Installers - why

[ermi]

Agree. I don't want installers!
Maybe because I unpack/copy the compressed files using Total Commander, which is a fast process. Faster than any installer.


Another thing: put a simple .txt with information in the .zip file of your plugin.
Damn, I have a million vsts and I don't know who made half of them.

[Stupid American Pig]

The average user here is much more savvy when dealing with plugins than the average user that doesnt frequent this place. I remember trying to assist a buddy of mine install some freebies I downloaded him. The concept of drilling down to a directory and copy paste are lost on him. this guy is a brilliant guitarist, but computers confuse and frighten him.

[4damind]

The question is "why not" ?
Its an easy way for everyone to install software with some clicks. Its easy, provides a methode for uninstallation, makes necessary changes in the system. The only other way is "zeroinstall" but that is not working with plugins.
"zeroinstall" - where a plugin is loaded on demand from inet and then will be cached and will be run out of the box, could be another method for the future:
A VST-Preselection Rack, where you find all available VSTs. Some has a "demo" button some must be buyed. There you can unlock this VST and it will loaded from the inet or another location (CD/DVD/Harddisk) on demand to your VST-cache. The host loads this new plugin then separately without a restart - thats all.

Only a dream

[fake]

Installers are a pain and the logic behind them is too.

The majority of vst's are just a .dll that needs copying. The idiot? computer music user will already have the knowledge of where to put them, unless they have never used them before.



fake

[spacefox]

I hate installers too, really do. Not only for plugins - for everything (my office suite is Portable OpenOffice, this post is with Portable Firefox. I do realise however that:
a) this is borderline obessesive on my part
b) most people, including those who use PCs to make music are clueless regarding using a computer. Believe me.

What would be a great is for developers to offer an additional "portable" (self contained) version for advanced, paranoid users.


But until they do, get your hands dirty - install the program, check what the installer does (registry values, application data folder etc.) and find a way to repack it the way you like (say - zip plus a registry patch). This way you will know exactly what the installer does.

[Paul_FX]

Q : And what about plugins that require more setting up than that? Not every VST can be localised that easily...

You guys are talking about it like every VST is just a DLL. Thats rubbish. Maybe with freeware and synthedit style plugins, but many commercial releases arelikely to have many dependancies that must be handled by an installer.

Paul

[Funkasizer]

Q : And what about plugins that require more setting up than that? Not every VST can be localised that easily...

You guys are talking about it like every VST is just a DLL. Thats rubbish. Maybe with freeware and synthedit style plugins, but many commercial releases arelikely to have many dependancies that must be handled by an installer.

Paul

Amen

[james0tucson]

This is a petty argument. Windows has a package management system. It sucks compared to dpkg, but there it is. People use installers so that the Add/Remove Programs tool knows about it, and so that there's a chance to have the user not read an unenforceable EULA. Since VST's are a boundary case, most being a single .dll, the argument against installers appears to make sense. Personally, I'd prefer source, with make && make install to be the installer, but that's not gonna happen here either.

[Sascha Franck]

but many commercial releases arelikely to have many dependancies that must be handled by an installer.

Like what?
I don't believe it for a single second.

[Paul_FX]

Like what?
I don't believe it for a single second.

BFD? Guru?

What about stuff like reaktor? Ever look at what that installs, lots of lots of files, dependancies everywhere, registry keys etc etc..



At the end of the day, we put installers on software because *the vast majority of users* would not be able to handle installing everything properly. Nor should they have to. You guys are technical bods who know their stuff and want to have more control over your system. Most people arent like that...

(a great example is the fact that people are saying they like make && install. Yeah as a software engineer i love that. But my brother just wants to write music, he doesnt care how its built, what it installs or anything else, just that it works )

Paul

[Fette Töle]

but many commercial releases arelikely to have many dependancies that must be handled by an installer.

Like what?
I don't believe it for a single second.

Just think of those plugs that come with a big sample dir that will not necessarily be installed in a subdir of the vstplugins folder. Using an installer is the easiest way to let the plugin (and the uninstaller) know about the sample location.

[AndrewSimon]

Installers are sometimes used as advertisement on demo software.
They want you to have a folder in your programs folder and they want you to have an icon on the desktop and other places even though it's only a dll.
And by the way there is nothing wrong with this.
What I don't like is when a software creates all kind of registry entries and it doesn't remove them once you uninstall it or simply they don't provide an "unistall" at all.

[fake]

For complex installs, it's fine but for just a simple dll it is stupid.

@ Paul, I notice on your site you have a full download and a no installer download. For instance the full download of Delta-Filter is a massive 5mb and the no installer 580k and yet the no installer is an .exe installer why, what does it contain?

BTW I like the way you ask for people to agree to conditions before download. That is the proper way to do it to make it legally binding.

Also, try spellchecking your site.



fake

[paulmerchant]

Just wanted to chime in that I too hate installers for most plugs. Call me stubborn, but I will often not try a plug or a demo simply because it has an installer. Like why in the world would Betabugs use installers? I still haven't tried their plugs because of it. Unless it is necessary, devs should avoid installers. It sounds like I'm not alone.

[Paul_FX]

For complex installs, it's fine but for just a simple dll it is stupid.

I fully agree.

@ Paul, I notice on your site you have a full download and a no installer download. For instance the full download of Delta-Filter is a massive 5mb and the no installer 580k and yet the no installer is an .exe installer why, what does it contain?

BTW I like the way you ask for people to agree to conditions before download. Cool That is the proper way to do it to make it legally binding.

Also, try spellchecking your site. Wink

The no installer version is a self extracting zip file. It just contains the software and a readme.txt file. We did it that way so that people wouldnt need an extract extraction software (the delta series were written pre winxp days ).

Yeah conditions agreement before download is definately the way to go...

As for spell checking, our site is currently in a serious mess. We got hacked over the weekend (It was very offensive material that was placed there), so we immediately pulled the entire site and uploaded an older version. We figured it was better to have an old buggy version than offensive material or a 404...

All the best
Paul[/quote]