🚀 go-pugleaf

    Please don't spam the groups.

    And I am curious, how does your product differ from ClickOnce, which I 
get out of the box with .NET 2.0 (when it comes to distribution over the 
web)?  Right now, I don't see it.

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

"InstallAware" <mimarsinan@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1130781618.386568.61010@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> For Press Inquiries:
>
> Sinan Karaca
> InstallAware Software Corporation
> 336 Guerrero Street, San Francisco CA 94103
> 415 358 4094 (voice/fax)
> sinank@installaware.com
> http://www.installaware.com/
>
> InstallAware First (and Only) Installation Toolkit to Support .NET 2.0
> Installations
> One click deployment for Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 Applications
>
> San Francisco, CA, October 31 2005 - InstallAware Software
> Corporation has shipped a plug-in update pack for InstallAware, adding
> support for deploying Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0. Microsoft .NET
> Framework 2.0 was released less than a week ago, and InstallAware is
> the only installation toolkit at this time to provide support for
> installing the new version of the framework.
>
> "InstallAware has taken the lead. We're the first to support the
> new breed of Microsoft technologies, including .NET Framework 2.0 and
> SQL Server 2005," says Sinan Karaca, President of InstallAware
> Software Corporation. "For over two years now, InstallAware has been
> offering the only viable alternative to InstallShield's line of
> installation development tools. With this latest update to
> InstallAware, made available in less than 24 business hours after the
> new Microsoft technologies were released to manufacturing, we are
> championing the next generation Windows Installer based setup
> development tool."
>
> InstallAware dramatically simplifies deployment of applications and
> technologies based on Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0. InstallAware
> installs the framework, along with its pre-requisites, in a single pass
> - all as an integral part of the main application installation.
> Additionally, InstallAware reduces the size of the framework (and its
> required runtimes) up to 1/3rd the original size. "We first eliminate
> the redundant compression layers in the original files," says Agustin
> Berge, Director of Development at InstallAware Software Corporation.
> "We then process the resulting data through filters optimized for
> executable code, and finally pass them through our superior compression
> algorithm. The result is an installer that is three times smaller than
> what the competition delivers!"
>
> InstallAware also supports deploying the .NET Framework 2.0, and other
> required runtimes such as Windows Installer 3.0, on the web separately
> from the main application. End-users still download a fully
> self-contained installer that runs without requiring an Internet
> connection - something traditional web deployment cannot do, but
> InstallAware's partial web deployment can. The partially web deployed
> runtimes (and optionally, rarely used application features) are
> downloaded on-the-fly only when needed.
>
> Thus, InstallAware not only streamlines the installation of .NET
> Framework 2.0 based applications, but it also reduces the actual size
> of the .NET Framework 2.0 package, and trims the fat off of the main
> setup file  by stripping the optional runtimes from the main download.
>
> InstallAware 2005 is available in Express and Studio editions, with
> prices starting at US$199. A time limited trial and more information is
> available at http://www.installaware.com/. The plug-in update pack is
> available free of charge, for both trial and licensed users, at
> http://www.installaware.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=307.
>
> ###
>
> About InstallAware Software Corporation:
> InstallAware Software Corporation was founded by InstallShield alumni
> in 2003. The company focuses on software installation technologies for
> the Windows Installer platform and strives to bring a fresh approach to
> the setup development process. The privately held company has received
> numerous seed investments from venture capital firms and is a Borland
> Technology Partner.
> 

Sorry about the multiple posts...not sure how that happened. Spam is
definitely not the intention here! About your question...thanks for
bringing it up, its a very good one.

ClickOnce is not an installation technology. It is a sand-boxed
execution environment for rich clients built on the .NET platform. You
cannot freely install files, settings, shortcuts using ClickOnce - it
will instead decide what to create, and where to put it. Moreover,
ClickOnce requires .NET 2.0 to be already installed beforehand.

You will need a real installer if you want to:
1) Install .NET 2.0 itself
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

ClickOnce is great, but its just good for simple WinForms applications
that don't have any dependencies whatsoever.

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
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).

    See inline:

> 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.

> 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):

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dndotnet/html/clickoncevsinstaller.asp

    Specifically, look at the chart in the section titled "Key Differences".

> - 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.

> 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:

Using "ClickOnce" requires that the target client already have the .NET 
Framework 2.0 installed. Visual Studio has made packaging and deploying the 
.NET Framework simpler than ever. Simply select what pre-requisites your 
application may have (ex. the .NET Framework 2.0 & MDAC 9.0) and Visual 
Studio will generate a bootstrapper file that will automatically install all 
of the specified pre- requisites when run.

    This can be located at (watch for line wrap):

http://msdn.microsoft.com/smartclient/understanding/windowsforms/2.0/features/clickonce.aspx

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

    See my above comment.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

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

> > 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

    Again, see inline:

> 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.

    Again, ClickOnce is an installation technology.  Why you don't see it 
like that, I don't know, but the fact is that it does perform an install on 
the user's local machine.

    We seem to be in agreement about the fact it is limited.  I never 
implied that ClickOnce could do everything, but that there were overlaps in 
what you are offering and what ClickOnce offers.

> 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!

    We are in disagreement here about what an installation technology needs 
to do.  I agree, that for more intricate installs, products such as yours 
(and WISE's installer, as well as InstallShield's product, to name a few) 
are the way to go.

    However, your original post didn't bother to point out those details, 
rather, they focused on the details which I felt were overlapping with what 
ClickOnce offers.

> 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.

    We agreed on this.

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

    Again, we agreed on this as well.

> 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.

    Actually, you make no mention of the bootstrapper option in your 
original post which I consider to be what you refer to as your "press 
release".  If there is another one, then I don't know about it.

> Lets say some simple COM dependency then.

    True enough.

> 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.

    Fair enough.  I failed to look into that and made a guess as to how it 
was done.  That was an error on my part.

> 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.

    If you feel I am slamming it, I am sorry, but I asked a question which 
involved a comparison with another technology (which in your initial post, 
made your product look similar to that technology).  You responded to that, 
and I responded to that in turn, pointing out information which I feel was 
omitted.

> 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.

    I never said that you were charging for something that people get for 
free out of the box.  Rather, I asked for you to indicate how your product 
differed from the product that is offered out of the box.

> 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.

    Again, I never bashed it.  I asked questions.  If you have a problem 
with responses to statements you make, you really shouldn't be posting here. 
If you think that the questions I asked and my responses were bad, you 
should see some of the other discussions in this, and other groups.

> 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.

    Again, where are the accusations?  I asked questions and made 
statements, just as you did.  Where I was wrong, I openly admitted it.

> 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.

    I am sorry that you felt I didn't back what I said with facts.  With the 
exceptions where I admitted where I was wrong (and I believe there is only 
one place), nothing about what I said was incorrect.  There are areas where 
we are in agreement.  I just felt that the highlights of your initial press 
release overlapped areas of functionality that ClickOnce offers.  I never 
said it didn't do anything else that you proclaim it does, rather, I asked 
what the difference was.


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

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