Keith Reeder

Jeez - what's wrong with you? 🙄

Asked and answered a hundred times by now - read the forum before posting.

Why? Serif has already been very clear that they're providing a solution to your exact problem, and has posted fixes to your error message in the meantime. Maybe you should read more of the thread before complaining.

Has your tinfoil hat fallen off? 🙄

https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/search/&q=0x80073cf6&quick=1

Good to see Serif taking customer opinion on board.

Maybe next time you should keep reading before piling on? 🙄

You've been sure about a lot of things you just got plain wrong, Ronny - keep up the good work.

Well those words of "wisdom" didn't age well - did they, Ronny Boy? The complaining has directly resulted in Serif changing tack and agreeing to offer up a standard install option.

Well in fairness to Serif, you wouldn't know: Like most companies, Serif surely conducts market research, and such research is rarely made public. I still really struggle to get my head around the notion that download file-size is an issue to anyone in the 2020s - I'd like to see the question that was asked of customers to drive that conclusion out - but that's the point: market research is generally commercial in confidence information. Which does of course allow for "creative interpretations" of the results to suit pre-existing agendas, as they're not open to scrutiny...

Indeed. I can only assume that an unfeasibly large number of Serif customers are still on dial-up... 🙄 Seriously, Serif: one of the main reasons (the main reason, for me) that so many people are on fibre broadband and other fast connections is so that they can comfortably deal with larger downloads.

Well this customer wasn't asked about it, and he definitely would not have voted for the mess Serif has got itself - and its users - into here. I wonder if you'd get the same result now, Mark? Sounds like a "bright" idea that hasn't survived contact with reality...

Jesus wept - you know nothing about business, do you? Clue: "the customer is always right". Seriously - look it up: it's a maxim that outdates anyone on this thread by 100 years, and although it's a cliché, it's also often true.

And that doesn't answer your question? 🙄

A fact you and your colleagues might want to reflect on, Mark. Clearly something's not right - right?

He's making a perfectly valid point. Part of the price of entry we pay for is the legitimate expectation that we don't need to use workarounds, change workflows, and otherwise have to change what we do, in order to comply with and facilitate an arbitrary and self-evidently not customer-focused delivery decision - a decision which might suit the software developer but which unquestionably fails to meet the expectations of an evidently significant subset of the customer base.

What are you blathering on about? You apologised for not making a point clearly. I told you you did make it clearly. Context.

No, you didn't. From context it was patently obvious what you meant, despite the response you got.

You do understand that support can be significantly accelerated if the owner of the proprietary format is proactive in helping third parties provide that support? A recent salutary warning - which seems closely analogous to the situation you're happy to mock - was the shambolic delivery of support by third party converters for the Nikon Z9's "HE" RAW formats: closed proprietary format; and a complete lack of help by its owners to facilitate third party support. Sound familiar? Not so silly at all, then...

I don't think you get to decide what's "useless", Ronny: particularly when the point being made - that we can apparently expect more from a pretty grim piece of Open Source software than we can from a supposedly cutting-edge, customer-focused commercial solution - is precisely to the point.

But registry modifications are among the "solutions" your users are being forced into considering by Serif's decision here, Mark!

It hasn't been superseded, though - both are current, viable, acceptable installation packaging options. MSIX is newer, but it has not replaced MSI.

Kinda missing the point there, Ronny...

Mark, I may be (although I'll bet you I'm not) speaking entirely for myself here, but frankly I could not care less what Microsoft wants: my contract is with Serif, and I want - I've paid you for - a solution that works for me, not for Microsoft. Your obligation is to me, not to Bill Gates. Realisticallywe all know there's only one acceptable end-point for this car-crash of an issue, so why doesn't Serif just bite the bullet and give us a tried-and-tested installation solution that just works?

Bit it's a very visible part of the user base, and it's making Serif look pretty bad right now...