scott wrote:
>> (E.g., do a default install of Debian. Click the button marked "change 
>> screen resolution". In the window that comes up, the slider to change 
>> resolution is disabled. Yeah, that's really helpful.)
> 
> This was the same in Windows before XP.  I can't remember the number of 
> times I had to go looking for graphics card drivers while not being able 
> to change out of 640x480x8bit resolution...

If you don't have the necessary driver installed, it is impossible to 
drive the card at a higher resolution.

If Debian wasn't finding the correct driver and defaulting to some 
horribly low resolution, I could understand that.

However, the *actual* problem is that Debian is defaulting to a 
resolution larger than my monitor, and I'd like to *reduce* it to, say, 
1024x768 or something. But nooo...

As petty as it sounds, this is the main reason I'm using OpenSUSE. It 
defaults to a sane resolution, and it seems to somehow "know" it's 
running under VMware, so things like mouse integration work out of the box.

(I tried installing VMware tools on Debian, but it can't compile it 
because there's no compiler. So I installed the compiler, but then it 
complained that I don't have the kernel headers. So I installed the 
kernel headers. And then it complained that the kernel was compiled with 
a different compiler than the one I installed. So I looked for the 
version it's asking for... and it's not listed in the Debian package 
database. At this point, I gave up in utter frustration.)

It's a pitty really - Debian starts up much faster than OpenSUSE. (Not 
that "faster" is the same as "fast", mind you...)

Post a reply to this message

On 3/24/2010 4:28 AM, Invisible wrote:
> As I say, I did look at making an MSI file, but that is apparently
> drastically more complex still. (And it's even less-well documented. I
> can find the pages that tell you all about how fantastic MSI is, but not
> the pages they tell you HOW TO MAKE ONE!)

This is SOP. Please refer to articles 34234-5434 and 52334-235, where we 
explain why this is a wonderful way to document things and became SOP, 
but not how it actually works. lol

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> As I say, I did look at making an MSI file, but that is apparently 
> drastically more complex still. 

You were the one asking about the benefits of using an IDE, yes?  ;-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Yes, we're traveling togeher,
   but to different destinations.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> As I say, I did look at making an MSI file, but that is apparently 
>> drastically more complex still. 
> 
> You were the one asking about the benefits of using an IDE, yes?  ;-)

Heh, there are IDEs that can do *that*?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>>> As I say, I did look at making an MSI file, but that is apparently 
>>> drastically more complex still.
>>
>> You were the one asking about the benefits of using an IDE, yes?  ;-)
>
> Heh, there are IDEs that can do *that*?

I don't know anything about the detail of installers or how they work, I 
just click "Publish" in Visual Studio and tell it where to put the 
installer.  You can also tick boxes for which prerequisites your installer 
also checks for and installs (eg the .net framework, a certain version of 
Windows Installer, XNA framework, various SQL servers, etc) - this seems to 
be intelligently correct by default though...

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

>> Heh, there are IDEs that can do *that*?
> 
> I don't know anything about the detail of installers or how they work, I 
> just click "Publish" in Visual Studio and tell it where to put the 
> installer.  You can also tick boxes for which prerequisites your 
> installer also checks for and installs (eg the .net framework, a certain 
> version of Windows Installer, XNA framework, various SQL servers, etc) - 
> this seems to be intelligently correct by default though...

OK, that's kinda cool. What does it make? An executable package? Or an 
MSI file?

I wonder if I can convince VS to build an installer for something that 
wasn't compiled using VS... (Or, for that matter, whether the free 
edition even has this functionallity in the first place!)

Post a reply to this message

> OK, that's kinda cool. What does it make? An executable package? Or an MSI 
> file?

I have the free MS Express C#, if you point it to a folder to publish to, it 
makes a "setup.exe", a "<name>.application" file and a "Application Files" 
folder (that contains any data/content files your application needs).

> I wonder if I can convince VS to build an installer for something that 
> wasn't compiled using VS...

I think in the non-free VS you have vastly more options for installers, I 
would be surprised if what you ask wasn't possible.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> OK, that's kinda cool. What does it make? An executable package? Or an 
>> MSI file?
> 
> I have the free MS Express C#, if you point it to a folder to publish 
> to, it makes a "setup.exe", a "<name>.application" file and a 
> "Application Files" folder (that contains any data/content files your 
> application needs).

Right. So it's an executable rather than an MSI file.

(While on the surface there's little obvious difference, apparently MSI 
files have certain advantages - like being able to remotely deploy them 
and stuff.)

>> I wonder if I can convince VS to build an installer for something that 
>> wasn't compiled using VS...
> 
> I think in the non-free VS you have vastly more options for installers, 
> I would be surprised if what you ask wasn't possible.

Wouldn't surprise me if the free version has fewer options. (Why would 
you buy the expensive one otherwise? And deployment is the kind of thing 
that only commercial people are likely to care particularly about.) I do 
wonder if any version of VS can build arbitrary installers though...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> I wonder if I can convince VS to build an installer for something that 
> wasn't compiled using VS... (Or, for that matter, whether the free 
> edition even has this functionallity in the first place!)

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/zcbsd3cz%28VS.80%29.aspx

Well, that seems quite clear.

(Oddly, the same table doesn't seem to exist for 2008, only 2005.)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Right. So it's an executable rather than an MSI file.

It depends what you ask for and what version of the IDE you use.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Yes, we're traveling togeher,
   but to different destinations.

Post a reply to this message