Affinity Beta install conversation (split)

[Pyanepsion]

Hi to all,

The Designer installer forces me to put a shortcut to the program on the desktop, which I don’t want and which I then have to systematically send to the trash and then empty the trash after installation.

[Alfred]

11 minutes ago, Pyanepsion said:

Hi to all,

The Designer installer forces me to put a shortcut to the program on the desktop, which I don’t want and which I then have to systematically send to the trash and then empty the trash after installation.

I’m not on my Windows machine, so I can’t try to install RC6 right now, but the last beta version I installed gave me an option not to create a desktop shortcut. Has that option been omitted this time around?

If you want to bypass the Recycle Bin, hold down Shift when deleting the file.

[Petar Petrenko]

All 3 apps create desktop shortcuts long time ago.

[Petar Petrenko]

1 minute ago, Alfred said:

By default, yes, but there should be a checkbox so that the user can choose not to have the shortcut created.

Not on Windows.

[Patrick Connor]

The "update" process (uninstall and install the new one) does not give the option only the original install. To see the option, uninstall the beta completely, then install from scratch.

I wonder if it has been forgotten in the localized version. What language is the install please Petar & Pyanepsion

[Petar Petrenko]

2 minutes ago, Patrick Connor said:

What language is the install please Petar & Pyanepsion

In English.

[Petar Petrenko]

To try, I now deinstalled Designer and when I reinstalled again there was a question about shortcut, but not if I install it directly from the Forum.

[Patrick Connor]

1 minute ago, Petar Petrenko said:

but not if I install it directly from the Forum.

That is correct. The install from the forum is an upgrade, and (should) follow your original full install. IF you choose to have a shortcut the first time then all updates will honour that assumption. If you choose no shortcut, then all future updates honour no shortcut. If that does not happen then there is a bug, however I think it works.

[Petar Petrenko]

2 minutes ago, Patrick Connor said:

That is correct. The install from the forum is an upgrade, and (should) follow your original full install. IF you choose to have a shortcut the first time then all updates will honour that assumption. If you choose no shortcut, then all future updates honour no shortcut. If that does not happen then there is a bug, however I think it works.

Well, then I will reinstall all 3 betas and uncheck the shortcut checkbox and wait for the next upgrades to see what will happen.

[Petar Petrenko]

When I tried to reinstall Publisher, I got this message and I can't continue untill I delte the folder or choose a new one. No problems with Designer and Photo.

[Patrick Connor]

2 minutes ago, Petar Petrenko said:

When I tried to reinstall Publisher, I got this message and I can't continue untill I delte the folder or choose a new one

Was the folder visible on your computer? Was it empty? 

[Petar Petrenko]

5 minutes ago, Patrick Connor said:

Was the folder visible on your computer? Was it empty? 

Yes, it was "Resources" folder where I put some RAR files. I deleted completelly Publisher's beta folder and now it is OK.

[Petar Petrenko]

16 minutes ago, Petar Petrenko said:

Yes, it was "Resources" folder where I put some RAR files. I deleted completelly Publisher's beta folder and now it is OK.

I wonder why there were no problems when upgrading from the Forum, only with clean install? I  put the RAR files (some Hunspell dictionaries) long time ago.

[Patrick Connor]

Just now, Petar Petrenko said:

I wonder why there were no problems when upgrading from the Forum, only with clean install? 

Because the update does not check the destination is empty. They are totally different code and UI paths. The upgrade assumes that the folder contents are OK and functioning correctly. The clean install makes no such assumption. Why? ...because customers kept putting all 3 Affinity installs into the same folder, and only the last one to be installed would ever work correctly!

[Petar Petrenko]

5 minutes ago, Patrick Connor said:

Why? ...because customers kept putting all 3 Affinity installs into the same folder, and only the last one to be installed would ever work correctly!

I've read somewhere on this Forum that a customer installed all 3 apps in same folder and all of them work corectly. That way they occupy less space.

[Patrick Connor]

22 minutes ago, Petar Petrenko said:

I've read somewhere on this Forum that a customer installed all 3 apps in same folder and all of them work corectly.

That is not a supported way of using our application, and the new dialog in the installer is there to stop it happening going forward.

Many many many hours of tech support time has been wasted on this problem with customers saying "Designer works fine but Photo won't run up" etc. It is a terrible idea and if customers do this the problems it creates are on them now.

[Joachim_L]

4 minutes ago, Patrick Connor said:

It is a terrible idea

There could be reasons why not.

a) Sharing an export preset. Right now you have to do the same export preset for every application anew.

b) Sharing a default palette preset. Right now you have to do the same ...

c) Sharing assets. Right now you have to do the same ....

Perhaps you can add an option for the presets / assets to a) Share them among all applications or b) Only for current application?

[Patrick Connor]

I would like those good suggestions to be considered for 2.0 installations ( @Jon W) That new start point could be a chance to change a few things like this, with a shared folder for shared stuff (very hard with sandboxed store builds, but easier in Affinity Store builds). However we are where we are with 1.X and they are not supported with this approach, period.

[Petar Petrenko]

I think that a good approach is, from my point of view, customers instalations -- like brushes, assets, styles... -- to be kept in a common folders, outside each application, for easy backup. It would be much easier for the customer to put them back after fresh instalation of the apps, without wasting time to install them again. It would be much easier, too, to manage them if some of them are already installed.

There must be a control in each app to stop installing something that is already installed to avoid duplicates.

[Mark Ingram]

50 minutes ago, Petar Petrenko said:

I think that a good approach is, from my point of view, customers instalations -- like brushes, assets, styles... -- to be kept in a common folders, outside each application, for easy backup. It would be much easier for the customer to put them back after fresh instalation of the apps, without wasting time to install them again. It would be much easier, too, to manage them if some of them are already installed.

There must be a control in each app to stop installing something that is already installed to avoid duplicates.

Customers should not modify installation directories of applications, it can lead to unexpected problems (and as @Patrick Connor mentioned, should never install applications over the top of each other). 

Is having duplicate files in installs of the Affinity apps a real problem, or is this just people trying to "over-optimise" their disk space?

[Joachim_L]

4 minutes ago, Mark Ingram said:

Is having duplicate files in installs of the Affinity apps a real problem, or is this just people trying to "over-optimise" their disk space?

People experiencing times where 250 MB harddisks were huge: Yes.

But isn't it a benefit software developers would have: Streamlining the amount of files? One file less means one file less to think about. And perhaps the motivation were the points a) to c) I mentioned earlier in this thread.

[Mark Ingram]

2 minutes ago, Joachim_L said:

People experiencing times where 250 MB harddisks were huge: Yes.

But isn't it a benefit software developers would have: Streamlining the amount of files? One file less means one file less to think about. And perhaps the motivation were the points a) to c) I mentioned earlier in this thread.

We can't guarantee that users will have more than 1 app installed, so each app installer still needs to carry all of the files. Sure we could put them into a common shared location during installation, but what if the versions were slightly different between installs? e.g. if a user had Designer 1.8 and Photo 1.9 (in this case we changed the file format, so the older 1.8 couldn't read newer 1.9 files)? There's so much complexity involved, for so little benefit, I would need a lot of convincing 😂

[Joachim_L]

2 minutes ago, Mark Ingram said:

I would need a lot of convincing 😂

Valid arguments, so I am not trying to convince you. Only the wish to a bit more sharing in 2.0 as there are real benefits.

[PaulEC]

4 hours ago, Pyanepsion said:

The Designer installer forces me to put a shortcut to the program on the desktop, which I don’t want and which I then have to systematically send to the trash and then empty the trash after installation.

To be honest this doesn't seem to be exactly a major problem, spending, say, 2 or 3 seconds deleting a shortcut when you install an app. To make it even quicker just hold shift when you delete the shortcut and you won't need to empty the "trash". 😉

[Petar Petrenko]

34 minutes ago, Mark Ingram said:

Customers should not modify installation directories of applications

I don't mean customer, you will do it. Let's say this way:

Under "Affinity" folder you (not customer) create folders: "Brushes" for Designer and Photo, Assets" for all 3, "Styles" for all 3... Now, customer will not have to search through all 3 apps for all these folders to make a backup. All will be on same place. Also, when (s)he wants to install some brushes (vector or pixel ones) he will copy them into "Affinity > Brushes" folder and the appropriate app will auto load them.

41 minutes ago, Mark Ingram said:

Is having duplicate files in installs of the Affinity apps a real problem

Under "duplicate" I mean, lets say, brushes, styles... Some users are not so much eexperienced and can install multiple instances of same stuff.

 

38 minutes ago, Mark Ingram said:

Sure we could put them into a common shared location during installation

Yes, this is what I want to say.