XY installer

[j_c_hallgren]

However, when it comes to downloading software from the internet it is quite rare for it to be packaged in a Zip file and, if present, is usually offered an alternative to downloading straight forward EXE.

Rare? I just checked my Downloads folder and of the around 380 items there (almost all software), 90 of them were Zip files compared to 245 EXE's, so that's a ratio of 37% for Zip/EXE which, IMHO, doesn't meet the definition of rare...I realize this is a personal thing and others may have a totally diff situation, but just wanted to point out that in those cases where there is a EXE, I'll always use that instead so to have this many Zips implies that it's not uncommon.

There is no need to continue the discussion of this point any more but felt the need to support Don's point of view.

[ivan]

And by saying this

...just wanted to point out that in those cases where there is a EXE, I'll always use that instead...

you have, perhaps inadvertently, supported my point of view that EXE is preferable in the majority of situations.

To borrow a quote from Albert Einstein, who happened to be a compatriot of Don's, I'd say: "The important thing is not stop questioning". Why is it the way it is? Why can't it be simpler? Why and how can there be one step less to do something? And so on and so forth...

[admin]

And by saying this

...just wanted to point out that in those cases where there is a EXE, I'll always use that instead...

you have, perhaps inadvertently, supported my point of view that EXE is preferable in the majority of situations.

To borrow a quote from Albert Einstein, who happened to be a compatriot of Don's, I'd say: "The important thing is not stop questioning". Why is it the way it is? Why can't it be simpler? Why and how can there be one step less to do something? And so on and so forth...

My old compatriot Albert meant questioning oneself, not others! He told me once. I hadn't asked.

[j_c_hallgren]

And by saying this

...just wanted to point out that in those cases where there is a EXE, I'll always use that instead...

you have, perhaps inadvertently, supported my point of view that EXE is preferable in the majority of situations.

NO...actually, I was saying that to show why my ratio of Zip/EXE wasn't even higher than it was...though only by a very small percentage, as it is quite rare to have a choice of the two formats...at least on the sites that I've been to and use regularly.

My point remains that a Zip file is a very common format for software for a number of reasons, including reducing bandwidth usage for the supplier...even that 2% for XY adds up over time...maybe in this case, it's not an issue, but for other vendors, it might well be.

[ivan]

My old compatriot Albert meant questioning oneself, not others! He told me once. I hadn't asked.

Nope, he didn't mean questioning just oneself. He meant to never stop asking questions of others too, because answers enhance your learning and make you smarter. Ask what you do not know and learn.

[ivan]

My point remains that a Zip file is a very common format for software for a number of reasons, including reducing bandwidth usage for the supplier...even that 2% for XY adds up over time...maybe in this case, it's not an issue, but for other vendors, it might well be.

I have absolutely no issue with using Zip file for NoInstall version of XY, it makes all the sense in the world to pack multiple files inside of an archive. However, the zip archive for NoInstall version of XY, despite files inside being compressed quite a bit, is of larger size than zip of Install package. This leads me to believe that, over time, the amount of traffic used by compressed installer in a zip has or will be overtaken by that of NoInstall being downloaded (considering that NoInstall is 1.18 times "fatter" than Install).

[TheQwerty]

If I'm not mistaken Don is using NSIS for the install package, and that means if he just added "/SD IDOK" to the MessageBox command, then the installer could be run silently (/S) to avoid all dialogs.

As to which is better... EXE has a lot more cons than ZIP, so it seems exceedingly worth it even with the minimal discomfort of the unnecessary extraction.

For the record I prefer ZIP files, but my Installers directory has an exact 50-50 split between the two types. ZIP is a rare distribution method? Hardly!

[ivan]

As to which is better... EXE has a lot more cons than ZIP, so it seems exceedingly worth it even with the minimal discomfort of the unnecessary extraction.

I wouldn't have minded so much if it was a self-extracting Zip, but unfortunately it is not. And surely if both EXE and Zip have cons then bundling one inside the other is compounding those cons?

For the record I prefer ZIP files, but my Installers directory has an exact 50-50 split between the two types. ZIP is a rare distribution method? Hardly!

I am not saying that it is a rare distribution method in general, but it is quite uncommon when just one EXE is inside that Zip. In fact, the main purpose of Zip and other archive types is to gather and, optionally, compress multiple files. Also, since the installer itself already represents a compressed package then adding another layer of compression brings no significant benefits.

[j_c_hallgren]

I am not saying that it is a rare distribution method in general, but it is quite uncommon when just one EXE is inside that Zip. In fact, the main purpose of Zip and other archive types is to gather and, optionally, compress multiple files. Also, since the installer itself already represents a compressed package then adding another layer of compression brings no significant benefits.

Oh really? So you now write that you are "not saying that it is a rare distribution method in general"? Seems that totally contradicts this stmt that started it:

However, when it comes to downloading software from the internet it is quite rare for it to be packaged in a Zip file

(Bolding added for emphasis) Not only did you say that it was rare, you compounded it by saying "quite", which to me, means extremely rare, and as we've shown by our stats, it certainly is not!

Now had you originally said that "packaging of a single EXE within a Zip" is rare, then I might possibly agree with you, but you didn't...instead, you keep changing the discussion to another issue...seems like a typical response from either a politician or lawyer or both! I don't like to argue with anyone here if I can help it, but this is getting me just a bit irritated...like when a child who keeps asking "Are we there yet?" or "Why? Why? Why?"...

And we've also shown you that using a Zip file overcomes some limitations imposed in various cases, so that, to me, IS a significant benefit, since when the software can't be accessed by a user (existing or potential), that's a real problem! Ok?

[ivan]

Now had you originally said that "packaging of a single EXE within a Zip" is rare, then I might possibly agree with you, but you didn't...instead, you keep changing the discussion to another issue...seems like a typical response from either a politician or lawyer or both! I don't like to argue with anyone here if I can help it, but this is getting me just a bit irritated...like when a child who keeps asking "Are we there yet?" or "Why? Why? Why?"...

In my latest post, I refined what I meant originally. After all, right from the very beginning I was questioning zipping Install package, which consists of one EXE. Yours and TheQwerty stats showed nothing beyond what you individually have. In most cases, an EXE installer is the way to go and it's not bubble-wrapped in anything extra. Also, as a child you obviously didn't say "Are we there yet?" or "Why? Why? Why?", yeah right! Just because YOU wouldn't ask a question that I am asking, doesn't mean you should frown at those who would.

And we've also shown you that using a Zip file overcomes some limitations imposed in various cases, so that, to me, IS a significant benefit, since when the software can't be accessed by a user (existing or potential), that's a real problem! Ok?

The ONLY limitation of EXE over Zip that you've shown is that in some environments downloading EXEs from external sources may be prohibited. If that limitation is imposed outside of that user's control and he/she cannot do anything about it, then they shouldn't try to overcome it, it's there for a reason of protecting against unauthorised installations.

[serendipity]

Hi Ivan,
I have a sincere request to you. Would you please step back and think for a minute that this is not such big a deal. You are making a huge deal out of the little fact that the exe sits inside a zip file. Come on, how long does it take for you to get an exe out of a zip file? And now since the stats say that its not very uncommon for an exe to be inside zip file for whatever reason, please stop this thread and lets move on to more fruitful issues.

[TheQwerty]

Yours and TheQwerty stats showed nothing beyond what you individually have. In most cases, an EXE installer is the way to go and it's not bubble-wrapped in anything extra.

We are doing it all wrong, j_c_hallgren. We're just supposed to make widespread unsupported claims, evidence be darned!

In most cases, a Zip file is the way to go, even if it is only providing bubble-wrap. It's extremely rare for it to be used to package anything but a single executable. Waffles are seldom consumed for breakfast!

The ONLY limitation of EXE over Zip that you've shown is that in some environments downloading EXEs from external sources may be prohibited. If that limitation is imposed outside of that user's control and he/she cannot do anything about it, then they shouldn't try to overcome it, it's there for a reason.

You are in no position to judge why the limitations are there and if the user is morally obligated to obey it. Google does not allow the attachment of executable files in GMail, so you are suggesting that all users should never send an executable via e-mail. No matter what! They are breaking Google's TOS when they send an archive containing that executable.

You are also implying that you are a more important than all those users; that the inconvenience of the bubble-wrap archive that you experience is far worse than not being able to provide the installer to a number of users. Maybe you should view this as something you cannot do anything about, and stop trying to overcome it?


I think the bigger question here is why do you insist on making the installer meet your demands when the no installer option is probably the better choice for you?

[ivan]

Hi Ivan,
I have a sincere request to you. Would you please step back and think for a minute that this is not such big a deal. You are making a huge deal out of the little fact that the exe sits inside a zip file. Come on, how long does it take for you to get an exe out of a zip file? And now since the stats say that its not very uncommon for an exe to be inside zip file for whatever reason, please stop this thread and lets move on to more fruitful issues.

I think it would be possible for me to install XY quite a bit quicker if I could just click on the EXE, then Run in the pop-up message box and install would launch. Clearly, the needs of people who would prefer the Zip version are taken care of by having a NoInstall package. Why can't the needs of those who are able to download EXEs and find them to be more convenient aren't taken care of either? While it's not a big deal, if things can be simpler then why should anything stand in the way?

[ivan]

We are doing it all wrong, j_c_hallgren. We're just supposed to make widespread unsupported claims, evidence be darned!

In most cases, a Zip file is the way to go, even if it is only providing bubble-wrap. It's extremely rare for it to be used to package anything but a single executable. Waffles are seldom consumed for breakfast!

As far as I know and from my personal experience, most software that I have ever downloaded comes in the form of an EXE file. You name the most common software that people download (in no order in particular): Internet Explorer, OS service packs, Firefox, Live Messenger, iTunes, WinZip, WinRAR, Windows Media Player, Nero burning suite, Cyberlink PowerDVD, CCleaner, Spybot S&D, everything that PCTools produces, Skype, FileZilla (both installer EXE and Zip are given as options), Adobe Acrobat, Flash and Silverlight, all of Stardock's software, the list goes on...

All of those programs come either as individual installer EXEs or as a choice between EXE installer and Zip. I hope at the very least that supports my claim...

You are in no position to judge why the limitations are there and if the user is morally obligated to obey it. Google does not allow the attachment of executable files in GMail, so you are suggesting that all users should never send an executable via e-mail. No matter what! They are breaking Google's TOS when they send an archive containing that executable.

You are also implying that you are a more important than all those users; that the inconvenience of the bubble-wrap archive that you experience is far worse than not being able to provide the installer to a number of users. Maybe you should view this as something you cannot do anything about, and stop trying to overcome it?

I think the bigger question here is why do you insist on making the installer meet your demands when the no installer option is probably the better choice for you?

I am very much in the position to judge because I used to work for a company that made those restrictions very clear and I was part of implementing the measures to restrict such actions.

I had a quick scan through GMail's Terms of Use but failed to see the statement you are referring to. Please show where it is. I'm not against people sending EXEs as attachments, but I have been and still am annoyed if I cannot send a straight forward EXE file.

I am implying that inconvenience of a bubble-wrap archive is not necessary. I am also implying that people who are not comfortable with EXEs have zip NoInstall provided for them, so they have an alternative. For people who want EXE alone no alternative is given.

I think the bigger question here is why do you insist on making the installer meet your demands when the no installer option is probably the better choice for you?

I think an even bigger question here is why a single EXE is zipped when an already zipped NoInstall version is available? NoInstaller option is not better for me because it involves more hassle than the Installer one.

[jacky]

I have an idea, how about anyone who post in this thread from now on gets banned ?