MacroVision has sunken the InstallShield Ship

[wgcs]

MacroVision seems to be doing all they can to make past customers of InstallShield not able to do any work without forking over thousands of dollars (and I'm not exaggerating here!!)

I had be an almost happy user of Installshield Express (Full edition, not VFP limited-edition) v4.0. ISE v4.0 SP1 fixed a couple of vital problems that v4.0 had.

Now, I'm working on a new computer, and reinstalled v4.0 from an old install file I had, and try to update to SP1: The InstallShield website still has all the info about this update, but the actual .EXE file is missing. I think I have it somewhere in my ancient archives, (I hope), but until then, I cannot build my product for release on this new computer! (My old computer is still off in UPS-land being fixed... to be returned this week, I think... I hope the HD is intact!)

Of course, I could upgrade to MacroVision's latest InstallShield, for $600 per computer (notice, the new InstallShield 10 is licensed strictly per-computer... not per-developer. If you like to keep two development machines, one as a backup, you have to pay for two $600+ licenses... it won't install twice (I tried, then got my money back because of this inane MacroVision-esque protection... even discussing with their personnel, they give no leniency: Licensed Per Computer.).

(BTW: MacroVision is the same company that put the copy protection stuff on DVD's and VHS tapes which prevents making fair-use backup copies, etc., and they're trying to bring this same heavy-handed DRM protection to software.)

- Bill

Get the best answers to your questions -- See FAQ481-4875.

 

[DSummZZZ]

I guess we have Microsoft to thank then, since they opted to use MSIE instead of either continuing to evolve a setup or developing any sort of newer installer in-house.


-Dave Summers-

Even more Fox stuff at:

http://www.davesummers.net/foxprolinks.htm

 

[tamayok]

A while ago, I decided to drop the usage of InstallShield. There where many corrupt installs and the sensation that too many things where being accomplished without my explicit understanding or request.

Instead, I took the time to learn and implement setups using the FREE InnoSetup. It is wonderful, versatile and extremely powerful. I am really happy with it.

I don't agree Microsoft or the MS-Fox Team should be blamed in any way for InstallShields policies. Until now, InstallShield has probably been the most widely used installer and one "Windows Compliant". It is also, obviously superior in every respect, to the "custom-made" Setup Applications that used to ship with early versions of FoxPro and VFP.

Besides, do we want talented programmers in the Microsoft Visual FoxPro team investing their resources into making a custom installer when we can get other important functionality into VFP?

If it were up to me, I would very much urge the VFP Development Team at MS to work on raising the 2-gigabyte-per-table limit or some other pressing issue and not divert their attention with something like a custom setup for application distribution.

For InnoSetup information take a look at:

http://www.jrsoftware.org/isinfo.php

http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~InnoSetup~VFP

Kenneth Tamayo
San Juan, Puerto Rico - USA

 

[wgcs]

FWIW: I found a copy of the ISE 4.0 SP1 install file (called InstallShieldExpress40SP1.exe) on an old backup CD I had stowed away, yet after upgrading using that, I encountered the problem documented here:

http://community.installshield.com/showthread.php?t=118740

I never used to get this problem! (I'm using an .ISE file created on my old computer that has built properly before)...

Finally, I did a file-by-file compare of the \program files\installshield\express\system folders on my new computer and old computer (I had taken a complete image backup of the old HD before sending the computer for repair), and found 4 files that were different. Copy them over, and now it works right. Who knows why those files would differ!

- Bill

Get the best answers to your questions -- See FAQ481-4875.

 

[tamayok]

Cool wgcs,

I am happy to hear you've been able to resolve the issue...

You might want to post here the names of the 4 files so others may benefit.

Kenneth Tamayo
Visual FoxPro Rules!

 

[wgcs]

These were the four different files:
FrmWrkLib.dll
IsAppServices.dll
IsDsStore.dll
IsWsFileExtensions.ocx

After building a release, I figured I'd let it "Check for Updates" again... this time it found a HotFix for ISE 4.0 SP1 (which didn't show when I was running w/o SP1), and I have a feeling this hotfix also would repair the same files. This update did download successfully, and all is still working, so I think this is better than copying the installation from another computer (since there may be some other files in the installshield non-system folders that may have been updated, too).

- Bill

Get the best answers to your questions -- See FAQ481-4875.

 

[DSummZZZ]

Glad to hear yo got it figgered out Bill.
With my limited experience using version 5 for VFP 9, I haven't run into any issues yet. Hopefully I won't.

But...

Besides, do we want talented programmers in the Microsoft Visual FoxPro team investing their resources into making a custom installer when we can get other important functionality into VFP?

Not really. My point is that since we're developing MicroSoft compliant apps requiring MS compliant installs, I think MS themselves be more interested in developing an MS compliant installer rather than relying on a third party.

-Dave Summers-

Even more Fox stuff at:

http://www.davesummers.net/foxprolinks.htm

 

[wgcs]

I agree there, Dave: It shouldn't be the VFP programmers working on a setup tool, but instead a dedicated Installer team.

Of course, MS did release the "Visual Studio Installer" with (or after) Visual Studio 6. I've used that to make MSM modules (since you have to fork over $thousands to InstallShield to get that priviledge!), but it really isn't a friendly installer authoring program.

- Bill

Get the best answers to your questions -- See FAQ481-4875.

 

[JRB-Bldr]

A FREE alternative to InstallShield is a good thing to have available and I will try it out.

However another alternative which I have used (at least I used their earlier version) is a $49.00 product

http://www.createinstall.com/sgpro/index.htm

With the confusion factors of InstallShield and the escalating costs of the non-Express version, it might be good to begin considering alternative install utilities.

Thanks,
JRB-Bldr

 

[fjagdis]

I recently had problems with IE not working (generating non=working CD images)which I could not debug. So like many others I migrated to Inno setup (free !). Once you get a grasp of the script it works very well. Sample scripts supplied by the expert Ramani are found in this forum and also on the VFP Wiki.

 

[GriffMG]

I can positively recommend the SGPro product.

I use it nearly everyday - never a problem, it just works right out of the box - all the UI is really obvious and straightforward. I use it will VFP 5 through to 9 and other things to (installing .asp scripts etc)

B-)

Regards

Griff
Keep [Smile]ing

 

[wgcs]

I used to think that using Windows Installer was required for the "Windows Logo" certification of an application.
(which InstallShield creates packages for, but all of the free installers, of which I know, don't use at all)

However, this is from the AppSpec.doc document from

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/partners/isvs/appspec.mspx

:
"Microsoft highly recommends that you use the Windows Installer to install your application."
(also see

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/partners/isvs/cfw.mspx

)

So, it seems one could create a "Windows Logo" compliant program without using windows installer.

- Bill

Get the best answers to your questions -- See FAQ481-4875.