for spell checker custom dictionaries and similar. The real solution is client/server applications with back-end databases for the purpose of persisting settings. Everything else will eventually fail - if it's a light weight app that might not matter.
User data should be saved to the "My Documents" location only. and only a few configuration settings should roam. If a network is set up to allow "My Documents" to roam, the system administrator should be shot immediately :-). It must be a server share accessible regardless of the computer the user is logged on to.
I've flown off the handle here and answered too many questions you didn't ask. Just hate seeing people head for problems they might not know about. If you have a super small application that is basically "portable" as we call it in deployment. That means an application where you can run off a single folder on a USB stick, then save everything in User data, and keep the application small and lightweight with a single settings file and a binary. No UAC or admin rights should be needed.
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.
For some time I've noticed how much the File Open and File save dialogs vary between Windows itself and Applications. In Delphi for example (which I use) you can use the built-in dialogs (which have a folder tree) and direct calls to the Windows API which produce variants of the Windows version, with or without large buttons for 'Desktop', 'My Computer' etc (At least on XP).
As an application developer I'm interested in providing the User with a clean, simple way of loading and saving files. Typically, this requires that I propose a preferred folder where my Application data files are stored but that I allow the User to access other folders - often the desktop and other local drives, and sometimes the network - without difficulty if required.
With the introduction of Vista, we seem to be favouring a 'bits missing' folder navigation tree for Windows dialogs and now, Windows 7 has another 'line-less tree' for navigation. I suspect that if one conforms to Microsofts assumptions and stores everything in ~/documents it's not a big problem. However, if one has to start at the root of a drives tree and there are many directories then it's a right pain - there is no horizontal scrolling so directory names get truncated.
My question is - what do other Application developers use? I wonder whether I should be following this Windows lead or simply sticking to a simple cut-down version of File dialogs over which I full control but risk falling into the past....?
Thanks
Brian
Always use the OS defaults - it'll be what your users are used to, and what they expect. Whatever you do, don't astonish the user. Whatever you do, please don't write your own file-open/file-save dialog.
FWIW, I'm not a great fan of Vista's file-open dialog (why do I have to work so hard to navigate my folders?), but I'd rather that than have to get to grips with something new. The less things your users have to learn, the easier your product is to use.
Since I am currently only coding for customers with Windows XP (in a corporate environment that isn't upgrading just yet) I use the standard dialog boxes.
When we do upgrade, I will most likely continue to use the standard old fashioned dialog boxes, until our customers are ready for a change.
In all honesty, I involve at least a few users in the development process, and I won't start new features unless I can bring one in to sit in front of my development PC to see how it works, and they sign off on it.
For those apps that we write for our web site, we tend to be conservative as well... Focus on clean, understandable design, and introduce fancy new features only when there is a compelling reason, and even then, we tend to involve focus groups.
So all that was a long way of saying "Ask your customers". Give them what they want.
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
I think one of the main causes of winrot are the sheer number of services that run at startup (and don't shut down) that phone home every x seconds to see if there is a new version of some piece of software.
Me personally, I disable every single one of them because they seem utterly useless to me. Most of the software packages that use these things, have an option to check for updates whenever you launch the program itself too. This looks way more efficient to me.
I was asking myself what the reason is for companies like Adobe and Apple to create such services that bog clients' computers down and at the same time increase the burden on their own update servers for what looks to me as very little return value for neither of them.
My client requests such a service, but I don't see any reason for it. I want to make sure I'm not missing a piece of the puzzle so I can come back with an educated opinion on why this is should or shouldn't be a desired functionality.
It's usually a desire by management to get brand recognition. It goes something like this:
Oh no. If our program just does its job, the user will never see that it's there, and they'll never find out who we are, and what a great company we are.
We need an icon in the tray; we need a shortcut on the desktop, and in the quick launch toolbar, and at the top level of the Start menu. If we could add a control panel applet, and an item on the right-click menu in Windows Explorer, and an icon in Internet Explorer, that'd be fantastic.
Of course, since our program's so important, the user's going to be using it a lot. Let's add a "speed boost" program that runs at startup, that makes sure that all of our binaries and dependencies are pre-loaded in the cache.
Oh, and we'll need an automated update program, to make sure that all of these components are as wham-bam-great as we can make them.
And can you put a splash screen on that as well?
Can you tell I'm bitter?
Roger's spot on.
Plus, once an application has developed to the point where it already has all the features you could expect it to cover for its intended purpose, the vendor is stuck. They need to keep banging out exciting new versions, so scope bloat creeps in. Instead of doing one thing well and getting out of the way, we must do everything related to it. We must always be in the user's face; they must never be allowed to use software that isn't ours; they must always be interacting with our brand. And of course we must take care to always start an updater task in the background, because we added a completely unnecessary internet-facing browser plugin/toolbar/ActiveX thing that will surely turn out to have security holes.
Acquisitive software is a huge problem that is steadily degrading the user experience on Windows. And it's an arms race: Microsoft hide old application surface interfaces (deprecating the classic start menu, removing quick launch, hiding system tray icons, auto-removing inactive Desktop icons) as they become so full of acquisitive-software junk that they're basically unusable, whilst introducing new ones that "will be better". But how long until applications start "helpfully" adding themselves to the Start menu's MRU list (because you're definitely going to want to use our great software a lot!) and pinning themselves to the Windows 7 dock?
Linux is doing better here because the distros own access to the user and aren't going to put up with any of this crap. Not something Microsoft can get away with though unfortunately.
Bonus Did You Know Fun Fact: Once upon a time, Nero was a nice, elegant CD-burning tool.