Why do program have installers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Why do some programs have installers and all they do is create a directory
and extract the files into that
directory ?

Why cant they just offer the program as a .zip file ?
 
Why do some programs have installers and all they do is create a directory
and extract the files into that
directory ?

Why cant they just offer the program as a .zip file ?
Click to expand...
Because they sometimes create registry keys and program
groups/shortcuts etc and it makes uninstalling them far easier.
 
Some programs may also need to install DLL and OCX files, which will be
copied to the system directory, rather than a Program Files subdirectory.

Also, some users might not have a zip dearchiver; so an exe installer
will work better for them.
 
Because they sometimes create registry keys and program
groups/shortcuts etc and it makes uninstalling them far easier.
Click to expand...

Many programs create the registry keys they need when they are run, even
if they are distributed as install executables.

Uninstall routines rarely clean everything anyway.

I've seen some programs that have some form of uninstall from their pull
down menus or settings dialog. Usually it is just to register file
types.

Rather than have to learn this artificial concept of install/uninstall,
people could have learned how things work. Why complicate things?
 
Some programs may also need to install DLL and OCX files, which will be
copied to the system directory, rather than a Program Files subdirectory.
Click to expand...

Use Filemon by Systernals. You will see that 9 out of 10 programs check
the current program's directory for the required DLL and OCX files
before checking the system directories. This means you can move those
files from the system directory to the program directory and the program
will run just fine.
 
Some programs may also need to install DLL and OCX files, which will be
copied to the system directory, rather than a Program Files subdirectory.
Click to expand...

_________________________________________________________

Why is it necessary to install dll and ocx files in the system
directory? Wouldn't they work in the program's own directory?
 
I guess it easier just to click on .exe file and then next -->
I agree --> next --> finish, rather that making new folder
and extracting files in it. Making shortcut is the hardest job
of all ... :)
Click to expand...

Why is creating a shortcut hard?
 
BOOGIEMAN said:
I guess it easier just to click on .exe file and then next -->
I agree --> next --> finish, rather that making new folder
and extracting files in it. Making shortcut is the hardest job
of all ... :)
Click to expand...

yeah...some people just can't figure out how to right-click on the exe file
and select "send to desktop"
 
Why do some programs have installers and all they do is create a directory
and extract the files into that
directory ?

Why cant they just offer the program as a .zip file ?
Click to expand...

I guess it easier just to click on .exe file and then next -->
I agree --> next --> finish, rather that making new folder
and extracting files in it. Making shortcut is the hardest job
of all ... :)
 
Hi,

Why do some programs have installers and all they do is create a directory
and extract the files into that
directory ?

Why cant they just offer the program as a .zip file ?
Click to expand...

Of course that is easy for the developer but not for the user.
You could of course create registry keys from the program itself but a good
installer lets the user choose an install directory, adds itself to the
start menu and or desktop (if that's what the user wants), adds and
reference counts DLL's and make sure it doesn't install older DLL's over
newer ones, creates a desktop link, adds entries to the path keys in the
registry so the program is found from the run menu, might register file
extensions so the program automatically starts when clicked upon a file..

And most importantly registers something in the add/remove software applet
so users can deinstall the program (yes you can also add that to the start
menu and many programs do that but personally I fail to see the logic to
have a deinstaller next to the icon that starts the program in the autostart
menu.).

Of course it can all be done by hand by the user.

Writing an installer is not an easy task. Let the user do the same thing
would probably lead to having to reinstall the system after a few
installations/deinstallations.


Regards, Ron AF Greve.
 
Why do some programs have installers and all they do is create a directory
and extract the files into that
directory ?

Why cant they just offer the program as a .zip file ?
Click to expand...



I think because the developer is lazy and is just speaking to the general
audience who don't even know how to create a shortcut.

Personally my favorite type of program is one that is only archived and does
NOT write to the registry but rather to a ini file in it's own directory.
Then if I reinstall the OS, it works just like it did before, and uninstall
is a snap.

But like .5% of aps out there do that.

I often not try software because it has an installer only.

Karen
http://scootgirl.com/
 
I have... maybe I'm in denial. That's why I hang around here: to feel
less alienated.
Click to expand...

I always package my programs so that I can guarantee they will work as intended.
 
ceg said:
yeah...some people just can't figure out how to right-click on the
exe file and select "send to desktop"
Click to expand...

with the sad thing being: they are lost at the moment you say right click...

Actual call (Translated from dutch by the way)
Cu Custromer
MK Me


Cu: It does notheing
MK: Did you RIGHT click?
Cu: Yes!
MK: What did you exactly do?
Cu: I cliked the orgram and now it is selected
MK: Whith what button dit you click
Cu: the one I use normaly. Why?
MK: Because you have to click the button on the RIGHT side of the mous
Cu: Does that matter?
MK: ... <mute> !@#$ </Mute> Actualy: Yes, but my mistake

MightyKitten
 
MightyKitten said:
ceg said:
BOOGIEMAN said:
with the sad thing being: they are lost at the moment you say right click...

Actual call (Translated from dutch by the way)
Cu Custromer
MK Me


Cu: It does notheing
MK: Did you RIGHT click?
Cu: Yes!
MK: What did you exactly do?
Cu: I cliked the orgram and now it is selected
MK: Whith what button dit you click
Cu: the one I use normaly. Why?
MK: Because you have to click the button on the RIGHT side of the mous
Cu: Does that matter?
MK: ... <mute> !@#$ </Mute> Actualy: Yes, but my mistake

MightyKitten
Click to expand...
Just a thought...
Why do people assume that everyone uses a mouse right
handed?
Maybe this is why installers are a good thing...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
_________________________________________________________

Why is it necessary to install dll and ocx files in the system
directory? Wouldn't they work in the program's own directory?
Click to expand...

Unfortuneately it is not necessary to install them there but thanks to the
acceptance of sloppy coding by Microsoft & other companies over the years....
this is what we have now and most people accept it. I & many others don't. We
know better but convincing the rest of the world to go this route is an uphill
battle :(

From a programming point of view, there is absolutely NO need to install
anything outside the programs own directory. If it can't run without improperly
hooking into the OS, then the programmer needs to go back to the beginning &
learn proper coding (assembly :) not the quick & dirty bloatware coding that is
all too prevalent today.
C, C++, Visual C, Visual Basic, etc... are all nice gui tools & can build good
programs but they all have a major flaw in that they want to hook into the
existing OS improperly. With these new tools, trying to build a standalone app
that installs into its own directory with no external links is next to near
impossible.

Majority of my code & other programs that I enjoy installing are extracted into
their own directory & run just fine from where they reside. They are also OS
independent & will survive countless OS installs without worrying about the
registry entries. Software runs faster & is more stable with this method too.
Too bad all software wasn't this easy :)

I am slowly seeing some new programmers trying this approach, time proven &
original method, of software design but sadly; it is a dying programming art.

ozzy
 
scootgirl.com schreef:
Personally my favorite type of program is one that is only archived
and does NOT write to the registry but rather to a ini file in it's
own directory.
Click to expand...

You can't do this on a multi-user OS like NT or unix when that's properly
installed & used (a user shouldn't have write access in the program's
folder). The program should put it's config file(s) in %APPDATA%...
 
Back
Top