Install routines---.exe or .rwp/.zip?

[gptech]

The thread (http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtopic. ... 1&t=150355) about VP's Christmas goodies raised, once again, the issue of .exe installers Vs the more conventional .rwp/.zip method. Rather than have that thread become a *heated* debate about something that's really an aside, admittedly an aside that many would like to fully discuss, I've opened this self contained thread for that discussion…..also makes it easier for the forum moderators to lock when it gets too heated, rather than reviewing individual posts in the VP thread

OK...here we go....

Think of .exe installers as being nothing more than a fancy, self extracting .zip archive, coupled with the 7-Zip extractor to pull any required shape filers from .ap archives---in other words just a posey routine that more often than not makes the provider 'look good' rather than simplifies the process for everybody. Most of them aren't even *proper* .exe files, being just a conversion of .bat routines into a surrogate .exe format.

…...above was all done without any of the assets provided by the installer installed

Think of .exe installers as being nothing more than a fancy, self extracting .zip archive, coupled with the 7-Zip extractor to pull any required shape filers from .ap archives---in other words just a posey routine that more often than not makes the provider 'look good' rather than simplifies the process for everybody. Most of them aren't even *proper* .exe files, being just a conversion of .bat routines into a surrogate .exe format.

What is your problem?

As long as the installer (be it an exe, bat or whatever file) does what it says on the tin, I really don't think anyone is fussed.

What is your problem?

None whatsoever, as I'm one of those who can work out how to get round it. However, there are many in here for whom

As long as the installer (be it an exe, bat or whatever file) does what it says on the tin, I really don't think anyone is fussed

doesn't apply--just go through this forum and count the threads detailing issues with .exe installers; issues which simply wouldn't exist with a .rwp or .zip type "extract in to" package. Sure, both those would entail a further copy and paste routine for any .GeoPcDx files that need copying, with the stand alone 7-Zip routine run in a batch file taking care of any extraction from .ap archives for those who aren't happy delving into those.
Yes, folk even have bother with that, but constant 'dumbing down' of the installation routines by making user intervention as little as possible is not the best way forward.

What is your problem?

None whatsoever, as I'm one of those who can work out how to get round it. However, there are many in here for whom

As long as the installer (be it an exe, bat or whatever file) does what it says on the tin, I really don't think anyone is fussed

doesn't apply--just go through this forum and count the threads detailing issues with .exe installers; issues which simply wouldn't exist with a .rwp or .zip type "extract in to" package. Sure, both those would entail a further copy and paste routine for any .GeoPcDx files that need copying, with the stand alone 7-Zip routine run in a batch file taking care of any extraction from .ap archives for those who aren't happy delving into those.
Yes, folk even have bother with that, but constant 'dumbing down' of the installation routines by making user intervention as little as possible is not the best way forward.

A .exe is inherently far, far easier to install than a .zip or .rwp. For the less technologically-minded of us it's the far easier way of installing something, as there's far fewer steps, and it's consistent across all addons.

A .exe is inherently far, far easier to install than a .zip or .rwp. For the less technologically-minded of us it's the far easier way of installing something

Yes, I agree....when they work fully.

However, in the real world this isn't always the case and those "less technologically-minded" TS users are generally those least likely to be able to remedy that.
This is going far off topic really, so I think we should stop here and stick to the VP Humbug Season freebies rather than a discussion about the merits (or not) of .exe installers. I'd happily continue in a new thread; I believe it's a discussion that's needed, one that would/could help content providers decide on the best distribution/installation method (and of course whatever they decided upon wouldn't suit everybody) and one that is probably long overdue.

A .exe is inherently far, far easier to install than a .zip or .rwp. For the less technologically-minded of us it's the far easier way of installing something, as there's far fewer steps, and it's consistent across all addons.

That all depends on your own setup, if TS20xx is in the default location then yes, but if like me you use another location then not always not all exe.files are equal, I have found that although I change the location in the exe it will install but then does not always copy files from other locations correctly, many a time I have copied the geometery files myself, the easiest way is to rename TS20xx back to the default while you install, then everything is fine.

A .exe is inherently far, far easier to install than a .zip or .rwp. For the less technologically-minded of us it's the far easier way of installing something, as there's far fewer steps, and it's consistent across all addons.

But, we've had this debate before, pressing a button of course is very easy, but, it's all the additional rubbish that goes onto your hard drive that is the major problem, you can't use 7zip to see what is inside an .exe applicator and until you have finished installing the content you don't know what else has been put onto your computer, or, if anything is duplicated. You get blueprints.paks, bak, tgt, xml and cost files plus 0kb files all installed, and you have to go through everything that has just been put in to get rid of all the junk, you then have to go into your Railworks folders to see what has been included in the data files, uninstall application files, all the rubbish in your temporary folder, and then getting rid of all the mess that we don't want, which takes longer to do than putting a rwp file in, because you can extract all the dross before you install it if you do the job properly. And this isn't just British content, it's across the board from any of our 3rd party developers, payware and freeware, Dutch, German, Italian, Spanish, American, Canadian, Russian, and on and on.......

Cheerz. Steve.

[749006]

I understand the need for Payware suppliers, Just Trains, Chris trains and the like to provide something in Exe form as it should install to any system without a problem of missing copying files.

The problem with other items coming in Exe installers is the lack of info what id being installed.
When I buy an Armstrong Powerhouse product it comes with a manual and tells me what sounds / liveries / scenarios etc will be installed - Great
The Extra Stock packs give no info on what is being installed.
looking thru my Kuju 47's I know I have one with an AP Suffix but I don't know which pack it came with.
Maybe the Class 47 Sound Pack?

I had downloaded a reskin recently and I had the option before downloading of simple - Exe file - or more technical - 7z where I had to copy the Geo files across.

Some people don't mind the Exe files as it save the old Copy and Paste method where it might not be right - specially for an old bod like me
Don't mind Exe files as long as I can find out what it's installing.

Peter

[ashgray]

Give me .rwp files every time time. I can get inside them easily using 7Zip and have full control over what I install and where I install it.

Like all computer software, there's a process to learn but this one is pretty simple and straightforward.

Ash

[thetrainfan]

You can choose what you want to install by installing a compressed file - why you'd want to select only part of a download I don't know!

Anyone who is incapable of copy and pasting two, maybe three files to a shortcut to their TS installation really shouldn't be downloading downloadable content.

RWPs are now an ancient way of packaging things where there really is no need. They're cumbersome for developers especially, and in particular when it comes to updating and re-packaging a file.

[class377fcc12]

Also, if you're so worried about what you're installing there's nothing stopping you setting the installer to extract to a location other than your TS directory, if you really don't want to have something for whatever reason.

[SkylineBoy]

why you'd want to select only part of a download I don't know!

Take the more recent offerings by Armstrong Powerhouse as an example, the ones where you have to install the "Extra Stock" download because otherwise the repaints from your purchase in question won't show. But installing this also provides a load of repaints that I don't actually want because I don't use the scenarios provided. I therefore install the .exe to a dummy location and move everything myself.

Does that answer your question?

[gptech]

You can choose what you want to install by installing a compressed file - why you'd want to select only part of a download I don't know!

Well, one part of the installer that sparked this conversation came with a duplicate copy of the route it was supposed to install nested within said routes main folder. Quite a few may not want that.

RWPs are now an ancient way of packaging things where there really is no need

I agree, no need for .rwp packages when a plain and simple .zip (or similar) archive does the job, easily installed by that simple copy and paste operation you've mentioned.

nothing stopping you setting the installer to extract to a location other than your TS directory

Doesn't that rather negate the whole argument of using .exe installers?
That's not a universal solution either; Xavier's installers check that you have all the requisite DLC in place under that installation Railworks directory and refuse to run if they don't find it. OK, that's easily fixed by replicating the folder structure but that makes it all the more complicated. By using a .zip archive it's just, once again, that simple copy and paste, or even easier the simple drag and drop to wherever you want the contents to go.

Using .exe installers does tend to remove options the end user has, options they've had for the life of the game, options that don't need changing. In a perfect world they'd all be properly constructed, work faultlessly, have configuration options as part of the routine etc but in the real world all they seem to do is cause as many problems (if not more) than the 'olde worlde' .rwp packages.

[peterfhayes]

Gary
The other installer option - still used today is the "msi" installer - may need some discussion.

From Symantec: https://www.symantec.com/connect/articl ... xe-and-msi

So installations can come in three flavours:

A custom, third-party installation system in an EXE file.
A Windows Installer installation in an MSI file.
An EXE file that bootstraps an MSI file (that may be embedded inside the EXE file).
MSI files can only be installations. EXE files can be literally anything that can run on your computer.

and then there are cab files!
pH

[gptech]

The other installer option - still used today is the "msi" installer

As used by Jim for the UKTS Free Packs. Harder to create, and extracting the contents without a full installation is command line only so for most users they wouldn't be the first choice.

[FoggyMorning]

They're cumbersome for developers especially, and in particular when it comes to updating and re-packaging a file.

From the point of view of packaging files I don't find them remotely cumbersome - in fact in many ways they are a significant labour-saver. You simply need to put a tick next to the files you want to package and press the create package button. Obviously this is more or less the same as creating a zip or equivalent archive, but it has the added advantage for the end user that it will automatically be installed straight into the Railworks directory. I can't help but feel that more developers are using more complex .exe installers these days because they have become increasingly proprietorial toward their content and their "brand", which is rather a sad decline from the situation several years ago where many people were distributing content for the simple pleasure of sharing their creations.

[class377fcc12]

I think it all comes down to catering for the masses rather than the few who want an rwp/zip. For the most part, people will find an exe far easier to use.

[gptech]

For the most part, people will find an exe far easier to use.

Yes, but only when the .exe installer works!
That's the main issue Rob, the fact that .exe installers in the Freeware world aren't 100% reliable. The *masses* you wrote about may be happy to just double click a .exe and consider the job done, but because they haven't the extremely basic computing skills, because there's no need to know how/what/where/when and nobody's shown them, to use any other method they're the ones who ultimately suffer the most when it comes to fixing a broken installation---"I've uninstalled and reinstalled numerous times, and it still won't work" is something we've often seen.

..feel that more developers are using more complex .exe installers these days because they have become increasingly proprietorial toward their content and their "brand"

The content, no matter how or where it's eventually stored on your hard drive, is open to investigation so nobody could be *accused* of hiding anything by using a .exe installer. The "branding" though is certainly something I'd agree with--having a .exe could be seen as purely to make them look (and presumably feel) *better* than Joe Blogs who's uploaded his latest reskin in a .zip archive.

.....the situation several years ago where many people were distributing content for the simple pleasure of sharing their creations.

Sadly I'd agree with you here too, though I think it's as much because of the higher standards that are perceived as being required. The techniques and procedures for creating anything for the game haven't changed but our idea of what's good and what's bad has. More a cultural thing, something that sits alongside why .exe installers are seen as being inherently *better*, with both possibly being the result of a drive/need/desire for some creators to not only excel in what they do, but to project that more *professional* image. That of course only works if that *professionalism* extends to rigorous testing of not only the content, but the installer package the rest of us will actually download. Loads to be written about that, but something that would be seen as a "fault finding/trouble causing" exercise.

[class377fcc12]

Any chance you could give an example of one of these broken installers? I'm guessing it's a VP one as that's where this entire discussion stemmed from.

[ashgray]

Just to add, one potential problem with .exe file installers is where some of the packaged files (which plainly you cannot see before installing) are older versions of ones already installed on your system - they will simply overwrite the more up-to-date files and there's nothing you can do to prevent that from happening.

Ash

[gptech]

Any chance you could give an example of one of these broken installers? I'm guessing it's a VP one as that's where this entire discussion stemmed from.

I was hoping to keep it more of a general discussion, but as you want to focus on a particular instance we can do---any accusations of an "anti VP stance" will be re-directed to you

Yes, VP's Devon route does come in what could be described a *flawed* package (perhaps a better word to use then "broken"?). We already know it contains a duplicate of what it's supposed to install, and also installs unneeded .bak files. The need to install a patch for the coaches in scenarios isn't really a flaw with the installer, or the route itself, but it does question the testing applied to the full package we can download. Apparently it's been advised to delete the original and install a newer version (27th Dec I believe) which rather kicks the whole "easy" install argument into touch.

Lets now look at the downloadable package itself.
We download a RAR archive, but why? Windows doesn't natively support .RAR archives so that entails the need for the end user to download, install and get to grips with another piece of software--yes, we all should have something already installed to deal with that (WinRAR, 7-Zip etc) but as the whole argument for .exe installers hinges around the ease of use wouldn't it be far simpler (and easier) to wrap the installer in a .zip archive? Everybody has the tool to open those, it's been built into Windows for years! I've just tried creating a .zip to hold the .exe and the readme, with no issues; it's 1MB bigger than the .RAR archive so doesn't increase the storage requirements nor the download time.

It's hard to find fault with the contents of the installer, the route is very, very nicely done and really has no more major issues than any other route we could download; the problems noted so far with scenarios can be/have been noted as more "user error/incomplete editing of scenarios by the user" rather than a inherent flaw in them as supplied.

Moving to a more general look at installers of this ilk, many that feature an automated routine to extract files from .ap archives fall over because that part of the process is precluded from running. That's mostly due to the user's own security settings, but as they tend to delete the 7-Zip executable and the batch file to run the operation there's no option to just re-run that extraction routine in isolation. Folk then end up installing-uninstalling-reinstalling-uninstalling.....with no success. At least leave that part in-situ to retain the options of either running with different security arrangements, or viewing the .bat to find out what needs extracting and where to.