Le 28/07/2010 12:01, scott nous fit lire :

> Contrary to your belief, I am not an expert at writing installers (nor
> do I wish to become one), I am just a user who is wondering why POV
> feels the need to be different to other installers.  Why can't it just
> install "normally" like every other piece of software I use?

It's not because you are used to 'old' pieces software which did in fact
offer no choice (back to the W3.1/W95/... time) but to install in
'Program Files' (sometime even hard-coded, so when installing on foreign
windows version, you still end up with some in C:\Program Files\,
despites a translated name does exist), that such bad behaviour must
continue.

Recommendations for installation (*) are now to offer a system/user only
installation (well, the choice might be implicit by the right the
running user has or has not). For system wide installation, Program
Files is fine; but for user-only, it should end in the user's folder.

(*): I would have to cite msdn website and the various certification
programs (I'm more familiar with the pain of making drivers for windows,
especially to now have them install in x86_64 & Itanium with all the new
mandatory cryptography, but the unpriviledged software has also its
certification paths, if you want to apply to that kind of label).

Could you please provide a list of your other pieces of software that
you use ? (so I can check if they are not out-dated / non-conformant by
themselves to the installation rules for 7/Vista/2008/2008R2/XP ? They
might very well be designed for older windows)

Post a reply to this message