Installer trouble
Spartanicus
Windows builds. First the &^$Ł" thing threw the "Incorrect command line
parameters" error that several others are reporting. From that you have
to figure out that you first have to update some other piece of MS crap,
the MS download page then insists that you "validate" your OS software,
which I refuse to do on principle, I'm not disclosing any information to
those bastards. I then had to download the *&^$& MS crap from an
untrusted source, although running it through my virus scanner doesn't
throw up a warning, it's still bloody objectionable. Trying to run that
junk then throws up an error box saying "The specified service already
exists".
On previous encounters with the MSI junk I've had problems when it
refused to run under Litestep, I had to switch to bloody explorer and
reboot just to run the *&^"%Ł crap.
The old installer was great, if ever you had a damaged file you could
unzip the exe and retrieve the individual file without having to run the
installer with the risk of overwriting something.
Grrrrrrr, not at all happy with Opera Software at the mo!
If the old installer really has to be replaced, why not use something
like Nullsoft's installer, brilliant software, open source, free for all
types of use including commercial, tiny overhead size wise despite being
very powerful feature wise.
--
Spartanicus
Bill Hallman
wrote:
>
> The old installer was great, if ever you had a damaged file you could
> unzip the exe and retrieve the individual file without having to run the
> installer with the risk of overwriting something.
>
> Grrrrrrr, not at all happy with Opera Software at the mo!
I agree, completely. I hate the MS installer, mainly because you cannot
extract individual files.
Another thing, it said it would not change my settings. It comes up in SDI
mode, while I have never used SDI.
I do not know, yet, what other settings it changed.
--
Opera 9.0.8265, java 1.5.0_03, win98lite, PII 400mhz, RAM 320meg, video
Intel740 pv4.0.
Jernej Simončič
> The old installer was great, if ever you had a damaged file you could
> unzip the exe and retrieve the individual file without having to run the
> installer with the risk of overwriting something.
While I dislike MSI as well, I understand why they moved to it - it's the
only easy way to allow administrators to push install a program on a
network - you can't do that with other installers without using 3rd party
tools.
Anyway, about the installer: FIX THE BLOODY COLORS - the text is almost
completely unreadable, because it uses my windows color settings (which is
light-green), while background is forced to white. Either set the text
color to black, or (better), use the Windows-provided color for background.
Also, the checkbox on the last page doesn't appear until you move your
mouse over it, or over the buttons.
--
begin .sig
< Jernej Simončič ><>◊<>< jernej simoncic at isg si >
end
Terry_P
> I'd like to lodge a protest to the switch to the MSI installer for the
> Windows builds. First the &^$£" thing threw the "Incorrect command line
> parameters" error that several others are reporting.
I agree. Developers have fouled up. Don't try this build if you are running
on Win98 or WinME. The changelog suggests that an upgrade of the MS
installer is required but fails to say that it is not available for Win98
and WinME. On later Windows versions users are reporting that the new
installer is uninstalling all versions of Opera it finds!!!
Terry_P
GreyWyvern
Personally, I was initally confused by the "Upgrade" option which
threatened to overwrite the last Opera installation I made, giving me no
choice where to put it, and not even telling me what directory it was
going to choose. I have a few versions of opera on each of my machines,
one of which holds all my mail, and I don't need to tell you I was more
than a little concerned.
It took me a minute or so before I read that the other option included
"Upgrading" as well and that it would allow me to choose a directory. Are
these buttons analogous to the "Typical" and "Custom" buttons in other
installers? If so, why not just label them that way?
Being different is OK, but don't confuse people on the first step. The
key is making the installer just the same as every other installer out
there, something new users won't be frightened of. At least IMHO ;)
Grey
--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/orca#search - Orca Search: Full-featured
spider and site-search engine
Leon Fisk
Wrote in
<hmkt12pkn8lifvae5...@news.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie>
I somewhat agree with Spartanicus. The MSI installer is a
big pain. I've only used it 3 times for other packages and
every time it has made a mess of my computer. If I can't
hack the package apart and extract the files on my own, I
won't be upgrading Opera anymore. There is nothing I despise
more than wasting 2-3 hours trying to figure out what an
installer has done to my computer/operating system...
That being said, the Nullsoft package is a big pain too. It
is next to impossible to extract files without running it
and it can't be scanned by most virus scanners (I know
F-Protect's Dos version can't and I've heard people complain
about other virus scanners).
If you insist upon thrusting the MSI crap down our throats,
how about just giving us a zip archive to use. Those of us
tech savvy enough to realize what a pig MSI is can more than
handle our own install via a zip archive (which is what I've
been doing with the weekly builds anyway).
I'm thoroughly disgusted with this new twist of events :(
--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI
Remove no.spam for email
Opera 9.00-8265/PII/NT4sp6a
jetsam
> The MSI installer is a big pain.
I want to install this twice, once over the previous build, once in a
new directory so I can test out some different options. It won't let
me. The first installation goes okay, but the second attempt says
"The Install Shield will allow you to modify,
repair, or remove Opera 9.0."
which I don't want. How can I get a separate installation?
Deleting the install_log.txt file or running o90w_8303m.exe
from another folder don't suffice. WinXP, Sp2.
Brian L Johnson
> I'd like to lodge a protest to the switch to the MSI installer for the
> Windows builds.
Heartily seconded. Or thirded, or whatever the number has now become.
Way back when MSI was introduced, I was a regular beta tester for Corel
Corp. Corel was the first adopter for MSI installs and used it for their
yearly relesase of Corel Draw.
The MSI install was a complete shambles and caused Corel no end of
problems. Their reputation suffered a terrible set-back from that release.
The situation has not changed. MSI is still a shambles of an installer
and should be abandoned -- or, prefereably, never adopted in the first
place. It is a dead-end, proprietory technology.
I would have thought that it was the very antithesis of Opera.
--
-blj-
S.V. Groeneveld
with the previous one either ;)
In the last window there is a prompt to launch Opera after the
installation finishes, but that checkbox (with prompt) only appears after
you hover the mouse over it... In fact, you can make it disappear again by
dragging that window off-screen, and back into view.
Richard Ektarian
Using the M$ installer is probably the largest mistake OS
has ever made.
Change back to the old way. I can no longer install the
new versions of the browser.
Edith Gran
It took a helluva lot of memory.
It started 4 processes, 1 was the opera .exe, the other 3 installer
related.
It locked my computer for about 20 secs before loading the installation
completely.
The text explaining the alternative methods of installation ran outside
the window and thus you missed some information.
:-/
Matthew Winn
> > On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:14:54 GMT, Spartanicus wrote:
> >
> >> I'd like to lodge a protest to the switch to the MSI installer for the
> >> Windows builds. First the &^$£" thing threw the "Incorrect command line
> >> parameters" error that several others are reporting.
Hmmm. I don't think I'll bother with this weekly, then. MSI is the
installer counterpart to the red-eyed growling dog with a severed
human arm in its mouth: it fairly screams "do not touch".
The first time I ever encountered MSI it took me longer to get the
installer working than to install the product I wanted. If I recall
correctly it was a bigger download as well.
> Being different is OK, but don't confuse people on the first step. The
> key is making the installer just the same as every other installer out
> there, something new users won't be frightened of. At least IMHO ;)
Being different without good reason is never OK. Note that nothing
thought up by a marketing department counts as "good reason".[1]
[1] I recently had[2] to install one of those multimedia applications
that thinks it'll be great if it looks like a DVD player, complete
with "close" button at the top left masquerading as a power switch,
presumably because some marketing guy thought it would look cool in
a screendump. Right now I think that all marketing people should be
taken to market and sold as meat.
[2] It came bundled with something else, and wouldn't take no for an
answer.
--
Matthew Winn
[If replying by email remove the "r" from "urk"]
Spartanicus
>> The old installer was great, if ever you had a damaged file you could
>> unzip the exe and retrieve the individual file without having to run the
>> installer with the risk of overwriting something.
>
>While I dislike MSI as well, I understand why they moved to it - it's the
>only easy way to allow administrators to push install a program on a
>network - you can't do that with other installers without using 3rd party
>tools.
Judging by the complaints about not being able to do a network rollout
by users in these groups I'd be surprised if that applied to more than
1% of potential users. It seems most unfair to punish the other 99% by
making MSI the only or even the default download option. I'd like to see
it as a separate download option.
I realise that this means more work when rolling out release builds, but
afaik most of the work involved is a one time configuration of the
installer build process.
--
Spartanicus
Haavard Kvam Moen
<jer...@deepthought.ena.invalid> wrote:
> While I dislike MSI as well, I understand why they moved to it - it's the
> only easy way to allow administrators to push install a program on a
> network - you can't do that with other installers without using 3rd party
> tools.
That, and MSI allows for better language options. Opera is not just
availble in English.
Haavard Kvam Moen
> the MS download page then insists that you "validate" your OS software
Do Windows 9x/2K users have to validate their Windows version too?
Spartanicus
>> the MS download page then insists that you "validate" your OS software
>
>Do Windows 9x/2K users have to validate their Windows version too?
Yes, don't know what it involves though, I aborted in protest as soon as
I saw the prompt.
--
Spartanicus
Haavard Kvam Moen
Could you report this with as many details as possible?
http://www.opera.com/support/bugs/
If you have the install_log.txt from the folder the installer is run
from, maybe you could mail that to the address you get after the
report has been submitted?
In general, specific problems with the installer (such as something
preventing you from installing it) should be reported through the BTS
so that they can be looked into.
Spartanicus
>>> the MS download page then insists that you "validate" your OS software
>>>Do Windows 9x/2K users have to validate their Windows version too?
>>
>> Yes, don't know what it involves though, I aborted in protest as soon as
>> I saw the prompt.
>
>Could you report this with as many details as possible?
I don't see the point of submitting to the Opera BTS the fact that
Microsoft requires Operating System software "validation" before they
allow download of installer software, to verify that this is the case
all you need to do is go to the page linked from
http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/ :
Note that it states: "Validation Required
This download is available to customers running genuine Microsoft
Windows. Please click the Continue button to begin Windows validation."
>If you have the install_log.txt from the folder the installer is run
>from, maybe you could mail that to the address you get after the
>report has been submitted?
It doesn't get to that stage, after downloading the software from a 3rd
party site the MS software aborts with an error (of sorts).
--
Spartanicus
Haavard Kvam Moen
<inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> I don't see the point of submitting to the Opera BTS the fact that
> Microsoft requires Operating System software "validation" before they
> allow download of installer software
The point is that the issue can be analyzed, and maybe a solution can
be found if this is a problem that needs to be resolved.
Spartanicus
>> I don't see the point of submitting to the Opera BTS the fact that
>> Microsoft requires Operating System software "validation" before they
>> allow download of installer software
>
>The point is that the issue can be analyzed, and maybe a solution can
>be found if this is a problem that needs to be resolved.
Sorry, MSI is now a non runner with me. I refuse to use it or
participate in it's adaptation.
--
Spartanicus
Jernej Simončič
> That, and MSI allows for better language options. Opera is not just
> availble in English.
What was the problem of previous installer regarding language options?
BTW, I'm using Inno Setup for my products, and I'm very happy with it's
language support (though, I still have to add translations to my by far
most popular installer, for Gimp).
Jernej Simončič
> The first time I ever encountered MSI it took me longer to get the
> installer working than to install the product I wanted. If I recall
> correctly it was a bigger download as well.
I remember my first meeting with MSI - start installing something, Windows
wants to be rebooted -- to install the *installer*. Also, what's the point
of progress bars in MSI installs if they fill from 0 to 100% at least 3
times (and with no upper limit it seems - I once counted 23 full progress
bars when installing Office2000 SR1a).
MSI is a good idea, but it's implemented wrong on just about every level.
fuxs
wrote:
> ... some other piece of MS crap,
> ... the *&^$& MS crap ... the MSI...run the *&^"%£ crap.
I wonder, why you still use this crap then. Especially Win98, which I do
regard as crap too. Stoneaged and insecure also btw.
I have difficulties to understand, why one dislikes all the 'bastards'
stuff and is not using some Linux distro. Every minute wasted for a
customizing 9x system IMO opinion is wasted, as this OS is simply dead.
Why not focus on a modern and actively supported OS?
>
> The old installer was great, if ever you had a damaged file you could
> unzip the exe and retrieve the individual file without having to run the
> installer with the risk of overwriting something.
A proper built MSI - package should do that with its repair option.
> If the old installer really has to be replaced, why not use something
> like Nullsoft's installer, brilliant software, open source, free for all
> types of use including commercial, tiny overhead size wise despite being
> very powerful feature wise.
>
Indeed NSI is fine, but it does not help one the main reasons why MS
invented MSI: Bad (un-)installers of some applications could seriously
damage other applications or the OS as whole. This fell back on MS, as
their 'OS became unstable'. So they invented a service to possibly manage
all installed components on a machine and therefore increase system
stability (its drawback being of course the needed runtime, which must be
installed on 9x / NT4 systems).
I admit, this idea of MSI - technique might be ignored in the case of
Opera, as it never (un-) installed any shared components which also other
applications use. But the network - deploy argument still stands, as MSI
has clear advantages for Active Directory based domains, which lots of
corporate environments use. Opera seems to aim at those - also with NTLM
support - so using MSI can at least can be regarded as a logical step.
Lots of common objections against MSI are based on some poorly written
installscripts of applications which use MSI (and old problems of the
first MSI - versions). But this is not a problem of MSI itself but of
those devs deploying their appications with a poor package. We had this
also before invention of MSI.
The new Opera - installer's script is quite buggy still, as to be expected
on a first try.
--
fuxs
Jernej Simončič
> Indeed NSI is fine, but it does not help one the main reasons why MS
> invented MSI: Bad (un-)installers of some applications could seriously
> damage other applications or the OS as whole. This fell back on MS, as
> their 'OS became unstable'. So they invented a service to possibly manage
> all installed components on a machine and therefore increase system
> stability (its drawback being of course the needed runtime, which must be
> installed on 9x / NT4 systems).
Except that the only thing they managed to do is that now any single
problem can cause all applications to cease functioning - I can't remember
how many times I've seen MSI completely b0rk, and start coming up at random
intervals, requesting installation media, and then rejecting it. Or simply
refusing to install without giving a reason. Or suddenly wanting the
install media when you try to run the program from the shortcut (even
though the program starts fine if you double-click the EXE). Or the install
getting somehow corrupted, and simply refusing to
uninstall/reinstall/repair/install. Or getting to 99% of install, then
suddenly rollback everything for no (displayed) reason at all. Oh, and did
I mention the (non-)progress bars?
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
For me, this is the only *real* issue with the MSI installer, that I will
encounter myself a lot. It's also a reason why the internal testers
haven't used the new installer much yet :)
A more-or-less easy workaround is to manually copy the installation
directory, and then edit the file paths in operadef6.ini, and manually add
the shortcuts I need. Maybe OK for occasional use, but not fun for testers
of daily builds...
There are also other problems, like the error messages people reported on
Windows 98/2000 systems. These were caused by compatability issues with
older versions of MSI. Your bug reports have already helped to fix these.
Reports of 'MSI will mess up my system' are not helping anyone, specific
bug reports on next friday's MSI installer are very welcome though.
There are two other issues that bug reports will not be able to overcome:
- the installer gets bigger
- Windows 95 and 98 users will have to get (once) the MSI installer from
Microsoft, if they don't already have it on their system.
Keeping a separate 'normal' installer available means a lot of extra work
for Opera. It might be worth it, but that's not my call.
--
Get Opera 8 now! Speed, Security and Simplicity.
http://my.opera.com/Rijk/affiliate/
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
Opera Software ASA, Documentation & QA
Tweak: http://my.opera.com/Rijk/blog/
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
> on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:01:17 +0100, Haavard Kvam Moen wrote:
>
>> That, and MSI allows for better language options. Opera is not just
>> availble in English.
>
> What was the problem of previous installer regarding language options?
- It doesn't support utf8
- It is hard to maintain, as dozens of languages have to be configured and
build separately, and then all have to be tested separately.
Witness the lack of localized installers for many .0 and .x subreleases,
due to the scarcity of our testing resources. Sometimes when we've
finished testing the .01 release in the ten major languages, the english
version gets upgraded to .02. This means we sometimes don't even get so
far as releasing the next ten languages, because first the major language
releases have to be updated...
> BTW, I'm using Inno Setup for my products, and I'm very happy with it's
> language support (though, I still have to add translations to my by far
> most popular installer, for Gimp).
>
--
Matthew Winn
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:14:54 +0100, Spartanicus <inv...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > ... some other piece of MS crap,
> > ... the *&^$& MS crap ... the MSI...run the *&^"%£ crap.
>
> I wonder, why you still use this crap then. Especially Win98, which I do
> regard as crap too. Stoneaged and insecure also btw.
> I have difficulties to understand, why one dislikes all the 'bastards'
> stuff and is not using some Linux distro. Every minute wasted for a
> customizing 9x system IMO opinion is wasted, as this OS is simply dead.
> Why not focus on a modern and actively supported OS?
One reason (probably not applicable to Spartanicus, but we don't know
for sure) is that there are some environments where known behaviour is
more important than supported-but-not-thoroughly-familiar behaviour.
This is especially true where downtime must be limited: if a product
is known to run correctly in a decade-old environment then the risk of
running it in a more modern environment that hasn't had ten years of
testing may be unacceptable.
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 10:14:54 -0600, Spartanicus
> <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> The old installer was great, if ever you had a damaged file you could
>> unzip the exe and retrieve the individual file without having to run the
>> installer with the risk of overwriting something.
>>
>> Grrrrrrr, not at all happy with Opera Software at the mo!
>
> I agree, completely. I hate the MS installer, mainly because you cannot
> extract individual files.
>
> Another thing, it said it would not change my settings. It comes up in
> SDI mode, while I have never used SDI.
>
> I do not know, yet, what other settings it changed.
That's not related to the installer, but to a change in functionality in
build 8303. The 'tabbed browsing' vs 'pure MDI' choice you made with the
checkbox 'show close button on tabs', is now split into separate options
in the 'tabs' and 'browsing' section of the prefs. Those who had unchecked
the 'close button' option before upgrading, can get SDI accidentally
enabled after using the 'tabs' preferences. I've filed a bug report on
this.
Leon Fisk
Wrote in <op.s6tij...@news.opera.com>
>There are also other problems, like the error messages people reported on
>Windows 98/2000 systems. These were caused by compatability issues with
>older versions of MSI. Your bug reports have already helped to fix these.
>Reports of 'MSI will mess up my system' are not helping anyone, specific
>bug reports on next friday's MSI installer are very welcome though.
Hi Rijk,
The last time I ran MSI was to install an updated version of
Java. It managed the install just fine, but it also left 40
meg of what I'll call "install debris" on my somewhat
crowded harddrive. Two new directories were created in
obscure places containing the aforementioned files. Those
files serve no useful purpose what-so-ever other than taking
up disk space. This wasn't an aborted install either,
everything looked/ended normally.
The two packages I installed prior to that one created new
directories under root\winnt with a file size equal to the
source files. Not to mention stupid entries for all the
above clogging up the registry. I've long since deleted all
of that nonsense and none of the software has failed to run
or work properly...
If you have done an MSI install, try taking a look under
your root/winnt and see if you have some new entries with
about 4 meg lurking there. I saw someone else mention the
installer offering to "fix" their install on a repeated run,
so I suspect these directories have been added for "making
repairs".
I'm not going to run an MSI installer again for any software
package. Way,way too much pain caused cleaning up behind
them...
--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI
Remove no.spam for email
Opera 9.00-8303/PII/NT4sp6a
Bill Hallman
<ri...@opera-dot-com.invalid> wrote:
>
> There are two other issues that bug reports will not be able to overcome:
> - the installer gets bigger
> - Windows 95 and 98 users will have to get (once) the MSI installer from
> Microsoft, if they don't already have it on their system.
>
Not an option for me. I have tried to download it. Microsoft will not let
me have it. They can not verify that I am running an authorized version of
Windows, because I run 98 lite.
--
Opera 9.0.8303, java 1.5.0_03, win98lite, PII 400mhz, RAM 320meg, video
Intel740 pv4.0.
Richard Grevers
<ri...@opera-dot-com.invalid> wrote:
> There are two other issues that bug reports will not be able to overcome:
> - the installer gets bigger
> - Windows 95 and 98 users will have to get (once) the MSI installer from
- I am unable to install any application via MSI because regardless of
where I install the software to, my critically crowded (I constantly
struggle to keep 50-100MB free on it) 2GB boot partition gets filled up.
I know the answer is to move to my new 120GB HD, but reninstalling Windows
from scracth and getting 100-odd applications set up again is a week's
work.
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Spartanicus
>If you have done an MSI install, try taking a look under
>your root/winnt and see if you have some new entries with
>about 4 meg lurking there. I saw someone else mention the
>installer offering to "fix" their install on a repeated run,
>so I suspect these directories have been added for "making
>repairs".
On my system MSI leaves behind *.msi files to provide an uninstall
feature, these files are far bigger in size than other installers. On my
W98 system these files are located in \Windows\Installer
--
Spartanicus
Leon Fisk
Wrote in
<i5b3229fv12ct3bnn...@news.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie>
That left behind msi file is the complete install file, that
is why it is so big. Install Shield merely extracts it along
with some of their own ini files to initialize some things
and then kicks it over to the Microsoft MSI package. This
must be there way of "fixing" a package...
Take a hex editor and look for "MSCF" in the msi file.
Delete everything above this (leaving MSCF) and save it as
something.cab. Now tell Winzip (or something similar) to
open this cab file. This will show the directory/files
inside. You probably won't be able to extract them without
errors though. There are some utilities available that will
extract them though. If you want them either do a google or
I'll try and figure out where I found them a while back :)
Leon Fisk
Wrote in <op.s6tyrnzvidj3ou@richardg>
>On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 02:01:04 +1200, Rijk van Geijtenbeek
><ri...@opera-dot-com.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>> There are two other issues that bug reports will not be able to overcome:
>> - the installer gets bigger
>> - Windows 95 and 98 users will have to get (once) the MSI installer from
>
>- I am unable to install any application via MSI because regardless of
>where I install the software to, my critically crowded (I constantly
>struggle to keep 50-100MB free on it) 2GB boot partition gets filled up.
>I know the answer is to move to my new 120GB HD, but reninstalling Windows
> from scracth and getting 100-odd applications set up again is a week's
>work.
I've got a similar problem, but due to using a notebook and
only room for one harddrive. No support for Useless Serial
Buss...
Trying to rebuild this thing is not a pleasant thought.
Robin Zalek
wrote:
> There are some utilities available that will
> extract them though. If you want them either do a google or
> I'll try and figure out where I found them a while back :)
Or wait for someone else to find them?
[http://blogs.pingpoet.com/overflow/archive/2005/11/16/14995.aspx]
Now it's just about how to pull the .msi out of the .exe installer.
--
If you need the email... you know what to do.
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
I found a 850k msi there. Together with lots of other files - without MSI,
I can't install MS Office, Adobe Reader, VMWare, Java, Apache, Python,
PaintShopPro, etc.
So the biggest issues for Win98 users with MSI in general are, provided
Opera manages to create a non-buggy script:
- hard disk gets filled
- getting MSI nowadays requires a MS validity check
?
jetsam
> A more-or-less easy workaround is to manually copy the
> installation directory, and then edit the file paths in
> operadef6.ini, and manually add the shortcuts I need. Maybe
> OK for occasional use, but not fun for testers of daily builds...
I actually did figure this out, though it was non-intuitive. I
renamed the folder I'd installed the program into the first time,
then ran the installer again and selected "remove", which pretended to
do something, but actually removed nothing. It did set some registry
flag or whatever, and I could then install the program a second time
in a new folder, and rename the first folder back to what it had been
to get that instance working once more. A runaround, but it worked,
and I didn't have to edit the INI.
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
Ah, way better, must remember that. But hopefully we can fix the MSI
installer so it isn't needed anymore.
fuxs
Your description seems applicable for servers, offering an old but needed
application to clients; I only know such machines equipped with NT4 Server
/ ancient Unix derivates in corporate environments. How should 'downtime'
and Win 9x match here?
X-Post and FUP to .off-topic
--
fuxs
Lauri Raittila
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:58:41 +0100, Spartanicus wrote:
>
> > Leon Fisk <lf...@no.spam.iserv.net> wrote:
> >
> >> If you have done an MSI install, try taking a look under
> >> your root/winnt and see if you have some new entries with
> >> about 4 meg lurking there. I saw someone else mention the
> >> installer offering to "fix" their install on a repeated run,
> >> so I suspect these directories have been added for "making
> >> repairs".
> >
> > On my system MSI leaves behind *.msi files to provide an uninstall
> > feature, these files are far bigger in size than other installers. On my
> > W98 system these files are located in \Windows\Installer
>
> I found a 850k msi there. Together with lots of other files - without MSI,
> I can't install MS Office, Adobe Reader, VMWare, Java, Apache, Python,
> PaintShopPro, etc.
You have test machine with 98? With some nice half gigabyte of memory,
lots of hardrive etc? Nobody on right mind has 98 on machine that can run
all those things you mention... (I mean MS Office new enough to have MSI
installer, or Adobe Reader. With this machine it took about 5 minutes to
get Adobe Reader run, and then it usually crashed within seconds.)
Lots of people use Win98, because they are stuck with it, as hardware
doesn't allow update to any MS OS. And old, exotic hardware is not
supported by new easy to install linux distros either.
> So the biggest issues for Win98 users with MSI in general are, provided
> Opera manages to create a non-buggy script:
>
> - hard disk gets filled
> - getting MSI nowadays requires a MS validity check
And you always need latest version of MSI (or almost latest anyway, never
managed to instal MSI using program before first updating the installer,
and often that has not been enough on 95 systems), and installer is hard
to get, especially if you have abolished IE, let alone erased it. Last
time I had to spent some 20minutes to open all holes of IE to get it, and
then another 10 to get all those closed again (meanwhile I waited some
hour or more for update on modem. I had programs nicely on CD, but I
didn't think I needed to download some huge installer to actually install
them). And If someone has done the job removing IE from system...
If Opera starts to use MSI installer, I won't be updating Opera anymore
on this computer.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
> in opera.beta, Rijk van Geijtenbeek wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:58:41 +0100, Spartanicus wrote:
>>> Leon Fisk <lf...@no.spam.iserv.net> wrote:
>>>> If you have done an MSI install, try taking a look under
>>>> your root/winnt and see if you have some new entries with
>>>> about 4 meg lurking there. I saw someone else mention the
>>>> installer offering to "fix" their install on a repeated run,
>>>> so I suspect these directories have been added for "making
>>>> repairs".
>>>
>>> On my system MSI leaves behind *.msi files to provide an uninstall
>>> feature, these files are far bigger in size than other installers. On
>>> my W98 system these files are located in \Windows\Installer
>>
>> I found a 850k msi there. Together with lots of other files - without
>> MSI, I can't install MS Office, Adobe Reader, VMWare, Java, Apache,
>> Python,
>> PaintShopPro, etc.
>
> You have test machine with 98?
I was describing my Windows XP machine.
> With some nice half gigabyte of memory,
> lots of hardrive etc? Nobody on right mind has 98 on machine that can run
> all those things you mention... (I mean MS Office new enough to have MSI
> installer, or Adobe Reader. With this machine it took about 5 minutes to
> get Adobe Reader run, and then it usually crashed within seconds.)
> Lots of people use Win98, because they are stuck with it, as hardware
> doesn't allow update to any MS OS. And old, exotic hardware is not
> supported by new easy to install linux distros either.
Right. And I don't have much use for a noisy big box to run a minimal
Linux distro either. That's why my Win98 machine is gathering dust most of
the time. Opera is trying to support (with new releases) machines up to
ten years old, but the gap is very wide indeed. And it is clear a vocal
minority of Windows 98 users is not amused at all with a switch to an MSI
installer.
..
Spartanicus
>I don't have much use for a noisy big box to run a minimal
>Linux distro either. That's why my Win98 machine is gathering dust most of
>the time.
With me it's the other way around, the prime requirement for my computer
is that it's quiet bordering on silent. I get that from my PII/266
laptop running W98. Very few "modern" computer configurations would be
able to get close to my current computer on those fronts, I'd have to
assemble it myself and spend way more than normal on select components.
--
Spartanicus
Haavard Kvam Moen
> And you always need latest version of MSI
I am not sure if this is really the case.
> (or almost latest anyway, never managed to instal MSI using program
> before first updating the installer, and often that has not been enough
> on 95 systems), and installer is hard to get, especially if you have
> abolished IE, let alone erased it.
Ok, so the real problem is that it's hard to get the right version of
MSI. I think we can solve that. In fact, the latest weekly might even
download the needed files automatically. I haven't checked, though.
So, with that out of the way, what are the other major obstacles when
using MSI?
Steven
<haa...@opera-dot-com.invalid> wrote:
>Ok, so the real problem is that it's hard to get the right version of
>MSI. I think we can solve that. In fact, the latest weekly might even
>download the needed files automatically. I haven't checked, though.
Can you supply an MSI that will work with NT4 ? I have had little
success and lots of trouble with various progs that needed MSI.
>So, with that out of the way, what are the other major obstacles when
>using MSI?
It seems unreasonable to use MSI which loads my disk with file and adds
many entries to my registry for a program such as Opera which doesn't
require tight integration using the registry. I don't know how much the
Windows market is worth to Opera now but dumping the current installer
which is fine for MSI sure sounds unfriendly to me. Is the current
approach really that much trouble for the developers ?
--
Steven
Haavard Kvam Moen
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 11:56:15 +0200, Haavard Kvam Moen
> <haa...@opera-dot-com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Ok, so the real problem is that it's hard to get the right version of
> >MSI. I think we can solve that. In fact, the latest weekly might even
> >download the needed files automatically. I haven't checked, though.
>
> Can you supply an MSI that will work with NT4 ? I have had little
> success and lots of trouble with various progs that needed MSI.
If MSI is supposed to work with NT4, I am sure that we can get it
working too.
> >So, with that out of the way, what are the other major obstacles when
> >using MSI?
>
> It seems unreasonable to use MSI which loads my disk with file and adds
> many entries to my registry for a program such as Opera which doesn't
> require tight integration using the registry. I don't know how much the
> Windows market is worth to Opera now but dumping the current installer
> which is fine for MSI sure sounds unfriendly to me. Is the current
> approach really that much trouble for the developers ?
The current installer does not support Unicode/language options or
network deployment.
Steven
Could you perhaps offer MSI for fancy installations and offer the
current installer for simple installations on a US English PC ? This
will show Opera as a flexible and progressive company that accommodates
a wide range of users.
If I have to try MSI I will have to backup my system volume first,
install Opera (to another volume) and then restore my system volume.
Also, I will be reluctant to suggest Opera to anybody in case the
installation will affect their system.
--
Steven
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 16:26:14 +0200, Haavard Kvam Moen
> <haa...@opera-dot-com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> The current installer does not support Unicode/language options or
>> network deployment.
>
> Could you perhaps offer MSI for fancy installations and offer the
> current installer for simple installations on a US English PC ? This
> will show Opera as a flexible and progressive company that accommodates
> a wide range of users.
I'd rather see the developers concentrate on making a very good MSI
installer. A decision to also supply an old-style exe means two sets of
installation will have to be maintained. And tested. It would also
encourage us to ignore the MSI installer for Windows 98 users, which is
bad news for non-English Windows 98 users. I'd rather see us offering a
simple zip file without *any* semblance of real 'installation'.
> If I have to try MSI I will have to backup my system volume first,
> install Opera (to another volume) and then restore my system volume.
Why? I was not a big fan of MSI on Windows 98 when I was still using it
daily, but I did use it succesfully for various programs. Like Apache and
Python.
> Also, I will be reluctant to suggest Opera to anybody in case the
> installation will affect their system.
I surely hope this only involves friends using Windows 98?
--
Rijk
Opera Software ASA
QA etc
Steven
<ri...@opera.removethiz.com> wrote:
>I'd rather see us offering a
>simple zip file without *any* semblance of real 'installation'.
Okay, I would definitely try this alternative.
>> If I have to try MSI I will have to backup my system volume first,
>> install Opera (to another volume) and then restore my system volume.
>
>Why? I was not a big fan of MSI on Windows 98 when I was still using it
>daily, but I did use it succesfully for various programs. Like Apache and
>Python.
I couldn't get Apache to install on NT4 and the installer did pollute my
system. I had to install on NT5 and then manually add things to my NT4
volume. Apache on NT4 is fine now but installation was a dog.
>> Also, I will be reluctant to suggest Opera to anybody in case the
>> installation will affect their system.
>
>I surely hope this only involves friends using Windows 98?
I will be reluctant until I am sure it is safe. I would hate to damage
someone else's system particularly as I can't backup/restore most PCs as
easily as I can for mine (multi-boot with small system volumes). The
manual installation approach would be my preferred option.
Admittedly I'm probably just part of the "grumpy old men" brigade with
our antiquated PCs and operating systems from the last millenium.
--
Steven
Matthew Winn
> simple zip file without *any* semblance of real 'installation'.
I wouldn't have a problem with that, but it would mean having a README
file explaining how to change the multiuser option by hand before
starting Opera and how to ensure all the paths in the configuration
files are correct. It'd be a real power user option, much more so
than for most unzip-and-go applications.
An alternative for pathnames -- probably a welcome one -- is to have
all Opera's paths relative to the Opera directory, so we'd have
Menu Configuration=defaults\standard_menu.ini
instead of
Menu Configuration=C:\Programs\Opera9-8303\defaults\standard_menu.ini
That would remove most of the need to update configuration files
during the manual installation process.
Steven
<o*@matthewwinn.me.urk> wrote:
>On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:34:52 +0200, Rijk van Geijtenbeek <ri...@opera.removethiz.com> wrote:
>> I'd rather see us offering a
>> simple zip file without *any* semblance of real 'installation'.
>
>An alternative for pathnames -- probably a welcome one -- is to have
>all Opera's paths relative to the Opera directory, so we'd have
>
> Menu Configuration=defaults\standard_menu.ini
Yes, that would be a great improvement. Much better than search &
replace to fix all the entries. It would also facilitate moving the
installation to another path or drive.
--
Steven
Lauri Raittila
> Right. And I don't have much use for a noisy big box to run a minimal
> Linux distro either. That's why my Win98 machine is gathering dust most of
> the time.
My Win98 Machine is high end compaq laptop (M700), it doesn't make any
sound (exluding speakers), also keyboard and pointing stick is by far
superior to cheap modern laptops. (I have a brand new ibook next to this,
but I still prefer this for tasks it is still powerful enaugh.)
> Opera is trying to support (with new releases) machines up to
> ten years old, but the gap is very wide indeed. And it is clear a vocal
> minority of Windows 98 users is not amused at all with a switch to an MSI
> installer.
That's because if Opera swiches to MSI, that will practically mean there
is no browser updates for W98 anymore. (Opera is actually last one there,
FF is far too slow, and nobody on right mind would even think about
running IE on w98...)
Haavard Kvam Moen
<la...@raittila.cjb.net> wrote:
> That's because if Opera swiches to MSI, that will practically mean there
> is no browser updates for W98 anymore.
The MSI installer is of course supposed to work under Windows 98. If
it doesn't, there's a bug somewhere.
Ken Knox
I can vouch for the fact that it works under W95B, although I still have a
problem with not being able to install more than one copy of Opera on a
given hard drive. :-(
--
Ken
Choose Opera! <http://www.chooseopera.com>
Opera 8.53 -- Now Ad-Free!
<http://www.opera.com>
Lauri Raittila
Yes, but as many people have noticed, on about 100% of times there is bug
somewhere that prevents things from working on W98.
Last week I was also worrying about my Win95A (but the computer
physically died this week). MSI won't work on it. It is not possible to
get it. (Win95A is last MS OS without IE)
Marko Koivuniemi
If I understood correctly Mozilla is starting eventually dropping entire
9x-series:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=330276
"Win98 users aren't going to be able to use Firefox 3. Firefox 2 isn't
even out the door yet (and probably won't be for many months yet) so
there's still plenty of life left in firefox for win98 users."
Same happens with Opera - sooner or later. (Sooner is better for
development and users of newer versions - later is better for users of
old computers. Difficult decision...)
--
Marko
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
> Lauri Raittila wrote:
>> in opera.beta, Haavard Kvam Moen wrote:
>>>> That's because if Opera swiches to MSI, that will practically mean
>>>> there is no browser updates for W98 anymore.
>>>
>>> The MSI installer is of course supposed to work under Windows 98. If
>>> it doesn't, there's a bug somewhere.
>>
>> Yes, but as many people have noticed, on about 100% of times there is
>> bug somewhere that prevents things from working on W98.
Bugs are there to be fixed...
>> Last week I was also worrying about my Win95A (but the computer
>> physically died this week). MSI won't work on it. It is not possible to
>> get it. (Win95A is last MS OS without IE)
So, you will not be able to install Opera 9 on that dead computer? I know
people keep such systems around to use old peripherals, but at some point
it doesn't make sense anymore to replace broken harddisks and memory etc.
> If I understood correctly Mozilla is starting eventually dropping entire
> 9x-series:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=330276
>
> "Win98 users aren't going to be able to use Firefox 3. Firefox 2 isn't
> even out the door yet (and probably won't be for many months yet) so
> there's still plenty of life left in firefox for win98 users."
Yes, apparently Opera 9 will be the only browser ever for Windows 9x that
passes the Acid 2 test. Mozilla 1.9/Firefox 3.0 might pass as well, when
they get around to it, but will only run on Win2k+ systems.
> Same happens with Opera - sooner or later. (Sooner is better for
> development and users of newer versions - later is better for users of
> old computers. Difficult decision...)
For each new feature that stretches the limits of system capabilities, it
will have to be decided if it's worth the trouble to support Win9x. At
this moment, that means work is being done to get Widgets to work on those
systems, and the MSI installer is tested for such systems.
Josef W. Segur
I have an MSI version from about 6 months ago which does work on my Win95A
system. I haven't used it much, and always wipe it and all the garbage
it puts on disk and in the registry after use.
The main problem I've run into is packages to be installed by MSI which
have been built with settings indicating they need things not on the
system. Usually I've found that doing a network install using the /a
commandline argument gets around that.
--
Joe
Lauri Raittila
> > Lauri Raittila wrote:
> >> in opera.beta, Haavard Kvam Moen wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 12:36:21 +0200, Lauri Raittila wrote:
>
> =
>
> >>>> there is no browser updates for W98 anymore.
> >>>
>
> >>> it doesn't, there's a bug somewhere.
> >>
> s =
>
> >> bug somewhere that prevents things from working on W98.
>
> Bugs are there to be fixed...
Problem is that MSI bugs are very effective way of making your computer
useless. Bug in any other installer means that you need to start
installer again. Bug in MSI may mean need of reinstall operating system.
It is just strange that you have software that will work just fine when
you copy it from another machine, but if you use installer, it may break
your whole system.
If you move to MSI, please offer also plain zip package...
Haavard Kvam Moen
<la...@raittila.cjb.net> wrote:
> Problem is that MSI bugs are very effective way of making your computer
> useless.
In what way?
--
Håvard Kvam Moen, QA SaD
Leon Fisk
Wrote in <qf9p32t0rbfkmvl35...@4ax.com>
>On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 21:47:31 +0200, Lauri Raittila
><la...@raittila.cjb.net> wrote:
>
>> Problem is that MSI bugs are very effective way of making your computer
>> useless.
>
>In what way?
Hi Haavard,
You can look back through this thread and see what some
pretty smart people (as we have seen demonstrated by their
answers to questions in the past. Some for a good many
years.) have had to say about MSI. It SUCKS! and that is all
there is to it. We have given specific examples and you
choose to ignore them.
No matter what kind of clothes you try to put on it, what
kind of perfume you use, nor what you claim has been fixed,
it is still a PIG! You can't FIX the Microsoft portion to
the install which is where the major problem lies.
I won't waste any more of my time giving specifics to people
that aren't listening...
--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI
Remove no.spam for email
Opera 9.00-8367/PII/NT4sp6a
Haavard Kvam Moen
<lf...@no.spam.iserv.net> wrote:
> You can look back through this thread and see what some
> pretty smart people (as we have seen demonstrated by their
> answers to questions in the past. Some for a good many
> years.) have had to say about MSI. It SUCKS!
Unfortunately, "it sucks" is not very helpful feedback, as what we
need is a list of specific issues that are causing problems.
> We have given specific examples and you choose to ignore them.
As a matter of fact, I've replied to some issues that have been
raised:
- Requires "Genuine Advantage" - should be fixed by now (installs
missing files automatically)
- Not working under Windows 98 was acknowledged, and addressed.
- Not working under NT4 was acknowedged, and also addressed IIRC.
If there are any specific issues that still cause problems, this is
the place to mention them. If it doesn't work, it is most likely a
bug, and can be fixed.
Mark V
> Spartanicus wrote:
>
>> I'd like to lodge a protest to the switch to the MSI installer
>> for the Windows builds.
[ ]
> The situation has not changed. MSI is still a shambles of an
> installer and should be abandoned -- or, prefereably, never
> adopted in the first place. It is a dead-end, proprietory
> technology.
>
> I would have thought that it was the very antithesis of Opera.
Indeed, it is so.
Haing been unaware of this thread at the time, I have all the same
complaints about and revulsion of the MSI installer as do many in
this thread.
If interested my (quite justified in my humble option) "rant"
begins at
From: Mark V <notv...@nul.invalid>
Newsgroups: opera.beta
Subject: Re: Opera 9.0 Beta 1 has been released
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 11:20:04 -0400
Message-ID: <e288r4$r53$2...@news.opera.com>
Xref: news.opera.com opera.beta:61275