Random rant: 7-Zip (7z) file format

[Eretria-chan]

NO! You bastard! Because you're lazy doesn't mean WE should suffer. Don't say things like that....

[Wilbert]

@Eretria-chan,

I suggest you change the tone in your previous post a bit. I know you didn't mean it seriously, but let's keep it civilized.

[Eretria-chan]

Then I apologize. I didn't mean it to be rude.

[Neo Neko]

Yes, it's business oriented. Why? As mentioned, that's how you reach spread in applications. And speaking about the vast majority of users, servers and workstations is hardly a narrow subject.

Agree to disagree. K? The funny thing is I am not disagreeing with you that business has an "effect". It is just that I think; or rather know that there is more to it than just business adoption. In regards to the total picture while business does have an important effect it is not the largest affector of software adoption. Large but not largest. Focus on it solely and you still miss the wider view.

Vast majority of users? Maybe. Vast majority of servers? Depends on the context. So not hardly. Last I checked at least for businesses dealing with internet facings and transactions the majority of servers were a flavor of *nix with Apache and not Windows and IIS. Whether it was by choice or by hosting is another issue though. But I take it that this is a segment you don't work with alot. You sound to be more of an internal networking consulting specialist for homogenus networks. ;)

The Windows Installer technology came with Windows 2000 natively, which means that it's been on the market roughly 6 years now. In most cases meaning 2 hardware generations, or at least one.

Yes it came with 2000/ME. Already been through this. But not everyone is running Windows versions that are that new. And even though you can download windows installer as addons all the way back to Win95 most don't due to the fact that windows installer has no real advantage for the most part on non NT OS.


I'm sorry, but you're wrong again. It is quite uncommon with Wintendos and NT4-machines on companies today, even small ones. All Wintendo's and the NT4 OS went out of market in 2002 (except Ms's worst OS ever, WinME which lived to 2003). You really should know what you're talking about if you make such statements...

Scuse me? Your experience is not the totality of everything. I have different experiences. That does not make either one of us wrong. I have worked with many who either still had large if not solely 9X rollouts. But a few working with pre-PCDOS/MSDOS whatever technology. Scarry thought there are many out there still running mainframes with serially attached 9600baud dumb terminals in brilliant black and green. It was not more than a year or two ago that Sprint finally phased out all their Win 95 systems at their world headquarters located not far from here. So if even a big boy like Sprint is just weaning itself off Win95 what kind of outlook does that give for small businesses who often have less expertiese and resources? Not saying that there aren't those lucky enough to have all NT5 or NT5.1 or better rollouts. But I have not seen anything putting them at majority or lion share status. ;)


That is true. Many companies try to make money, otherwise they wouldn't exist. But there are free alternatives, like WinINSTALL LE & Caphyon Advanced Installer for example.

It has become increasingly apparent in recent times that you don't have to charge for software to make money from it. Not saying that their isn't an appeal to directly recieving cash on sales of software. But software was free long before people payed for it. So the pay software model may be the newest but not only option. ;) As to the two software titles given I will dig around and see what I can find. Thanks for the little bit of info.


Finally, statements like "When it comes to Windows based businesses with point and click admins you are probably right. There was never much hope for that bunch anyway.",

Aww come on. You left out the equal dig I gave to the *nixers. :p


and "Lets just put it down to this. Firefox." aren't very thought through and quite pubertal.

And there you cut the anology short. Not that there was anything pubertal about anything there. Interesting term though. :p Can't say I have heard that used much or at all. Applied like a synonym of infantile. at any rate. I see you are as perplexed with me as I am with you. Perhaps more so. ;)


How many users have Firefox? How many users will ever have it? Why isn't it growing as much as the hype? To me it seems simple.

LOL it would be to you. ;) That whole group of statements is nothing but one giant straw man argument. We can no more determine the actual number of users that have firefox as we can those that have IE. We can't even determine highly accurate percentage numbers. At best there are some generally accepted aproximate percentages. Almost all of which show a definate decline in IE usage and a definate increase in FireFox and others. FireFox is by those numbers the second most used browser on the internet. With usage multiples higher than it's next closest competitors. Not to mention that while IE is not where it is on merit by and large FireFox is. ;)


It's not spreading faster in reality because it isn't easily deployable in most companies around the world.

Funny thing is that that is changing. If Dell and others continue the trend it might be coming on many or even most leased systems. Leasing being a popular consumption method for many medium/large scale business IT needs. But not end consumers though they will be getting it too.


The lack of an MSI-package (although there's custom one's floating around),

Not only that. There is an official one in the works as well. It's still a ways off. But that is the transition you have to make going from a home to business environment. :D And once that happens even you MSI only holdouts will have to stop complaining a bit. Though I suspect you will find soething even more inane. Like the largely redundant technology of IE security zones. :p


administration and maintenance tools are a big part of the reason if you ask me.

I agree that they will help get the point and clickers onboard.


In the Firefox case, there's also the unneccessity of the application itself. The difference between IE which is also freely available and Firefox are very small. Changing simply doesn't give any notable advantages. This isn't a narrowminded statement, it is reality.

You are mistaken there. It isn't reality. It is infact narrowminded and perhaps uneducated. There are significant differences. And IE is not that freely avalible. Where are the IE downloads for BSD/Linux/AIX/HPUX/etc? They never existed. Where are the IE downloads for Solaris? They were killed off before WMP for Solaris was IIRC. Some time about IE3/4. Whatabout IE for Mac? Nope gone as well. I suppose it depends on what you mean freely avalible. Even in the Windows world there are not up to date IE installs for many Windows versions. Finally lets get to the advantages. Which there are many. I will attempt to condense them here though. The far superior CSS support in FireFox and friends allow for lighter, simpler, more effective and interactive page layouts than even IE7 will offer let alone IE6. Many designers pray that Microsoft may fix their box model bugs that have for a large part of the last decade held back the adoption of universal CSS layouts in favor of older buggier and bloated table layout methods. The adoption of CSS based layouts will make web development much more productive allowing one document to have many easily defined layouts from full desktop down to embeded mobile browsing. (And a handy-capable ramp for IE users) Something not possible with the design limitations imposed by many of IE6 flawed implementations. Complex javascripts and server generated pages are currently required. Which increase both server and user load unneccesarily. Not to mention better media support and interactivity for things like SVG and PNG. Which will allow the development of even ritcher and simpler sites. Did you know that in almost any non-IE browser it is now possible to deliver SVG graphics and HTML data as one simple compound file? Very nice. And from a designers point of view usefull. It has it's benefits for non designers as well. This will allow SVG enabled office suites to export business data graphs etc that are directly embeddable in web documents without raster translations. Meaning they will be both more readable and scaleable. Again less work on the designer/coder side. Less hassle from the user side. There is also a huge security difference in FireFoxe's favor. Whether it is the more opne nature of the code or the bug fixing process. To the increased dificulty of getting"root" in Firefox over IE since Firefox is not as needlessly bundled. There is a "DIFFERENCE". A big one. Be you a user, designer, or administrator. ;)


I always thought that people who develop software, whether freeware or not, wants it to spread. Even if the "aim" are private individuals, why not package the application using industry standards instead of special solutions?

The standard depends on not only the industry in question but also the target in question. MSI isn't the industry standard. It is the NT5+ MCSE Active Directory standard. The reasons that MSI was not the primary packaging chosen were many. In home userland which is where Mozilla grew up MSIs are rare and un-important. MSI also puts more restrictions on who can install it in some environments. Especially when the software does not require that much special instalation to be done. If any really. Finally it is no simple feat to make MSIs or everone would be doing it including point and click admins. It is also quite a departure from the install systems of most other platforms. The MSI issue will resolve itself once there is enough demand for it. If it hasn't already. Which it has. Though it has not been rubber stamped by the Mozilla organization. Which for what little it really means will keep the more paranoid from adopting. :D


It has even taken some large companies quite some time to come to this realization. In your case, Winzip still haven't got it right. If 7Zip is a competitor, what substantial advantages does it have over existing software (well besides the fact that it's free)? I don't see compression ratios as the main factor. I don't think that the vast majority of users give a damned about the extra few percents of compression ratio. It is the ease of use, compability, maintenance, updates and installation.

7z is easy to use. The software it comes with is also very compatible with all traditional ZIPs. Minus some of the newer or non-standard tools which have extended or tweaked the format. It is also easy to matinance. AD roulouts are fine. But you don't have to upgrade each new version of 7-zip that comes out. Update it every time you update your ghost image and roll it out that way. ZIP will still always work better in 7-zip than WFM and 7z will have little to no issues with it's format. Oh and it's not about a few percents of extra compression. But rather about tens of percents in many cases. And that's just with 7-zip produced ZIPs and not even 7-zip's own format. Which is not something to ignore easily.

[Audionut]

Bandwidth ain't free. If it can be saved from simply switching to a new compression method, than all the better.

The numerous dial-up users that are still out there, prefer smaller files aswell, for obvious reasons.

But hey, Who gives are rats ass about bandwidth when you're not paying for it.
Or dial-up users when your sitting pretty with broadband or better.

Hey.

[Richard Berg]

My position on this issue is to offend as many apologists on both sides as possible. To wit:


The recent emergence of 7zip as described by Zambelli is extremely annoying. There was no need to disrupt the zip + rar paradigm in 2002. Furthermore, their Windows app's interface and features are inferior to WinRAR.
The integration of Zip into XP is extremely annoying. Whoever thought this
http://richardberg.net/bin/temp/annoying-zip.png
would make Explorer more useful should be dragged out & shot. As far as I know the only way to disable it is to manually unregister zipfldr.dll.

[Neo Neko]

My position on this issue is to offend as many apologists on both sides as possible. To wit:


The recent emergence of 7zip as described by Zambelli is extremely annoying. There was no need to disrupt the zip + rar paradigm in 2002. Furthermore, their Windows app's interface and features are inferior to WinRAR.

I don't think you managed to offend anyone. Which is a good thing. ;)

Though I have to say to you Emp3r0r and Zambelli. Sorry I am not changing. So you are just gonna have to deal. In fact I think I am gonna start using a few other archive formats to spice things up. It's all about the right tools and formats for the job. And that is almost never going to be ZIP and rarely RAR. :D

[foxyshadis]

Well, if you must, at least be gracious enough to make sure they aren't readable by Winrar. RK, SITX, SQZ, and SBC should do nicely.

[Mug Funky]

@ Richard Berg:

thanks heaps! that big long zipfile list was really starting to annoy me :)

regsvr32 /u zipfldr.dll

fixed it :)

[Doom9]

Some time about IE3/4. I'm afraid that's incorrect. There was even an IE 5.5 for Solaris, and it worked quite well. At the time, I even thought it was the best browser for Solaris (of course the competition was Netscape 4 and that sucked big time).

And as far as security goes, Firefox's record is also less than stellar. Today, the biggest security advantage is that Firefox security fixes are released more quickly, than those for IE. In the end it really doesn't matter whethere there are 10 bugs that allow somebody to take over your machine, or one.. all it takes is one that is exploited.

Not to mention that while IE is not where it is on merit by and large FireFox is. I strongly believe you are seriously mistaken on that one. In the non Windows world, maybe it is.. and Firefox imho is the best browser out there, regardless of platform. However, to reach the ~10 % userbase it's said to have, that means significant cuts into the Windows population, and they all just happen to have IE pre-installed. If users really cared much about the missing or halfway implemented features of IE, they'd have migrated away a long time ago.. the reason we saw such change in 2005 was another one: Joe Average was told in papers and via Television that IE puts their computer at risk, and that Firefox is safer. If you hear that enough, it starts to sink in, and now matter how careless you might be, if you have the option to download a 5MB piece of software, keep on doing what you're doing just the same way, but have a safer system, that is something that will not go unheard. I dare say that the safety angle is the main reason why Firefox is making inroads into Windows, not features and standard compliance and whatnot.

Even with Dell, they cannot get rid of IE because Windowsupdate needs it. So is Firefox really going to be the default browser and how fast are people switching back once the annoying "this isn't your default browser, would you like to make it the default" comes up when they visit Windowsupdate?

[Neo Neko]

I'm afraid that's incorrect. There was even an IE 5.5 for Solaris, and it worked quite well. At the time, I even thought it was the best browser for Solaris (of course the competition was Netscape 4 and that sucked big time).

Interesting. I would not have and did not guess that support was that recent. Even if it was almost a decade ago. :p But that was all because no matter how bad Netscapes product was at the time. It was still competition that actually got Microsoft off their collective duffs to actually write a decent (for that time) product. With the death of netscape at version 4 it is more than just coincidence that IE6 was much much less than spectacular, special, or even that good at all. At least compared to IE5.x.

And as far as security goes, Firefox's record is also less than stellar. Today, the biggest security advantage is that Firefox security fixes are released more quickly, than those for IE.

Less than stellar though it may be it "is" still better. And faster releases are IMO quite important. Especially when you considder that Firefox now has auto update built in and on by default. Meaning that every time the user starts the program they will know about patches and updates. As opposed to having to navigate to windows update and finding the patches etc. One improvement though that could be made is a more noticable mechanism to alert the user of updates.

In the end it really doesn't matter whethere there are 10 bugs that allow somebody to take over your machine, or one.. all it takes is one that is exploited.

Quite right. Which is why I take more comfort in Firefox. It is fixed quicker regardless of the number or severity of the flaws. Which it has traditionally had less of anyway. :D

I strongly believe you are seriously mistaken on that one. In the non Windows world, maybe it is.. and Firefox imho is the best browser out there, regardless of platform. However, to reach the ~10 % userbase it's said to have, that means significant cuts into the Windows population, and they all just happen to have IE pre-installed.

Like I said there are no definative numbers. But yours might be a bit low or out of date. ;) Check it. (http://digg.com/technology/New_XiTi_Study_Reports%3A_Firefox_20_Marketshare_In_Europe_)

If users really cared much about the missing or halfway implemented features of IE, they'd have migrated away a long time ago..

There is alot more to it that that. And having said that there are many non technical users which have switched to IE alternatives. Firefox or not.

the reason we saw such change in 2005 was another one: Joe Average was told in papers and via Television that IE puts their computer at risk, and that Firefox is safer. If you hear that enough, it starts to sink in, and now matter how careless you might be, if you have the option to download a 5MB piece of software, keep on doing what you're doing just the same way, but have a safer system, that is something that will not go unheard. I dare say that the safety angle is the main reason why Firefox is making inroads into Windows, not features and standard compliance and whatnot.

Hey even if they have to be told about it. It is still merit based word of mouth. All the papers etc could have just as easily said people should switch to Opera or perhaps Maxon or whatever the sucessor to MyIE2 was. Saftey can be as much a feature as anything else. And while I am not gonna argue the fact that the saftey "feature" ;) did win over alot of the non-techies it was not the sole factor for all of them. The only ones that fall in that category are the inepts who regard a computer as some sort of closed appliance. If all the other features were not there the switch would hardly be taking place. Because lets face it folks the safest browser on the planet would have to be something like lynx or maybe manually interpriting the HTML output of a web server via a telnet session. :p But last I checked those two options were not even really blips on the radar. ;)

Even with Dell, they cannot get rid of IE because Windowsupdate needs it. So is Firefox really going to be the default browser and how fast are people switching back once the annoying "this isn't your default browser, would you like to make it the default" comes up when they visit Windowsupdate?

Actually it is quite possible to load windows update in firefox. And "native" windows update support may yet be in firefoxe's future. But for now a bit of fenagling on Dell or someone elses part and pre-installing IE-tab with firefox means that while IE will still be installed it is possible to set it up to be invisible to the user and only invoked as needed. :D

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/3636/temp1yz.th.jpg (http://img33.imageshack.us/my.php?image=temp1yz.jpg)

Should also mention that the class of users you are talking about have not likely ventured over to windows update before anyway. :p And with many OEM turning auto update on by default they probably never will. Regardless of IE. Save maybe business IT admins etc.

[Doom9]

As opposed to having to navigate to windows update and finding the patches etc.It's not necessary for Windows.. they pretty much force you to activate automatic patch installation these days.. it's reasonable to assume that all non computer savvy types have this enabled, and the nagging of WindowsUpdate is more penetrant than the nagging of Firefox (for whatever reason, my machine at work would never signal that my Firefox 1.06 was severely out of date.. the upgrade to 1.5 was done out of my own accord).

Less than stellar though it may be it "is" still better. I guess its kinda unfair to compare since IE is much more of a target considering its spread, and the time the code has been out there without significant changes. Yet, in the last year we had to upgrade quite a few times due to security issues. If you take "speed of updates" out of the equation, it's not so clearcut anymore. And I wouldn't take upgrade speeds into account.. that goes in a different category imho... the "how important is the fixing of security flaws to the manufacturers". While naturally this relates to security, a secure browser would start in a managed language to begin with so there cannot be any security exploits.

All the papers etc could have just as easily said people should switch to Opera or perhaps Maxon or whatever the sucessor to MyIE2 was.Considering Opera has (or had now) ads built-in.. would you suggest a browser that you have to pay for or a free alternative?

I frankly don't know a single person whose computer knowledge is not quite comparable to mine, who did switch for any other reason that me or TV telling them the browser is safer. And I do work in the IT world.. so I'd dare venture my experience is somewhat representative. Even the PNG you posted that IE cannot render properly.. when I used IE I couldn't care less..

[Sirber]

Considering Opera has (or had now) ads built-in.. would you suggest a browser that you have to pay for or a free alternative?Had. It's been removed from version 8 IIRC.

[masken]

@Neo Neko, I don't know where you get all your ideas from really... don't want to go into the personal fight you seem to aim at with the irony you try to bring in your posts, but all I can say is that you seem to lack work/company experience. Of course there's also many *nix machines out there. You're viewing this from a nix/windows fight perspective which isn't what I'm talking about at all.

You also seem to mix terminal-based business systems with client OS's. What you've seen in most cases are probably terminal emulators, running on a Windows box in the bottom. Of course there's also large installations of pure terminal-based systems, but these are usually at very large companies. I've worked in europe for about 10 years as a consultant, so I do have some experience in both hard/software rollouts and software projects. In Europe, the SMB-segment stands for the vast majority of companies and people (ie, 1-100 employees). SMB businesses usually don't have special terminal based systems. In fact it is very rare. They run Windows boxes, and probably have a Win2000 or 2003 SBE server in a corner somewhere.

My point when writing about the Windows Installer Technology is that it IS present om most systems, as already mentioned, Win2000 has been on the market for about 6 years now. How many companies do you think runs 6 year old PC's without warranty or reinstallation? Or without having installed software that requires Windows Installer? If you do not see past this then I don't know how to explain this for you... ;)

Regarding statistics about Firefox and IE, that is one of the easiest things to be fairly accurate about. Just look in a couple of web server logs.

Regarding standards for packaging applications, I think that most experienced programmers will tell you that if there is a standard, it is an MSI package. Perhaps wrapped to an executable with Wise or InstallShield.

[Caroliano]

I don't know about the 1st world but here in Brazil is rare to find servers runing windows 2000 with WinXP clients. In small companys or things like that you will find more NT4 servers with win98 clients. Anything above that and you can seriously question if they have realy bought the license from Microsoft for all their machines.

And if you go to any library, supermarket, shop or whatever place that need an database, they will be runing these brilliant black and green apps in their old 486DX. The point is: why upgrade if everything is working fine?

And I learn what is an MSI package in this tread. Never saw one in my life... most home users would say so.

[Sirber]

Regarding standards for packaging applications, I think that most experienced programmers will tell you that if there is a standard, it is an MSI package. Perhaps wrapped to an executable with Wise or InstallShield.Most software I use are using NSIS :)

[Neo Neko]

It's not necessary for Windows.. they pretty much force you to activate automatic patch installation these days.. it's reasonable to assume that all non computer savvy types have this enabled,

I already said as much in a previous post. But I have to disagree that at this point it is reasonable to assume that most have it enabled. I don't argue that all new systems sold with XP have it on by default. But that is only "new" systems. And unless Microsoft has somehow managed to backdoor their way in and turn it on for their all their users a vast majority will still not have it enabled. Especially in business installs. They avoid it like the plague. But then that probably would not be any different for FireFox.

and the nagging of WindowsUpdate is more penetrant than the nagging of Firefox (for whatever reason, my machine at work would never signal that my Firefox 1.06 was severely out of date.. the upgrade to 1.5 was done out of my own accord).

Yeah there is still work to be done. We will have to see when the next update comes out if you get the notice. There were issues with firewalls, nat, etc.

I guess its kinda unfair to compare since IE is much more of a target considering its spread, and the time the code has been out there without significant changes. Yet, in the last year we had to upgrade quite a few times due to security issues. If you take "speed of updates" out of the equation, it's not so clearcut anymore. And I wouldn't take upgrade speeds into account.. that goes in a different category imho... the "how important is the fixing of security flaws to the manufacturers". While naturally this relates to security, a secure browser would start in a managed language to begin with so there cannot be any security exploits.

Well we will have a while to wait then. Considering that managed languages are still low penetration in alot of areas. I have not heard any info about IE7 being completely rewriten or ported to .NET. Since it is being made avalible for XP I don't think it will be. (could be wrong) But maybe if the Mozilla group can keep Microsoft working IE8 might eventually get there.

Considering Opera has (or had now) ads built-in.. would you suggest a browser that you have to pay for or a free alternative?

Well since even with the old ad-support version there is no money lost on the computer users part to most of them it is still "free". The ads would be an annoyance. But if it was all about security that would hardly be a big issue. I mean if they are more secure and provide what the user needs who would begrudge them getting paid? But while security was a big point it wasn't the only one.

I frankly don't know a single person whose computer knowledge is not quite comparable to mine, who did switch for any other reason that me or TV telling them the browser is safer. And I do work in the IT world.. so I'd dare venture my experience is somewhat representative.

What is wrong with that though. And if it is wrong who's fault is it. Mozilla's or TV and people like yourself? I have gotten several people to switch for non-security related issues. Why because I tell them about what it can do. Want to get rid of all popups? The NoScript plugin along with FireFoxe's built in support all but preclude you ever getting an unwanted popup. (and sometimes some wanted ones when you are first starting. That and there can still be DOM popups.) Tired of those flashing you are a w[e]inner banner ads or bandwidth sucking flash ads? Adblock and the filter set update plugin can completely remove them in many many cases. Those are major usability advantages. But there are many more minor or cosmetic customizations possible with FF that IE can't do. Mouse guestures can be a life saver for your porn addicted friends or just casual surfers alike. There is something for everyone there. And people would switch if they knew. But apparently someone is not doing their job. ;)

Even the PNG you posted that IE cannot render properly.. when I used IE I couldn't care less..

You say that as if it were past tense. IE still can't render the current one. And at any rate I did not create it thinking it would cause mass conversion. I did it because it was fun, I could, and I still get confused IE users thinking that my pic is broken when it is actually just their browser. :D

[Neo Neko]

@Neo Neko, I don't know where you get all your ideas from really... don't want to go into the personal fight you seem to aim at with the irony you try to bring in your posts, but all I can say is that you seem to lack work/company experience. Of course there's also many *nix machines out there. You're viewing this from a nix/windows fight perspective which isn't what I'm talking about at all.

Don't be so sure that you aren't talking about that. Or that I am. ;) When you talk about proprietary installer formats only supported on the most recent windows versions that excludes everyone else as being "what everyone should use" or as "the standard" you could be construed to imply exactly that sort of thing.

You also seem to mix terminal-based business systems with client OS's.

I didn't make big distinctions yes. Because to me terminals are more often associated with mainframes running *NIX.

What you've seen in most cases are probably terminal emulators, running on a Windows box in the bottom.

Trust me that is not the case. I have logged on to the server shells. And they were text mode Unix systems. End of story. The only Windows server on the network was an exchange server. ALL other services are handled by databases etc on the Unix back ends with a mixture of SuSE and Redhat servers far outnumbering the Windows one. There are some Windows based clients at a few select locations. Running Microsoft's latest and greatest. Windows 98. That's right. Windows 98 not 98SE. Oh while I am at it they do have Windows 95 based register systems. :D Highly unreliable. But they bought it all those years ago and are determined to get their moneys worth even after being burned. Many retailers etc in the area don't have big Windows rollouts. Many still have a high *NIX presence. And the Windows installs they have are rapidly reaching the decade old mark.

Of course there's also large installations of pure terminal-based systems, but these are usually at very large companies.

I suppose some of the ones I describe could be considered "large". But there are many small ones here who don't have a Windows install that was purchased in the last 8 or 9+ years as well.

I've worked in europe for about 10 years as a consultant, so I do have some experience in both hard/software rollouts and software projects. In Europe, the SMB-segment stands for the vast majority of companies and people (ie, 1-100 employees). SMB businesses usually don't have special terminal based systems. In fact it is very rare. They run Windows boxes, and probably have a Win2000 or 2003 SBE server in a corner somewhere.

That's great. And I don't deny that you are competent at what you do. But bear this in mind. You are serving in a highly different market. On the other side of the globe. You can't just assume those conditions there are universal. ;)

My point when writing about the Windows Installer Technology is that it IS present om most systems,

Where you are that is. Kudos.

as already mentioned, Win2000 has been on the market for about 6 years now.

And yet many companies "here" still use versions predating it heavily.

How many companies do you think runs 6 year old PC's without warranty or reinstallation?

Lots. Just because a system is 6+years old does not mean it is out of waranty. Depending uppon your vendor they can offer extended warantys and service. And many do. As I said before it often comes down to "If it's not severely cripling us don't fix it.". It works and that is what they are after. They don't always need the latest and greatest.

Or without having installed software that requires Windows Installer? If you do not see past this then I don't know how to explain this for you... ;)

Here there are quite a few that have never touched an MSI.

Regarding statistics about Firefox and IE, that is one of the easiest things to be fairly accurate about. Just look in a couple of web server logs.

Wrong. Who's logs? Mine have had 60%+ firefox at times. Microsoft , hotmail, or MSN's? Safe to assume that IE is seen 99.9999999999999% of the time there. :p So who's logs can we look at that will be totally representative and accurate? Could there even be an agreement on that let alone unaversal agreement on what the numbers from that mean? Should we count downloads or bundled versions in Microsoft's case? Nope that is a whole nother can of worms that will not get you very far.

Regarding standards for packaging applications, I think that most experienced programmers will tell you that if there is a standard, it is an MSI package. Perhaps wrapped to an executable with Wise or InstallShield.

Programmers packaging for solely MS Windows based business consumption? Perhaps. Programmers in general? That really depends. I am with Sirber here. I see alot more NSIS on a regular basis.

[dragongodz]

I see alot more NSIS on a regular basis.
and i see a LOT of Inno setups aswell. its funny but i havent seen any problems posted anywhere from using alternite installers such as these since they are self contained and dont require you to have any special software on your system to install them.

[Neo Neko]

and i see a LOT of Inno setups aswell. its funny but i havent seen any problems posted anywhere from using alternite installers such as these since they are self contained and dont require you to have any special software on your system to install them.

Well in Masken's defense MSI is a different beast. If you have a large MS Windows 2000 or better network with at least 1 domain and domain controller set up. MSI provides a simple integrated way to distribute software and updates to the whole network from the controller including ACLs etc. Just point and click and the controller replicates the changes throughout the network for you automatically. Which is why it is the choice of the point and click admins. There are other ways to do it. But they are either tedious or technical/creative/custom. It is a nice setup if you can get it. But the chances that you will ever use it at home are almost nill. Chances that you will ever need it at home are almost nill.

Having said that I have set up Samba-TNG AKA 3.0 as a PDC at home for the few Windows installs there. 2 out of 11 or so systems. Makes it nice since I can set up a roaming profile for all the systems including the Windows ones. A roaming profile is basically being able to log on to any system on the network and having your files and settings "follow" you. It is really easy to do under Linux/BSD. You just share your home folder via NFS or CIFS share and map it on each system. Or just map it on one system and merge the differences with the others etc. But it is a pain on Windows. You MUST have a domain controller. It isn't as simple as just sharing home folders and systems settings.

[dragongodz]

MSI provides a simple integrated way to distribute software and updates to the whole network from the controller including ACLs etc. Just point and click and the controller replicates the changes throughout the network for you automatically.
yes i know but lets look at whats being released in general with 7zip and installers such as nsis and inno. the majority seems to me to be single user type software and not generally business rollout. so i fail to see where this is any real concern for now.

infact lets get back to the original arguement(i think) that 7zip wouldnt become popular with business unless it used msi for said reasons. well is that even 7zips aim to start with, that is to please business ? i somehow doubt its very high on priorities to the guys and gals putting their sweat in to developing it. of course if a business wanted to use it for their own software for business rollout then surely its also up to them to do the installer as they wish, such as msi or not.

does this mean that it wont grow and the format be supported ? well obviously not since, just for example, winrar(amongst others) has already adopted the ability to decompress 7zip archives.

[Neo Neko]

yes i know but lets look at whats being released in general with 7zip and installers such as nsis and inno. the majority seems to me to be single user type software and not generally business rollout. so i fail to see where this is any real concern for now.

Hey trust me I am with you. That is more or less what I have been trying to imply to masken. When and if there is a business need there will be an MSI. But seeing as that there is not much to ACL and only a few files and registry settings to replicate MSI is a bit overkill. But it is what the point and clickers want. As it saves them from 2% extra work.

infact lets get back to the original arguement(i think) that 7zip wouldnt become popular with business unless it used msi for said reasons. well is that even 7zips aim to start with, that is to please business ? i somehow doubt its very high on priorities to the guys and gals putting their sweat in to developing it. of course if a business wanted to use it for their own software for business rollout then surely its also up to them to do the installer as they wish, such as msi or not.

Yep. And some are looking into just that. ;) So there is interest. It is just slower going than if someone was paid to sit there and get it done. But that shouldn't stop it from being rolled out in the mean time.

does this mean that it wont grow and the format be supported ? well obviously not since, just for example, winrar(amongst others) has already adopted the ability to decompress 7zip archives.

Indeed. If it were not a decent format and no one was using it. A pay software company would not bother implementing/adding it. So that does provide validation to those who wish to use it. And if you are in a MSI only business environment and must spend money for all software you use there are Winrar install MSI IIRC. Unfortuantly many don't see that. They see 7-zip as the 7z format and think that nothing else supports it and therefore must be crap. :p When I can think of at least 4 or 5 off the top of my head that support it directly. Winrar ofcourse IZarc, 7-zip naturally, LZMA tools for you non wine using *nixers, and Powerarchiver. But there are many many more.

[aleste81]

memory used in 7zip are a monster with you compare with winrar

Stupid, that is exactly where 7z *shines* is that it has unlimited dictionnary size (Winrar = only 4 MB !).

On the emulation scene all romsets are compressed with 7z.

[Dark Shikari]

Stupid, that is exactly where 7z *shines* is that it has unlimited dictionnary size (Winrar = only 4 MB !).

On the emulation scene all romsets are compressed with 7z.Wow, a necro of a really really shitty thread. :rolleyes:

P.S. To anyone who is dumb enough to agree with the OP, WinRAR supports 7z, making his entire argument completely moot. Moreover, the argument that "we don't need another compression format, its only 10-15% better, and few people have the decompresser" could be applied just as well to, say, H.264 video or AAC audio!

[Shinigami-Sama]

Wow, a necro of a really really shitty thread. :rolleyes:

P.S. To anyone who is dumb enough to agree with the OP, WinRAR supports 7z, making his entire argument completely moot. Moreover, the argument that "we don't need another compression format, its only 10-15% better, and few people have the decompresser" could be applied just as well to, say, H.264 video or AAC audio!

don't forget this thread was over 2 years ago

but it reminds me why I don't feel bad for zam


is it can be lock time nao?

[Dark Shikari]

don't forget this thread was over 2 years agoYes, that's why I called it a necro :p

[Shinigami-Sama]

Yes, that's why I called it a necro :p

well zam had a bit of a point
nothing else supported 7z for a while
then almost overnight everything supported it
meh
wheres don when you need him eh?