Frank D. Engel, Jr. wrote:
It's typically better to use the installation solution provided by the OS when one is available -- user familiarity and so forth...
Agreed in general, but on OS X we see a fairly even mix of installers using Apple's and using a few third party ones as well, and as you note MS' installer fails to grab a lot of people, leaving InstallShield and WiseInstall solidly in the #1 and #2 spots respectively. Since an installer is used exactly once per product any deviance from UI norms will have minimal impact, and such norms are minor and loosely followed anyway.
For myself, my needs are modest but varied, and must be not only automatable but sometimes also able to be built by my clients as well as here. It's simpler for me to just make it myself than continue with the hodge-podge of third-party stuff I've been working with over the years.
Thanks to all for the notes on the backdrop. I'm quite happy to dump that; good to get the unanimous validation.
-- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation ___________________________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
