next »

[Core Xii]

I'm not a Windows user, but I think installers are better. They help you with dependencies, and the installer manager (or however it's called) keeps track of everything installed. This way the dynamic libraries goes to the system folder, so if another program uses the same library you don't have to install a copy of it. Then the installer manager can take care of full uninstall (even dependencies that no other program depends of them anymore).

Except an installer doesn't do that. What you're describing is a package manager, or somesuch. An installer is what every software developer makes individually. That's also what causes most of the problems, because it's not standardized.

[...] adding a data folder in documents and settings/application data, or doing anything else weird.

I used to hate that, but I've actually discovered that to be the correct way of doing things. It's how the Linux file system works, and Windows started using it too.

[deathtotheweird]

I hate that because it makes it difficult to reformat my system.

I wouldn't have an issue with it, if most programs used one place and stuck with it. Some programs/games use "My Documents" or "Saved Games" some use "Appdata/Roaming" and some use "Appdata/Local".

But installers also dump their bullshit in appdata folders. I was digging around and found a "downloaded installations" folder which was some thing some install program used and automatically saved any and all installations you downloaded. I had over a gig of installations for things I deleted and uninstalled long ago. I bet I could search for my registry right now and still find tons of remnants of installers. All those junk entries and other things are the reason I reformat once a year, because performance of my system majorly degrades as time passes.

Also for some reason, every time I install an XNA game it dumps all the files of the XNA redistribution installer into the root directory of my secondary hard drive. Never removes them, I have to delete these files by hand every single time I install an XNA game.

[Core Xii]

I hate that because it makes it difficult to reformat my system.

No, actually, it makes it easier. You can put your documents on another drive or partition, format your system drive/partition without having to do anything about your personal files. And it makes sense in a multi-user environment, where your save games are stored in your private documents, inaccessible to other users.

You're right though, on Windows XP it's a mess. I'm under the impression it's much improved in Windows 7.

[skyy]

I prefer files. Easier to get rid of and usually no extra poo.

[Paint by Numbers]

No installers. I just don't like going through the process and doing nothing for a few minutes when I could be able to do it with a couple of clicks.

[slembcke]

No, actually, it makes it easier. You can put your documents on another drive or partition, format your system drive/partition without having to do anything about your personal files. And it makes sense in a multi-user environment, where your save games are stored in your private documents, inaccessible to other users.

Pretty much the way it works on OS X too. Applications often don't have write privileges to the directory that they are in, so they either have to save their data in ~/Library/Preferences if they just need a single file or ~/Library/Application Support if they want to make a directory full of stuff. For data that should be shared between users, you can put stuff into /Users/Shared. Unix programs tend to work the same way, but they usually just make a mess with invisible folders and files at the root of your home directory. That way other users of the system can't overwrite your save games.

And you're right, it does make it really easy to move your user stuff between computers or hard drives. Just copy your home directory and all your settings and program data come with you.

[paste]

The installation process is unfortunately what dissuaded me from using XNA other than when it's necessary.  It seems to confuse people a lot more than just the zip.

[dantheman363]

Wow, I never realized that some people hate installers so much. I'll have to make a mental note to give both an installer and a zipped file when I release my game in a couple weeks.

[tametick]

The answer depends on your target demographics*.

As you can see from most of the answers you got, technically inclined users tend to dislike installers.

The vast majority of users (many of which don't know stuff that looks really basic to us, like copying files or the difference between shortcuts and exe files) prefer installers, and the fewer options they present the better.

Don't even ask where to install it to or if to put a desktop shortcut - just install to Program Files and automatically put a desktop & start menu shortcuts. You can put and "advanced" button for people who care but most users won't know or care about it.


* my nieces and nephews (aged 3 to 14, I have 8 of them so it's not as small a sample size as you might think) play a lot of freeware indie games, and I am sure at least the younger ones don't know what a file is.

[Oddball]

Dude if you stick anything on my desktop without asking me first I'm coming round to your house and smacking you right in the chops.
Fake anger is for comic effect only. No harm will actually befall anyone performing such an action.

But seriously that is one of my pet hates. I have one icon on my desktop and I'd like to keep it that way. Adobe is the worst for that, every fricken' update. Oh and no quick launch icons either please.

[tametick]

Dude if you stick anything on my desktop without asking me first I'm coming round to your house and smacking you right in the chops.
Fake anger is for comic effect only. No harm will actually befall anyone performing such an action.

You think that and 9,999 other users 1) don't care 2) don't read the check-boxes text (or any other text for that matter) on the installer 3) wouldn't know how to put a shortcut on the desktop themselves.

Also, it probably only takes a second for you (or any technically inclined user) to remove the desktop icon, but as I said you can also just have an "advanced" toggle-button in the installer that shows a couple of check-boxes like "put desktop/start-up menu shortcuts" and maybe a file selection line.

[Oddball]

So have the check boxes auto selected. The ignorant masses, as you're calling them, will just click next, whereas I can unselect everything. There everyone is happy, and I don't have to track you down to slap you.

[tametick]

So have the check boxes auto selected. The ignorant masses, as you're calling them, will just click next, whereas I can unselect everything. There everyone is happy, and I don't have to track you down to slap you.

I edited my comment before reading your reply, that's probably just as good a solution.

[SHilbert]

Regarding XNA specifically, I'm starting to wonder if it might be worth making a native loader .exe that at least checks for the proper .NET & XNA framework versions. This would let you do zip distributions, but have a friendlier error message if .NET/XNA isn't installed, instead of the one Windows gives you which looks identical to a crash.

(I'm also targeting .NET 2.0 because it's more widely supported, and there aren't horror stories of the installer taking 3 hours on the net like there are for .NET 3.5. So that, in many cases, will at least reduce the number of frameworks the user has to install.)

And as for my preference -- I like zips better. Don't mind installers for large, high production quality games though. One benefit of an installer is it at least works better with the Vista/Win7 start menu search feature than a loose .zip, but I suppose that's minor.

[Alistair Aitcheson]

I've had this conundrum myself too. With XNA you have the problem of making sure the users have all the necessary components installed before they can play it. Lots of people are put off by seeing they have to install a load of extra stuff before they can play your game, so having it in an installer makes it so much simpler. Also, noone ever reads readme files, ironic as it is, so if the game doesn't work they're most likely just to give up on it. So with XNA I would always offer an installer version as the "standard" download because it's the easiest for users to work with.

However, I hate having to install lots of little games to my desktop when I just want to test them out, as it makes it clutter. So I'd always have a zip version available for people who will know what they're doing and won't mind installing some extra files.

In short, have both, and for XNA make the installer the standard one with a zip as an alternative option - I reckon fewer people will be disappointed that way.

The other question is how you let the users tell them apart. On my website at the moment I offer an "installer version" and a ".zip portable release" but I'm worried that that would make no sense to many people who'd want to play them. Anyone know  a better way I could label them?

[SHilbert]

On my website at the moment I offer an "installer version" and a ".zip portable release" but I'm worried that that would make no sense to many people who'd want to play them. Anyone know  a better way I could label them?

I think as long as you have the "installer .exe" prominently displayed as well as a ".zip" option immediately below it you'll be okay. Users who don't know what a zip file is will get the installer because it's more prominent, and users who are sophisticated enough to know what a zip file is won't have to hunt for it.

I noticed that your installer is still wrapped in a zip file though -- I know it's because clickonce doesn't just create a single .exe with embedded, compressed data, but if you want to reduce the effort to install you could look into using a different installer program.

[Alistair Aitcheson]

I think as long as you have the "installer .exe" prominently displayed as well as a ".zip" option immediately below it you'll be okay. Users who don't know what a zip file is will get the installer because it's more prominent, and users who are sophisticated enough to know what a zip file is won't have to hunt for it.

I noticed that your installer is still wrapped in a zip file though -- I know it's because clickonce doesn't just create a single .exe with embedded, compressed data, but if you want to reduce the effort to install you could look into using a different installer program.

Thanks for the input, and you're right about me using clickonce. Do you know of any other installer programs that I could use instead?

(Scans thread so see if anyone's already suggested anything!)

[SHilbert]

I think as long as you have the "installer .exe" prominently displayed as well as a ".zip" option immediately below it you'll be okay. Users who don't know what a zip file is will get the installer because it's more prominent, and users who are sophisticated enough to know what a zip file is won't have to hunt for it.

I noticed that your installer is still wrapped in a zip file though -- I know it's because clickonce doesn't just create a single .exe with embedded, compressed data, but if you want to reduce the effort to install you could look into using a different installer program.

Thanks for the input, and you're right about me using clickonce. Do you know of any other installer programs that I could use instead?

(Scans thread so see if anyone's already suggested anything!)

I think the major free options are NSIS, InnoSetup or making an MSI package. NSIS's scripting language put me off due to it being more like writing stack-machine assembly. I used InnoSetup with ISTool (GUI frontend) a while ago and that was pretty pleasant in general. I haven't tried making an MSI, but I think full versions of Visual Studio can do it and there are a variety of free tools (like WiX) that can do it.

[lucyisssi]

Just the files.