clipka wrote:
> I guess it's the old question of whether you want a system for standard
> office or home use, or want to do something special with it.
> 
> I think there still is no one-size-fits-all OS. Linux is trying to go
> there, but at the heart of it, "everyday use" is just one more "special
> thing" you can do with it, which keeps showing here and there.

http://graphjam.wordpress.com/files/2008/12/song-chart-memes-os.gif

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Personally, I would have put the single-person install under the "my
> documents" area rather than someplace "hidden", but it's certainly not
> something that Windows makes an obvious place for, yes.

It's not documents. It's application data.

Post a reply to this message

Chris Cason wrote:
> While there are work-arounds for many of these issues (e.g. disabling the
> WOW64 file redirection is possible via an API call), I'd rather go with
> the flow than fight the system.

Which would involve sticking to MSI, no matter how that MSI is generated.
Which I think is a good thing.

After so many years (of dealing with 16-bit installshield crap to install
32-bit programs) Microsoft finally added an installer system to the
operating system. Let's use it...

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> It's not documents. It's application data.

Well, it's application code, if it's a .exe file. Application data is more 
the sort of stuff you'd put in a .dotfile or under /etc in Linux. Thumbnails 
of your albums in your photo album software, caches of web pages, etc.

But yeah, there's no good place to put per-user executables under any 
version of Windows, methinks.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Chris Cason wrote:

> This is a common question, and the fact that it *appears* you can install
> programs on Win64 with a 32-bit executable has been an impediment in
> getting software engineers to understand the issue. Perhaps they have
> updated NSIS to be a 64-bit program now, but certainly last time I looked
> into it, it was only 32-bit, and they had no intention of changing.

While they haven't made it a 64-bit program, they added full
support for installing 64-bit applications. It looks like this
happened around April 2007 / release 2.26, so it might not have
been in the version you tested. For example, the variables
$PROGRAMFILES32 and $PROGRAMFILES64 can be used to select
the desired target directory explicitely. I don't know if
this means they disable some redirection internally.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > In Linux you can locally install a whole database server under an
> > unprivileged
> > user's directory and work just fine for development purposes.
>
> Then you move it to another directory and it doesn't work anymore because of
> hardcoded-at-compile-time paths to, for example, config files. Try it with
> POV-Ray! The default Library_Path is set that way.

I don't know what you're talking about.  I did this to a PostgreSQL install I
had at some floppy.  PostgreSQL also has configurable command-line switches for
telling root and config dir...

I've also had lots of fun in the past by directly exchanging some libs for
others at command-line call time with ldd, /lib/ld-linux (or something like
that) and $LD_LIBRARY_PATH.  oh, the feeling of power... :D

Post a reply to this message