4 ms·
Good point. And I think the number one killer of desktop applications is Microsoft, however controversial it may seem at first. It was Microsoft who convinced
by mojuba 19y ago
Good point.
And I think the number one killer of desktop applications is Microsoft, however controversial it may seem at first.
It was Microsoft who convinced developers that a commercial application along with its installation procedure must look and feel heavy, so that users feel comfortable with the money they paid for it. The heavier the better. It is so rare in the commercial desktop world that developers strive for simplicity.
Without Google though, the Web world could have adopted the same complication syndrome. Look at the MSDN web site, for example.
- marketer 19y agoI don't think Microsoft had any part in convincing anyone that apps need heavy installation procedures. It evolved as a generic way to do some basic things: moving the executable to a place the user wants, and setting up some registry values. Isn't that a reasonable solution for desktop applications? There is nothing wrong with the MSDN site. When you're storing millions of pages of documentation, things may get a little bloated. If you need to look up anything about the Windows APIs, or any information about .NET languages, you'll quickly see that MSDN does the job well.
- mojuba 19y agoOne more point: you can set your registry values when your application runs for the first time. It's a common practice especially on UNIX and MacOS to generate configuration silently, when needed instead of focusing user's attention on that during installation. Other than that, installation is essentially copying. The proper place, file-type bindings, version checks etc can be done by the system automatically, again, without annoying the user (and the developer, too). And that's exactly what MacOS was doing since version 5 in 1980's. (Besides, Windows Registry is one of the main sources of complication).
- mojuba 19y agoHave you ever worked on Mac? Basically there is no such a thing like "installation" on MacOS. PC users usually don't believe it until they see it themselves. Simplicity requires some effort and thinking, and on the contrary, it is relatively easier to design bloated software. And I'm sure, when some Microsoft installer pretends it's "analyzing system configuration" and freezes for a dozen of seconds with no disk or CPU activity - I'm sure it's just a trivial call to Sleep().