Why choose Inno Setup?

[Conan Kudo]

Just to gain some insight for an article, why does Code::Blocks use Inno Setup for its Win32 version instead of NSIS or other installers (especially NSIS)?

[takeshimiya]

Your answer is in this thread: http://forums.codeblocks.org/index.php?topic=994.0

Resuming: There is almost no diference between both, and some quick tests revealed that the Inno Setup version appears to be smaller than the NSIS version.

Anyways, the Inno Setup files are already there and working, so there is no advantage in changing to NSIS, if it provides the same size (or worse), and same features for what we need.

As a side note, I personately hate win32 installers.
I think the way to go on windows would be imposing a standard like MacOS haves: .dmg packages: you simply drag&drop the package to the "programs" folder, and it's automatically installed.

Even more, all programs works as if they were compressed ISO images or something like (the programs are "mounted"), you can indeed even not install the package, just run doing double click from whatever it happens to be, and the programs run.

There is something simmilar on linux also, called Klik, but it's not so well known.


Windows users have the worst time about installing programs, every program is distributed in different ways, there's almost no standard, and the only thing more or less popular are installers using MSI-like interfaces, needing lot's of clicks and next next to get something installed. This is obvious not the way to go.

[Conan Kudo]

You will get your wish in Vista.... Beginning with Vista, M$ is going to impose the use of Windows Installer.... The WiX toolkit still needs an IDE though...

[BigAngryDog]

>Beginning with Vista, M$ is going to impose the use of Windows Installer

How?

You mean Vista users won't be able to install anything which isn't packaged as an msi file? If so, what about all the software out there currently packaged as setup exes?

[thomas]

You don't really think they care, do you

They're doing quite a few other outrageous things with that release, and yet, there are still enough fools willing to kill to get a copy of Vista. Obviously, they don't need to worry.

[BigAngryDog]

Unfortunately, I do care.

Doesn't matter what I think of MS or Vista. It is still the OS most users have.

And I'm wondering whether I need to be packaging my own projects as MSI, and what is the best way to go about.

[BigAngryDog]

>Beginning with Vista, M$ is going to impose the use of Windows Installer

From what I have been reading, I don't believe this to be true.

You have frightened me. Please don't do it again.

[sspecter]

You mean Vista users won't be able to install anything which isn't packaged as an msi file? If so, what about all the software out there currently packaged as setup exes?

In all other windows, compatibility is the number 2 issue they worried (number 1 is GUI). Above even to file/hardware security. I dont think Vista will be different.
I think they will try to push their installer, but probably they will suport older installers.

Personally i will never install Vista. I am already doing a migration from Win 98 to Ubuntu, so i will never need to install this gay SO (you know.... too many collors  :shock:). Their virtual directories are the dumbest thing i ever saw in a SO. Sadly they hadnt learned with mount from Linux And im still worried about their (next step) anti-piracy system. I dont want a SO prohibing me to install blacklisted programs like Nero, or CloneCD.

But i think were going too off topic here  :oops:

[thomas]

What can you say about an operating system that needs a gigabyte of RAM and a 128 MB graphics card only to display the window manager... and then it does not even support OpenGL. :lol:
Dark times ahead...

[sethjackson]

What can you say about an operating system that needs a gigabyte of RAM and a 128 MB graphics card only to display the window manager... and then it does not even support OpenGL. :lol:
Dark times ahead...

:lol: I won't buy Vista unless someone makes me. 

[MortenMacFly]

Beginning with Vista, M$ is going to impose the use of Windows Installer....

I believe that this might be a good idea actually. I think the MSI concept is not too bad. You can do quite anything (if you know how... but that's the same for all installers). I'm hoping for two things:
1.) This might be a chance for a way out of the DLL hell (you know - having millions of MFC DLL's and similar on your HDD). Why? Because I hope that the default settings are that much intelligent that they setup a proper version check and install the DLL's in a common place. At least this might apply to devs not tweaking around with the defaults... (if there are any).
2.) Most installers have the same look-and-feel. So why not having the same engine, too? I have several versions of InstallShield-, WiseInstaller-, InstallAnywhere- and InstallWhatEver engines on my HDD. I hate that! Maybe they introduce one powerful engine and no installer is required to bring additional fancy stuff to be installed, too.

And in the end... doesn't have Linux some kind of a standard like this, too? I'm thinking about RPM packages here.

With regards, Morten.

[takeshimiya]

I'm against MSI-installers and Vista (see #1).

[MortenMacFly]

Well, I didn't say MSI is perfect. But I see it as a way in the right direction. And you say it here too:

[...] every program is distributed in different ways, there's almost no standard, and the only thing more or less popular are installers using MSI-like interfaces, [...]

And that's what might get sorted out - at least as a first step. There is also enough room for competition: As a GUI that someone is not required to understand the deep-inside of MSI scripting and stuff...
With regards, Morten.

[takeshimiya]

Well, I didn't say MSI is perfect. But I see it as a way in the right direction. And you say it here too:

[...] every program is distributed in different ways, there's almost no standard, and the only thing more or less popular are installers using MSI-like interfaces, [...]

And that's what might get sorted out - at least as a first step. There is also enough room for competition: As a GUI that someone is not required to understand the deep-inside of MSI scripting and stuff...
With regards, Morten.

While a standard is better than nothing, if they're imposing a new standard, at least they could do it right.
I don't think the concept "installers" is good.