|
I started using InnoSetup when I needed to deploy a VB package 2 years ago. The MS Package & deployment wizard setup kept rebooting certain machines, and didn't install.
It took me about a week (on and off) to get Inno to work the way I wanted it to. Now, there are tools to help take MS P&D projects and put them into Inno.
Also, there is pascal scripting. I wrote a PocketPC installer for Inno in 2 hours.
PLUS: I don't have to worry about MSI stuff!
The Support Newsgroups are great, and you have access to the developers, and it is free, even for commercial use.
|
|
|
|
|
An installation program gets written once in a while, and in-between those whiles, I pretty much forget all the tricks and workarounds and usage. I only remember that it's always a frustrating experience as I approach the end of a project and the dreaded "need to write the installer" task looms ominously on the "to do" horizon.
Marc
Microsoft MVP, Visual C#
|
|
|
|
|
hi all,
As I generate setup using Install-Shield that comes along with Visual Studio 6.0, There are so many files generated along with setup.exe.i.e All executables,some .cab
files etc.
I want ot know is it possible to generate single setup.exe file for installation,using same Install Shield version.
Waiting for reply...
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest you rewrite your installation script to NSIS and use the NSIS installation system instead. We used InstallShield at our company from 1995 to today and I can tell that InstallShield is a very slow system that gives you a lot of nerves and gray hair! Things are somehow very complicated in InstallShield and you can never really trust it. In other words, you cannot be sure on what's happening while performing the installation.
I might add that the InstallShield version I'm talking about is the Dev Edition 9.0. Very big, very slow, too complicated and requires to much memory.
Nowadays, we use NSIS for all our installations and I can tell tell you that this is the best thing that happend to us.
|
|
|
|
|
I'll second that one. I used InstallShield for a fairly complex installation problem, and found more bugs than I have ever seen in a product. Nerves, gray hair and a hell of a lot of anger at the company that subjected me to it. With any complex product, there will be difficulties and pitfalls, but when 80% of the problems you encounter turning out to be a result of bugs they haven't acknowledged, it starts to piss you off. I ended up using it almost exclusively for installing the files and wrote a configuration utility that launched after it finished that did all the heavy lifting. You just couldn't trust it.
I will never use that product again. It boggles the mind that they have been able to stay in business.
Tom Clement
Apptero, Inc.
P.S. Ask me how I really feel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are using the nastyness that is InstallShield. 
Install is the worst and least-rewarding type of dev work. It's no fun, and if you make any little mistakes it can make the whole thing blow up in spectacular fashion, possibly taking out some system files with the splash damage.
--Mike--
Personal stuff:: Ericahist | Homepage
Shareware stuff:: 1ClickPicGrabber | RightClick-Encrypt
CP stuff:: CP SearchBar v2.0.2 | C++ Forum FAQ
You cannot stop me with paramecium alone!
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Dunn wrote:
We are using the nastyness that is InstallShield
A (happily) decreasing amount of stuff here is done through the VB Package And Deployment Wizard (yes, I put that in) - the most brain dead install software I've ever used.
I managed to persuade the boss (after fighting the wizard for a day, as it kept totally f***ing up the dependencies of this large project) that the Visual Studio .NET installer tools were at least usable, and I'd get the installer for this large project done in something less than a day and the loss of my not inconsiderable amount of hair
Ian Darling
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
But if you do it well, you have great job security. 
Nope, I'm not the installer guy, but I bet the guy who is would NOT be the first one they let go in lean times.
|
|
|
|
|
I am the install guy and I really like InstallShield.
|
|
|
|
|
Wrong --- my last development position was managing the installation for a cross-platform JAVA/GUI App. 'Cause I did it so well (after developing it, I integrated the whole package generation into the regular daily build), they figured they didn't need my services anymore. I was the first lay-off....
My advice for installation developers: don't quit your day job 
|
|
|
|
|
That said, I do not understand why people do not apply more effort to the task of building the distribution units. It is the customer’s first experience with a product. If the installation facility falls to its knees, what is the perception of the rest of the product?
Michael Dunn wrote:
Install is the worst and least-rewarding type of dev work. It's no fun, ...
I can see what you mean. Consider that the installation developer has the opportunity to see which “macro” strategies really do make the product easy to maintain, support, and deploy.
Michael Dunn wrote:
... blow up in spectacular fashion, possibly taking out some system files ...
Take a look at Windows File Protection and the Windows Installer Service. These two facilities on modern Windows systems have made resource contention a thing of the past. Windows File Protection covers the most common case where this can occur. Further, you might be impressed with the transacted state and file versioning rules of Windows Installer to cover the other side of the coin.
Michael Dunn wrote:
using the nastyness that is InstallShield
I feel the same way sometimes. Then again, I feel the same way about my compiler now and again. It always seems to comes back to the usage of the tool.
I like the adage "Use the tool, don't trust the tool." Meaning, know what your tool does and how it does it, before you use it. Trust me; if you had to do it everyday, you would want InstallShield. 
"A good plan is short on vision and long on detail." - Lou Gerstner
|
|
|
|
|
Ed Preston wrote:
That said, I do not understand why people do not apply more effort to the task of building the distribution units. It is the customer’s first experience with a product. If the installation facility falls to its knees, what is the perception of the rest of the product?
I couldn't agree more. I'll go one further and say that the old model of having a "Installer Developer" (that poor sap that has to deal with all of the dependencies at the last minute) is obsolete.
On the project I'm working on, we've architected things such that each "logical package" has a VS.NET solution with all of the assembly projects as well as a merge module project. The enigneer(s) responsible for developing a package are also responsible for managing its deployment.
Creating the installer is just a little bit of GUI sugar on top of a collection of merge modules. Breaking the installer now has the same conotation as breaking the build: the engineer who did it is responsible for fixing it.
This has worked really well for us (Plus since I've often been the poor sap who develops the installer, makes me a much happier camper).
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a link with more details on Windows File Protection.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techenthusiast/features/wfp.asp
|
|
|
|
|
Continuing with the "need multiple choice" theme...
Our primary installers are InstallShield-based. Somewhat old, somewhat creaky scripted ones. I don't write these.
I did, however, just finish an update installer using NSIS. It is a joy to work with, i must say. Like PHP, but for installers. 
---
the work, which will become a new genre unto itself, will be called...
|
|
|
|
|
Shog9 wrote:
It is a joy to work with, i must say. Like PHP, but for installers.
Thank god there is stuff like PHP around
MSI  and NSIS for me.
Clean Programming Under Difficult Circumstances
|
|
|
|
|
I use installshield with a combo of scripts and MSI.
Scripts for those things that I must control on my own.
MSI to install those packages like MSDE 2000.
If I could live w/o MSI, I would.
To me, MSI sounds like a perfect example of how Microsoft
jumping into the arena and providing yet another extra
complication in my life.
|
|
|
|
|
This poll should really have been multiple selection. We have used/still use at least 3 on the list and have written our own installer in the past - for W3.1
Currently using InstallShield, its giving us a real headache with some components.
Doesn't install fonts correctly  , fails to register some services, cannot script the repair option  etc. Doesn't report problems when they occur.
So we aim to build all this into our own software in future. So we will eventaully use none...
Roger Allen - Sonork 100.10016
Roger Wright: Remember to buckle up, please, and encourage your friends to do the same. It's not just about saving your life, but saving the quality of life for those you may leave behind...
|
|
|
|
|
Try to use NSIS. You will not regret it.
|
|
|
|
|
Suggestion and first vote! I can die happy now.
Thanks Chris.
Gavin Greig
"Haw, you're no deid," girned Charon. "Get aff ma boat or ah'll report ye."
Matthew Fitt - The Hoose O Haivers: The Twelve Trauchles O Heracles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incoming missle on target with attached 
Roger Allen - Sonork 100.10016
Roger Wright: Remember to buckle up, please, and encourage your friends to do the same. It's not just about saving your life, but saving the quality of life for those you may leave behind...
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
