Installers - why

[Paulie Phonick]

Here's a point to justify why you want installers. The reason some of us developers use an installer, is, hey, you users asked for it ! What, you didn't notice ? take some requests like that one: "I want the synth to automatically save its settings when I exit". Or this one: "I share my scala tuning files across several synths, so I'd like Rhino to remember the last path used for accessing its tuning files". This requires the synth to store additional data somewhere. And the easiest way to ensure this data gets removed, should you ever be bored with the synth and decide to get rid of it (god forbids!) is... you name it, use an installer.

Why would storing some extra info require having an installer? Only if you store that info in the registry, but it could as well be saved to a generated INI file in the plugin dir (encoded if you worry about users digging in it). Once a user decides to remove the plug all (s)he has to do is to remove its dir - still no installer necessary.

I'm not saying this about Big Tick stuff, but I feel that all installers are normally used for is to install some inefficient yet problematic to legit users copy protections...

Imho installers could be avoided in commercial projects - in freeware they are simply not necessary.

Thus, to whom it may concern, please provide simple zipped downloads as well. There are plenty of users alergic to installers that don't want icons, menu items and seeing each and every plugin in the add/remove programs list. Thanks in advance!

[Big Tick]

Why would storing some extra info require having an installer? Only if you store that info in the registry, but it could as well be saved to a generated INI file in the plugin dir

Well, registry vs. ini files (reaped from somewhere else on the net):
- The registry is automatically divided into users, and therefore it is easier coding a multiuser settings capable application.
- security: you cannot access the registry branch of another user
- performance: for better or for worse, the registry is in memory so you don't have to go to the disk
- performance: the registry is hierarchical, ini-files are flat. Thus the speed of a binary registry is a lot better than reading a text file

My point is, the problem is not with installers, but with poor uninstallers that don't cleanup things properly.

'Tick

[John Vulich]

Unfortunately, 90% of the computer users out there don't even have a clue how to navigate their file folder system... that's why.

[John Vulich]

When a vst comes with an installer I install it, copy the dll somewhere else, deinstall the bloody thing, and put the .dll back in the VST folder. The bottom line: installer is an extra hassle.

Funny, I do the same exact thing. I didn't realize that there was someone else as anal as me.

[fake]

Sorry to hear about the site hack Paul_FX and glad to hear they are self extracting zips

Will dl them now and give them a whirl in Linux too.

Thanks.

fake

[Paulie Phonick]

Well, registry vs. ini files (reaped from somewhere else on the net):
- The registry is automatically divided into users, and therefore it is easier coding a multiuser settings capable application.
- security: you cannot access the registry branch of another user

Is that really relevant to the world of VST plugins? How many people actually share their DAW and don't want other users to have access to their plugins?... But ok, I won't be so short-sighted. Still, users can have directories that cannot be accessed by other users, can't they? So you could achieve such security and separation on the file system level, without using registry.

- performance: for better or for worse, the registry is in memory so you don't have to go to the disk

But you don't have to read the disk over and over again, an INI file can be buffered without any problems on startup and stored on close. Hardly noticable as far as performance goes imho.

- performance: the registry is hierarchical, ini-files are flat. Thus the speed of a binary registry is a lot better than reading a text file

You're not forced to use a flat text file, you can store in XML or have your own hierarchy of any sort. Once buffered it will be as fast as the registry or even faster as you can optimise the structure to better fit you needs. It still doesn't have to be registry.

My point is, the problem is not with installers, but with poor uninstallers that don't cleanup things properly.

I can't speak for others, but for me bad uninstallers are not that much of a problem, I can do a cleanup afterwards. For me the problem is installers which take time, install irritating amounts of icons and items and in many cases rise suspicions of doing more than just installing the software. Those ones that want to connect to internet I hate the most - what are they? Spyware? Fortunately the firewall catches them...

I don't want to argue that all installers should be abandoned as I realize that many users could not do without them (to me that is the only reason for having installers actually), but I would really like to see all VSTs distributed in plain zip archives as well for those who prefer not to use installers.

[Sascha Franck]

For me, there's one simple reason why I don't like installers: I'm working on multiple machines very often, even more often I need things just temporarily. So, I may setup a machine for a friend. Fine. I'd just love to drag all my VSTplugins folder over there and give it a testride. Would take me 2 minutes over a network. Using all the installers it'd take me a LOT more.
Then, when being done with testing, I just want to remove things again (of course I don't leave plugins I am registered to on others machines). Delete VSTplugins folder, done. Could do so with installed plugins as well, but that'd leave (visible) traces of them all over the place. I wouldn't mind the occassional small registry entry left over, but all that add/remove things and what not...

[morelia]

Some plugins don't need an installer, just instructions. Some do. If they don't then I would rather not have the installer.

[aciddose]

the main problem with the windows registry is that it isnt portable in any way, unless you abstract it. of course most of these 'coders' or should i say developers :hihi: dont seem to know there are other systems than what they currently use. and on that point, if any of them knew what 'abtract' means they would know how to implement everything listed on the pros of registry using the standard c library via c++ class abstraction. if i wrote a whole abstraction layer for this type of thing, no way in hell you'd ever catch me implementing windows registry classes, why bother?

also: to all whom believe the registry isnt flat, please explain the magic involved here where it isnt possible to do exactly the same thing yourself?

ah i see, it isnt possible because YOU do not know how. time to learn.

http://www.ntk.net/ballmer/mirrors.html <- your idol?

[Paul_FX]

Installers are handy and can do some powerful things. They also make things easy for end users. Installers are much less of an issue to me than DONGLES. Those *really* suck.

AMEN!

Paul

[Ian B]

Personally, I'd prefer no insallers, but can undrerstand why in some cases they're needed. My biggest gripe about them is the fact that some anti virus progs (I'm using AVG Free, latest update) come up with false positives, re Trojan Horses. I've just done a full system scan, AVG found 11 Trojan Horses on my backup copy hard drive. All but one were vst installer related infections. In the past month, I've now had a total of 13 Trojans found, of which 12 were vst installer related (the other was the adaware installer )
I know I can safely ignore this, but people new to vst's could easily get pannicky about it.

[aciddose]

with the number of malicious bodies of code out there these days, you're at risk of triggering one of those f**kers with so many code patterns it makes them nearly useless.

when i was mentioning how the registry is bad, i was not discounting the worth of installers for users who are unable to understand any of the processes involved. see my older posts.

[rollasoc]

They are pretty handy. I use Wise 9 and install shield admin studio at work to repackage software.

Having used both Wise and Install Shield in the past and hated both of them I went on a search a few years ago for a decent (and cheap) alternative.

If anybody wants to use a donation ware installer software my I suggest the excellent Inno Setup.

http://www.jrsoftware.org/

It really has made the art that is installer writing a breeze.

Saying that I still stand by the fact I dislike installers for VSTs that just copy a manual and a DLL to the hardrive. Also I really hate it when VSTS put items in the start->programs menu. Why I don't want it there.....

Rollasoc

[Cryogenic]

For me, there's one simple reason why I don't like installers: I'm working on multiple machines very often, even more often I need things just temporarily. So, I may setup a machine for a friend. Fine. I'd just love to drag all my VSTplugins folder over there and give it a testride. Would take me 2 minutes over a network. Using all the installers it'd take me a LOT more.
Then, when being done with testing, I just want to remove things again (of course I don't leave plugins I am registered to on others machines). Delete VSTplugins folder, done. Could do so with installed plugins as well, but that'd leave (visible) traces of them all over the place. I wouldn't mind the occassional small registry entry left over, but all that add/remove things and what not...

Great. Now think outside the box of your spesific needs. You always rave about the multiple machine you have to setup and test. It doesnt concern 99% of the users here.

[DuX]

I hate installers too. It's a bloody DLL, doesn't need to be installed or uninstalled - simple copy and delete is enough. Registry keys can be generated upon first plugin initialisation.

I second that whole heartedly!

Cheers!