bildbaendiger

I imagine there were maybe advantages to switching to the Microsoft App Installer (.msix files).
However, for the user, the problems have increased:
There are many who have problems being able to install the packages. For example, it took me hours because the packages from Serif did not run for me. Only after downloading them directly from the Microsoft Store was I able to install them.
The next problem is the integration of the new programs in others. Now you can't find an .exe file which is accepted by other programs.

Assuming you would even want auto updates in a production setup. I always turn them off or block them and prefer to install updates at my own choosing (or skip problematic ones). 🙂
E.g. I have Affinity V1 applications blocked from net access because I do not want alerts about new versions popping up when the programs start up.

I had no issues with the version 1 update process.  What complaints were there?   I prefer that with the ability to choose whether to update or not versus a forced update.

If an update breaks something how can I revert back to a previous update?   I also like having downloaded copies of the updates, can we still do that?

This, for me, is the most important statement in the thread so far. It's something that developers should take more seriously because over time it just wears us down to the point we can no longer be bothered. I have many thousands of pounds worth of software that I use daily. Add to that all the other online accounts and various systems we use every single day as part of our work. 
All of these changes and aggravations added to our workflow can feel like it's becoming a full time job simply trying to deal with unnecessary nonsense. Over the past three years I have been slowly changing the way I work and slowly doing away with everything I use unless it's an absolute necessity. I have given up subscriptions, stopped upgrading software and even uninstalled some software (that I have spent a lot of money on over the years) that I like, and want to use, but can no longer deal with the accumulation of aggravation. A hundred small changes and annoyances to our daily routine ends up a very real, and very time consuming problem
Companies and developers think we are being trivial and behaving irrational but they just don't see the other side of it because they treat every problem like it's the only thing we have to deal with. We get the same cr*p with all other software, dealing with banks,HMRC, Paypal, Stripe, email providers, forced updates, hardware ... the list just goes on and on.
For this reason alone, I have been slowly changing how I work and even given up completely other smaller sources of revenue (and it's associated software, online accounts etc) because I can no longer continue dealing with the added workload. I've had weeks where I have literally spent more time with stuff like this than I have actually working. It gets you down and even ends up affecting your health.
The end result is my typical behaviour now goes something like this ... I notice a software upgrade in email, I click the link and look at what it offers - I wait and then check forums to see what others are saying. I see this type of unnecessary added aggravation and I make my mind up before even trying, irrational or not, this is now just another company that has decided to go down the route of problem causing. I don't need the problems, I'll just add this to my ongoing list of software that I need to find alternatives. Maybe I'll calm down, maybe I won't, but whatever happens - Affinity is now on my list of "just like all the other companies - find alternative".
Your software might be great, it might not, but I just don't need another problem in my life dragging me down if I can find a different solution. The most important decision factor in my work life and anything I purchase or sign up to has become one simple first-stop check - "how much unnecessary change or problems is this company prepared to inflict on its customer" ... anything above zero and I'm already questioning whether or not I can live without it.

To install Affinity v2 I used powershell because for whatever reason, both of my up to date Windows 10 machines did not have the app installer installed and I wasn't going to go install it explicitly for a single companies programs. I've never used an MSIX before, so I googled what they were to find that there's a command to sideload non-MS store apps and then also find out there was an external dependency that was supposed to be installed so I didn't have to use a command line in the first place. I installed v2 on a system I mostly use for testing, it never made it onto my production machine.

Software is important but first impressions are even more important, and my first impressions of an MSIX installation is that it's underdeveloped and currently should not be used in a production environment, regardless of how convenient and user friendly Microsoft's documentation pages make it sound.

Affinity v2 could be the best program suite in the world, and as I said in the previous post I do like it, but it's a hard sell when I can't integrate the software into my system the way I like and it'll forcefully auto-update whenever I start it and there's a patch available. It's no longer about the software, it's now about the BS surrounding it and how I have to babysit and be weary of it.

For some users this is fine, for others not so. As a suite of software being marketed as proffesional I would expect it to treat me as an adult and respect my ability to use a computer. Providing an MSIX as a reccomended install and MSI as an alternative install would have solved all of this because then as a user I get the choice. I understand that this would create more overhead for deployment, but with the responses so far in here it seems like sticking with MSI would have been the easier route for both development and support.

The MSIX reasoning thread that keeps getting posted does not provide any valid pro points and comes across as a quick effort to justify the decisions made. Out of all of the software I use, I've not seen another company switching installers because of an issue with support cases related to the installation. To me that says there's an issue with Serif's particular installer, which isn't something I or any of the other people I've managed to convince to buy Serif software have experienced. With a cursory glance at forum search results, v1 install failure doesn't appear to be something that's a known or widespread issue either.

How this is being handled frustrates me because Serif's business model and the capabilities of the software vs other alternatives to Adobe is a breath of much needed fresh air and I'm rooting on you guys getting a strong grip on the market. An installer should be something so minor I don't think about it and it certainly shouldn't be the reason to request a refund, but this change forces the software to be integrated into a half baked OS infrastructure that I and evidently other people don't want to be roped into. And this is after the hassle I had to go through to even run the file to begin with.

I imagine there were maybe advantages to switching to the Microsoft App Installer (.msix files).
However, for the user, the problems have increased:
There are many who have problems being able to install the packages. For example, it took me hours because the packages from Serif did not run for me. Only after downloading them directly from the Microsoft Store was I able to install them.
The next problem is the integration of the new programs in others. Now you can't find an .exe file which is accepted by other programs.

In Windows 11 you will find these settings under:
Start > Settings > Bluetooth and devices > Pen and Windows Ink
here you can select left and right hand writing.

@Mark Ingram
These "App Execution Alias" do not work for many. They get the error message: "The system cannot access this file." It seems like it's a Windows permission issue.
The following workaround from Camera Bits was the first one that worked for me:
Forum Camera Bits
You bypass the problem with the permissions via a shortcut of the running program.
Maybe this will help others as well.
Thomas
 

I imagine there were maybe advantages to switching to the Microsoft App Installer (.msix files).
However, for the user, the problems have increased:
There are many who have problems being able to install the packages. For example, it took me hours because the packages from Serif did not run for me. Only after downloading them directly from the Microsoft Store was I able to install them.
The next problem is the integration of the new programs in others. Now you can't find an .exe file which is accepted by other programs.

I imagine there were maybe advantages to switching to the Microsoft App Installer (.msix files).
However, for the user, the problems have increased:
There are many who have problems being able to install the packages. For example, it took me hours because the packages from Serif did not run for me. Only after downloading them directly from the Microsoft Store was I able to install them.
The next problem is the integration of the new programs in others. Now you can't find an .exe file which is accepted by other programs.

I imagine there were maybe advantages to switching to the Microsoft App Installer (.msix files).
However, for the user, the problems have increased:
There are many who have problems being able to install the packages. For example, it took me hours because the packages from Serif did not run for me. Only after downloading them directly from the Microsoft Store was I able to install them.
The next problem is the integration of the new programs in others. Now you can't find an .exe file which is accepted by other programs.

I imagine there were maybe advantages to switching to the Microsoft App Installer (.msix files).
However, for the user, the problems have increased:
There are many who have problems being able to install the packages. For example, it took me hours because the packages from Serif did not run for me. Only after downloading them directly from the Microsoft Store was I able to install them.
The next problem is the integration of the new programs in others. Now you can't find an .exe file which is accepted by other programs.

For anyone that would like to work around issues with launching our apps from third-party applications (e.g. DxO, ACDSee, etc), I have written a launcher utility that you can place anywhere on your system, and it will take care of calling our apps, with any required arguments.
Usage: aflaunch -a name -b build [args] -a name : One of the following Designer2 Photo2 [Default] Publisher2 -b build : One of the following Retail [Default] Beta MSStore args : [Optional] All remaining arguments to be passed onto the target application (must be last)  
The -a and -b arguments are optional, so you can ignore them unless you want to launch a different app, or the beta or MS Store versions.
I have signed the exe as well, so it will have a valid digital signature.
Please let me know how you get on with this.
Updated: 12/11/2022 @ 11:04am UTC. Now deals with spaces in filenames.
 aflaunch.zip

There are benefits for Windows Apps.
Apps are installed in userspace so an installation can be performed even when not having local admin rights. This was always a disturbing task when I had to distribute new versions on the pc's of my team members as I'm the only one with local admin rights in my team. These problems will be gone with the msix version. And additionally there is the option for distributed and automatic updates for apps.
The msix install files are digitally signed, so you can be sure that they come from serif and aren't manipulated by anyone. That's a major security advantage.
But I also see the problem of people loosing some freedom with not being able to choose the install path and not finding the app location in the places they used to find programs for the last 25 years. And of course sideloading modern apps is sometimes blocked by corporate IT that isn't up to date with their policy adjustment.
It would be great, if Serif could just release both - the msix and the regular setup - so everyone would be happy.

I can tell you that many developers are starting to use MSIX even when Microsoft wont allow the installer to ask for a drive/location to install to because you need to change that for all new apps in windows settings which is stupid that microsoft did it this way but that way they can make sure you dont install the application to a directory (or multiple directories) where the windows "sandboxing" would break and cause security issues or worse you causing your whole user directory be sandboxed breaking the user account completely. 
I dont like the MSIX format because its a Microsoft Store format and may break at any point due to changes Microsoft makes to windows or their store software so a "legacy exe/msi" would be great for installing in these cases and for installing to a different directory and for the Enterprise users with high security limits on their systems also offline activation would be great but i understand that it is a piracy prevention thing to have one time online activation (unlimited activations but only needed to be done once per install).  (I will use the V2.0 software but i hate that i had to enable the dreaded windows store to install the software eww)

It's potentially even worse than that, they're passing the buck and playing the blame game. From the thread you linked:


 
I was an enterprise software developer for 20 years, and this is a typical "pass the buck" response and ludicrous on its face. I.e. "...out of our control and related to Windows App Sandboxing" is hindsight CYA, and leaves out the obvious, obligatory, and truthful version:
"Oh, yeah, I guess WE made the choice to change the behaviour of our entire suite--installing it as a Windows App. That's on us. And hey, we thought it was [cool? clever? technologically savvy?] to install differently than 95% of all professional shrink-wrapped software packages! Who cares that OUR choice would impact/destroy the workflow of wide swathes of our user base! And heck, since we're so [cool|clever|savvy] let's not notify potential buyers of the change or impact, either. Let them eat cake (and we'll just blame Adobe, Microsoft, DxO, etc anyway. Suckas!!!)

Probably wasn't a developer who made the choice anyway. This is the reason the gods created middle managers. 🤣😂
Still hoping for a better solution than the .bat file junk.

I'd been using Windows' built-in Ransomware Protection - it denies write access to executables until you approve them.  And V2 broke that, with this new installation scheme.  I'm trying to figure out how to specify the path to the new executable, but if that path keeps changing, it will be a PITA.   
 
Looks like the developers were pulled in by the Microsoft siren song of "here's our new way to do things, you need to need on board",  and as a former developer I know just how that works.  I suggest going back to a standard application installation, if only because this is going to be an endless source of confusion and a drain on Serif's support people.

Yeah. No. Not how it works for a professional development shop--as Affinity most certainly is.
I worked for two decades as a software architect for major enterprises, as an expert on the Microsoft tech stack. When you produce "shrink-wrapped" software, you do what your customers need first, and never EVER break their workflows because of the fashions and whims of the technology stack provider. UNLESS: that stack provider introduces breaking changes and stops supporting the legacy tech. And when/if that happens, it's always a very big deal to let your customers know exactly how and when it's coming, what the conflicts and issues will be, and to provide them documented workarounds IN ADVANCE.

None of those things happened here.

My opinion:
I'm also not a friend of this Windows APP sh......
When I buy a software outside of the Windows Store, I expect a normal adjustable software setup and not the APP slavery, which installs on my hard drive as it wants.
Dissapointing move, Guys

I imagine there were maybe advantages to switching to the Microsoft App Installer (.msix files).
However, for the user, the problems have increased:
There are many who have problems being able to install the packages. For example, it took me hours because the packages from Serif did not run for me. Only after downloading them directly from the Microsoft Store was I able to install them.
The next problem is the integration of the new programs in others. Now you can't find an .exe file which is accepted by other programs.

Unfortunately no: many users have already tried these paths and always get the same error: "The system cannot access the file".
This seems to be more of a Windows problem and not a third party developer problem. What could be a solution?

I imagine there were maybe advantages to switching to the Microsoft App Installer (.msix files).
However, for the user, the problems have increased:
There are many who have problems being able to install the packages. For example, it took me hours because the packages from Serif did not run for me. Only after downloading them directly from the Microsoft Store was I able to install them.
The next problem is the integration of the new programs in others. Now you can't find an .exe file which is accepted by other programs.