Installer or not? what do you prefer?

[kritikon]

Hmmmph...don't like Winrar either. My DAW doesn't have Winrar on it since I last got a new one. And IIRC Winrar is now a commercial app? Stuffed if I'm going to shell out for an unzipper. At least you can unZip things for free. For a while there was a unified monopoly with WinZip...let's keep just one thing in s/w music unified and constant can we? Instead of having multiple formats competing with each other. Everone's got WinZip - it's free with XP, and I assume with Vista, so there's no need whatsoever for Winrar to make things complicated.

Harrumph...

[flippya2000]

Archive. From what I understand though, developers use .exe files to add an exrta layer of security. Unfortunately people will always find ways round this layer & will still be able to hack the s/w. All it does is annoy people who buy s/w legally by clogging up the system & registry.

A good example would be a software I bought recently (I won't name it) - I installed it, didn't like the fact that it changed some icons, so ran the uninstaller, so I could change the install options. I uninstalled, restarted - the icons weren't changed back & there were still some files & folders that it didn't delete. So I thought F*** this; I deleted the files & did System Restore. This fixed the problem, but then Firefox wasn't working properly. Longer story short, I realised I had to uninstall+reinstall a firefox extension & all systems are running the way I like em now..Tt was a painful trial & error experience, which could've easily been avoided with a .zip/.rar archive (as opposed to the all-powerful .exe)

[PTV]

IZArc is free and can extract rar archives...
http://www.izarc.org/

[cjayconrod]

From day one of using a DAW, i've preferred an archive because it's easier to manage the hierarchy of your vst files. Just give me a zip with the dll and nice pdf manual.

[duncanparsons]

wrt installers - sometimes it's necessary to have configuration files run on install - not necessarily using the registry, configuring ini files etc.

Admittedly, it's not often a problem for VST plugins, having said that, for skinning, additional presets, etc, it is often desirable to have an installer do all the work rather rely on a user reading and understanding a ReadMe.

Whilst KVR does make up quite a number of those who consume audio plugins, there are many out there who are not as knowledgeable and are quite happy for an installer to take all the pain away.

In general I am happy to give plugs w/o an installer. Betabugs stuff uses an installer, that was a group choice. My own stuff doesn't. However, I have an item which will be up for commercial release soon, which by necessity will have an installer due to the amount of configuration that will be needed post copy; and it's stuff that I am not willing to let a user tamper with and potentially get wrong - I would not want my good name sullied across the web because of incorrect procedure following... NB, there will be no registry writing, and deleting the installation folder will delete all but the uninstall key. I'll consider doing a zip, with a config exe to be run after user extraction.. hmmm..

In terms of usage, I don't mind either way. There have been times when uninstalling another app, I have been reminded that I actually have a synth or somesuch because of the entry in the uninstall list; then fire up a Host and have a play - the plug could easily have gone unnoticed again for sometime had that not happened. :Shrug:

At the end of the day, I feel there are better things we can get worked up about!

DSP

btw, the poll should have had an 'I don't care', so alas I won't be voting here...

[shamann]

btw, the poll should have had an 'I don't care', so alas I won't be voting here...

Ditto.

I find installers only really suck when you upgrade to a new computer or want to rearrange your plugin folder. Especially since I almost never keep installers. Other than that, though, who gives a shit? Plenty enough things to worry about than to get all futzed over something as benign as "archives vs. installers."

It's worth mentioning that many developers use installers as EULA agreement mechanisms more than anything else. That can be done through the web download link, too, but not if the installer has been mirrored somewhere else.

Here's another pressing issue for y'all, "[Poll] styling mousse vs. styling gel?"

[Music Engineer]

btw, the poll should have had an 'I don't care', so alas I won't be voting here...

Ditto.

it seems, i cant add options ex post. and actually, i intentionally wanted something like a binary decision.

Other than that, though, who gives a shit? Plenty enough things to worry about than to get all futzed over something as benign as "archives vs. installers.

did you read all the replies? some folks definately give a shit. some answers were quite emotional indeed. admittedly, i didn't expect such clear results.

[shamann]

did you read all the replies? some folks definitely give a shit.

Sure, I've noticed, and actually some folk around here have been vocal about it for years. "Who gives a shit" is generally used in English in a similar manner to "what an unnecessary thing to get all worked up about."

[NAD]

Maybe in Canada....

[brok landers]

IZArc is free and can extract rar archives...
http://www.izarc.org/

this is nice ... but is it normal that it'sooo slow?
i.e. when choosing "open with izarc" from the context menue, it needs about 5-10 seconst so open a 20kb zip file??

edit:
this is when using network ... however, when opening zip's with winrar, winrar is open in a splitsecond ... tetsted with misc archives ...

[flippya2000]

did you read all the replies? some folks definitely give a shit.

Sure, I've noticed, and actually some folk around here have been vocal about it for years. "Who gives a shit" is generally used in English in a similar manner to "what an unnecessary thing to get all worked up about."

When you have to spend hours correcting registry problems due to an installer, then you should get annoyed, at least till you've corrected the problems. I know some people who reinstall Windows every year or so, to clear up the amount of stuff piling up in the registry. If I had choice, I'd prefer zipped/rar'd packages, that I can unzip to the vstplugs folder - but I won't get angry if a dev chooses not to give me their plug this way - it's just my preference, which is what the OP wants to hear

Of course if something is big/complicated to install, then an .exe would be better, but most music plugs just need to be placed in the vstplugs folder, thus my choice of archive over installers

[stk]

It's worth mentioning that many developers use installers as EULA agreement mechanisms more than anything else. That can be done through the web download link, too, but not if the installer has been mirrored somewhere else.

Exactly.
Since my stuff seems to be "mirrored" (without my permission, mind) halfway across the fcking universe

Here's another pressing issue for y'all, "[Poll] styling mousse vs. styling gel?"

KVR seems more a mousse kinda vibe to me

[sjm]

I voted archive, although really the answer should be "use your brain".

If the whole thing consists of a few files, there's no need for an installer. You can just as easily get a screen to popup in the plugin itself the first time it's started and ask the user to accept the EULA - it doesn't really have to be in an installer, does it?

Of course, if the plugin is super-complicated and comes with a whole directory structure (especially if the location is important), then an installer is better.

Most plugins I have ever installed (generally freebies) are in the first category, so there is no need for an installer. I've seen a few demos where an installer is better (e.g. to create instrument directories etc.)

An archive just makes it easier to keep your own organisation. Just like I hate apps that write to my user directory or My Documents or whatever, where I personally only store two things:
the junk written there by such applications and quick throwaway files made in notepad, paint etc..

[shamann]

Maybe in Canada....

Goes without saying, who gives a shit about anyone else?

When you have to spend hours correcting registry problems due to an installer, then you should get annoyed, at least till you've corrected the problems. I know some people who reinstall Windows every year or so, to clear up the amount of stuff piling up in the registry. If I had choice, I'd prefer zipped/rar'd packages, that I can unzip to the vstplugs folder - but I won't get angry if a dev chooses not to give me their plug this way - it's just my preference, which is what the OP wants to hear

Of course if something is big/complicated to install, then an .exe would be better, but most music plugs just need to be placed in the vstplugs folder, thus my choice of archive over installers

I hear you, and in most cases if I had to choose, I'd go with an archive. But I can't really see caring about it all that much, especially to the point of not using software on those grounds alone (as some have stated here).

All this moaning about the registry, I can't see that a few keys are going to make a difference. It becomes problematic when crap installers start changing file associations or adding shell extensions (à la Quicktime), but I can't imagine anyone defending that crap. Not all installers are crap installers, though.

[lateralus778]

IZArc is free and can extract rar archives...
http://www.izarc.org/

this is nice ... but is it normal that it'sooo slow?
i.e. when choosing "open with izarc" from the context menue, it needs about 5-10 seconst so open a 20kb zip file??

edit:
this is when using network ... however, when opening zip's with winrar, winrar is open in a splitsecond ... tetsted with misc archives ...

I swear by izarc and i've NEVER had that problem. It replaced 7Zip when i used that (and 7Zip was a speed beast!)