🚀 go-pugleaf

> > ClickOnce is not an installation technology. It is a sand-boxed
> > execution environment for rich clients built on the .NET platform.
>
>     That's actually only part of what it does.  It also provides
> installation services.  See my responses further down to see more about what
> it can and can not do.

The point here is that ClickOnce is not an installation technology. An
installation technology makes changes to the system at a fairly mid to
low level. Microsoft's ClickOnce page itself declares that for these
types of changes, Windows Installer needs to be used.

For instance, with ClickOnce, you could not install a system tray
application that runs every time the system starts. That's the type of
"low level" I mean, not even stuff like drivers that the Microsoft
documentation refers to. And I think everybody will agree an
installation technology needs to be able to do at least that!

> > You cannot freely install files, settings, shortcuts using ClickOnce
>
>     You are right, you can not ^freely^ install files, but you can install
> shortcuts.  Also, settings are typically stored in .config files, which
> ClickOnce will install for you as well.  Check out the article on MSDN
> titled "Choosing Between ClickOnce and Windows Installer", located at (watch
> for line wrap):

I have already based my response on research that includes this
article. What I am saying above is that you are not free to decide what
goes where. For instance, you cannot create a shortcut in the Startup
group. This is what I mean by "freely". Again, pretty limiting as far
as installations go themselves.

> > - it will instead decide what to create, and where to put it.
>
>     Yes and no.  You can actually modify the deployment manifest to change
> these settings.  The wizard in VS.NET isn't that extensive, but there is
> nothing that prevents you from changing the outputs once you have created
> the deployment.

Sure you can make cosmetic changes, but see my replies above for the
kinds of non-trivial limitations I am talking about.

> > Moreover, ClickOnce requires .NET 2.0 to be already installed beforehand.
>
>     True, but VS.NET 2005 offers a bootstrap generator which makes it pretty
> easy to do this.  From the Smart Client Developer Center:

The bootstrap is very limited as I have described in the original press
release, and my original reply to you above. InstallAware is both a
real installation tool, and it also addresses the limitations in the
bootstrapper.

> > You will need a real installer if you want to:
> > 1) Install .NET 2.0 itself
>
>     See my above comment.

Still, you need a real installer. ClickOnce cannot do anything until
.NET 2.0 is installed.

> > 2) Install any type of application other than that which ClickOnce can
> > handle
> > 3) Show any kind of installation interface, or have any custom install
> > logic
>
>     I agree with you here.

Thanks.

> > ClickOnce is great, but its just good for simple WinForms applications
> > that don't have any dependencies whatsoever.
>
>     That's debatable.  It depends on what the dependencies are.  If they are
> other .NET assemblies, then no, it's not.

Lets say some simple COM dependency then.

> > Of course, you could use the Visual Studio bootstrapper to install your
> > pre-requisites (such as the framework), but there you're again better
> > off with InstallAware because:
> > 1) The .NET Framework is compressed up to 1/3rd of its original size
>
>     This is just me, but I'm a little weary of anything that does something
> to my compiled assemblies which isn't a part of my build process already.
> This is a completely subjective point, and I realize there are people that
> will want to do this.

Where do you get the idea that your original compiled assemblies are
changed? If you look at the InstallAware website:

http://www.installaware.com/web-deployment-superior-compression.htm

This page clearly explains how InstallAware achieves its compression
magic. We're not reverse engineering or decompiling anything. We are
very cleanly and inobtrusively removing compressed data streams,
replacing them with identical data in decompressed form, and then
compressing them with a superior algorithm. Otherwise the system would
fail anyways, because Windows Installer is very picky about this kind
of stuff. If a file inside a cabinet even changes position, things
break.

> > 2) You can deliver setup.exe's which download only the missing runtimes
> > 3) And, your main setup.exe's can still include your main application
> > and be fully functional
> >
> > InstallAware is based on Windows Installer technology - so you know
> > your setups are compliant with the latest corporate deployment
> > standards developed by Microsoft. Windows Installer is the primary
> > installation technology used and developed by Microsoft, with ClickOnce
> > having a more limited range of use (don't get me wrong, its great too).
>
>     Don't get me wrong either, I'm not trying to slam the product, but I
> feel that your initial assertions in your "ad" post were incorrect.  These
> are things that I feel readers of the group should be aware of before
> spending money on anything.

Please point out which of the following assertions are incorrect:

1) That InstallAware is an installation technology which performs
install tasks that cannot be performed with ClickOnce, even simple
things like system tray autorun applications, shortcuts in system
folders, etc.
2) That InstallAware compresses the .NET Framework to up to 1/3rd its
original size - available nowhere else.
3) That InstallAware features a smarter bootstrap mechanism, which
gives the developer complete freedom in choosing which runtimes go
where, and which are bundled with the main setup.exe file - again,
available nowhere else.

All of the above are factually correct. May I kindly suggest you
investigate InstallAware in a little more detail before doing what
looks like slamming it, or claiming that we are making inaccurate
statements for people's money. Both your posts so far are basically
saying we are charging for something people get for free with Visual
Studio out of the box, and this is factually false.

InstallAware is unique with its partial web deployment, superior
compression, and stellar support for Windows Installer. This is why
people are paying us for InstallAware. It is also unique in that it has
delivered support for .NET 2.0 before any other Windows Installer
vendor. This is something I would expect you to appreciate, instead of
bash.

Of course, I think your post has helped clarify the differences between
ClickOnce and real installers, so I thank you here for that. I also
understand that you are trying to act in the best interests of the .NET
community here, protecting users from ill willed vendors, which is
something I am sure the whole community appreciates. I just hope you
had exercised due diligence before making your accusations about
InstallAware. You may have felt a certain way but it is your
responsibility, again, to the entire .NET community, to hold your
feelings in check until you can back them with facts.

Sincerely,
Sinan Karaca

>
> --
>           - Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
>           - mvp@spam.guard.caspershouse.com