VS Setup is only one part of my team. Over the holiday's, I think I've just decided to go spend more time there. <smile/>
Yes, patching in the Windows Installer is truly horrid. There are also business decisions made at VS SP time frames that stress patching even further. It's not a great situation right now and there are a few large problems I plan to tackle first. That said, there is hope for getting slipstreaming into Burn. I'm not sure it'll make it but there is always hope. On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 4:46 AM, Christopher Painter < chr...@deploymentengineering.com> wrote: > Heh, I was hinting at my opinion of VS Install but I didn't want you to > feel attacked since that's now your team. > > Personally, my biggest complaint is having to install VSxxxx then VSxxxx > SP1. It always takes longer to install the service pack then it does the > MSI. Typically the SP seems to come out 6 months or so after the MSI so I > find myself wasting time 1,2,3,4 years later when if I just had a full up > service release ISO I could do it in one shot. > > There's probably good business arguments on why this is done but personally > I prefer it the other way. > Christopher Painter, Author of Deployment Engineering > Blog<http://blog.deploymentengineering.com/> > Have a hot tip, know a secret or read a really good thread that deserves > attention? E-Mail Me <chr...@yahoo.com?subject=here's> > > > --- On *Wed, 1/5/11, Rob Mensching <r...@robmensching.com>* wrote: > > > From: Rob Mensching <r...@robmensching.com> > Subject: Re: [WiX-users] Burn issue > To: chr...@deploymentengineering.com, "General discussion for Windows > Installer XML toolset." <wix-users@lists.sourceforge.net> > Date: Wednesday, January 5, 2011, 1:26 AM > > > IMHO, the Visual Studio install is an absolute mess. I hope to get the > opportunity to really tackle some of the worst parts of the Visual Studio > install as part of my day job. The task is incredibly daunting so we'll see > what I'm allowed to do (and what the business prevents me from "fixing"). > > Instead of talking about Visual Studio, let's look at Office. I worked with > K on some of the early Office 2007 install design based on early thoughts of > Burn (remember, Burn as an idea has been around for years and years > <sigh/>). > > In a big Office product (like "Professional Plus") there are over 15 MSI > packages installed. You'll get something like 10 more MSI packages added for > each "language bundle". The initial install is a single experience that > creates a single entry in Add/Remove Programs. Remove the "Office 2010 > Professional Plus" ARP entry and all those MSIs (that you can't see) are > removed. Repair and patching works similarly seamlessly. > > It's, IMHO, beautiful and that is what Burn is striving for. > > Now, sometimes you should leave things behind. NETFX and CRT are two things > that are massively shared and have really bad repercussions if you > prematurely remove them so they probably deserve to have separate ARP > entries (or maybe they shouldn't so users never try to remove them, hmm). > > However, most packages should be properly reference counted (something Burn > is not yet doing, the bug is open) and managed the way Office is. > > On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Christopher Painter < > chr...@deploymentengineering.com<http://us.mc1117.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=chr...@deploymentengineering.com> > > wrote: > > > Rob, > > That's an interesting comment but it makes me think of the Visual Studio > experience. It's a seamless experience installing a bunch of packages but > the result is the same. You pretty much have to reformat to get back to the > original state. Either that or run through lengthy complicated procedures > to get it all off. > > Now with Visual Studio that normally isn't such a bad thing since > generally everything it installs are things that I actually want where as > with products like iTunes ( and others ) many of the things are not always > things that I actually want. > > So back to burn... how does it manage the uninstall experience? If Visual > Studio was done with Burn, would it have a "take it all off" experience? > > Chris > > Christopher Painter, Author of Deployment Engineering Blog > Have a hot tip, know a secret or read a really good thread that deserves > attention? E-Mail Me > > > --- On Tue, 1/4/11, Rob Mensching > <r...@robmensching.com<http://us.mc1117.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=...@robmensching.com>> > wrote: > > > From: Rob Mensching > > <r...@robmensching.com<http://us.mc1117.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=...@robmensching.com> > > > > Subject: Re: [WiX-users] Burn issue > > To: "General discussion for Windows Installer XML toolset." < > wix-users@lists.sourceforge.net<http://us.mc1117.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=wix-us...@lists.sourceforge.net> > > > > Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2011, 10:39 AM > > Maybe. It's not really in the model > > Burn was designed for. Burn was intended > > to provide a seamless installation experience not pop up a > > bunch of > > different installation wizards. > > > > Many years ago my wife got an iPod shuffle as a present. To > > use it we had to > > install iTunes. The install was such a mishmash of > > disparate installation > > packages that by the time it was done I was sure the only > > way to get the > > machine back to normal would be to format it. Burn is > > designed to provide > > the antithesis of that experience. <smile/> > > > > -- > > virtually, Rob Mensching - > > http://RobMensching.com<http://robmensching.com/>LLC > > > > On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Sean Farrow > > <sean.far...@seanfarrow.co.uk<http://us.mc1117.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sean.far...@seanfarrow.co.uk> > >wrote: > > > > > Could this be added? > > > Cheers > > > Sean. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Rob Mensching > > > [mailto:r...@robmensching.com<http://us.mc1117.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=...@robmensching.com> > ] > > > Sent: 03 January 2011 16:29 > > > To: General discussion for Windows Installer XML > > toolset. > > > Subject: Re: [WiX-users] Burn issue > > > > > > No. Burn doesn't show the UI from the MSIs. > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 3:28 AM, Sean Farrow < > sean.far...@seanfarrow.co.uk<http://us.mc1117.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sean.far...@seanfarrow.co.uk> > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > Hi: > > > > I'm using Burn as a container to hold two msi's. > > > > I'd like to use the ui's from the msi in the > > current implementation. > > > > If I remove the bootstrapApplicationRef element I > > get a lght0001: the > > > > given key is not in the dictionary. > > > > Is there anyway to use the ui from the original > > msi? > > > > Any help appreciated. > > > > Sean. > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > -------- Learn how Oracle Real Application > > Clusters (RAC) One Node > > > > allows customers to consolidate database storage, > > standardize their > > > > database environment, and, should the need arise, > > upgrade to a full > > > > multi-node Oracle RAC database without downtime > > or disruption > > > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > WiX-users mailing list > > > > WiX-users@lists.sourceforge.net<http://us.mc1117.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=wix-us...@lists.sourceforge.net> > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wix-users > > > > > > > > > > > -- virtually, Rob Mensching - http://RobMensching.com LLC ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and, should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database without downtime or disruption http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl _______________________________________________ WiX-users mailing list WiX-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wix-users
