Jump to content
You must now use your email address to sign in [click for more info] ×

Extremely disappointed that this installs as an "App" and not regular software program


Recommended Posts

I will be getting my universal license refunded. Installing it as an app has destroyed my workflow. E.g. calling from other programs does not work anymore.   Serif has described some of the disadvantages in their FAQ. The only advantage is that Serif has less support requests.  The user has only disadvantages. The workarounds are an imposition. Serif has lost a lot of sympathy with me because of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mark Ingram said:

I've mentioned elsewhere that we use "App Execution Alias" to enable this scenario. You can find the aliases in the following location:

C:\Users\username\AppData\Local\Microsoft\WindowsApps\AffinityDesigner2.exe

C:\Users\username\AppData\Local\Microsoft\WindowsApps\AffinityPhoto2.exe

C:\Users\username\AppData\Local\Microsoft\WindowsApps\AffinityPublisher2.exe

Please replace username with your Windows username. Also, those paths are already in your %PATH% variable so you can launch them without even specifying the full path, e.g. AffinityPhoto2.exe.

I've seen this solution but it is unacceptable.

Not only do these links need to be manually created, but they often don't work for workflow purposes AND they have NO resources inside them.

So they look like this

image.png.c69685af60e4e6d86063404487af068a.png

 

Instead of like this

image.png.4588c9445cc648936c777706a0f3b51d.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Frank Mu. said:

If 15 percent errors occur with MSI installations, then Serif has done something seriously wrong in the installation files. i have never experienced this with any other program. 

This is a common statistic from Microsoft across all MSI installations. This is just one of many reasons why Microsoft want application developers to migrate to MSIX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My summary of this thread:

”You’ve changed to use an installer that doesn’t let me do some perfectly reasonable, common thing.”

”This is how you work around it.”

It isn’t creating a good impression, on me for one, and I hope you will reconsider.

People want solutions, not workarounds and there is a very obvious solution. If it ain’t broke..,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Mark Ingram said:

This is a common statistic from Microsoft across all MSI installations. This is just one of many reasons why Microsoft want application developers to migrate to MSIX.

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?

Keith Reeder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree with Keith's remarks.
 

... I don't want Alias'
... I want to be able to control my install path at install time
... I shouldn't have to use "Move" in settings (haven't seen that I can do a move in Windows 10 with v2 yet)
... This is a PC not an App device
... Who cares what MS has to say.
... Most bad installs either are Affinity issues or Users who don't take care of their PC's health

Ridiculous!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just reinstalled v2 to test.
It does have a Move button in Settings on Windows 10.

However, you still can't specify where it goes.

It automatically creates a WindowsApp folder, with locked permission.

So, that means on every update you have to go through this process of "moving" it.

Still not I want to be done. HATEIT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Mark Ingram said:

This is a common statistic from Microsoft across all MSI installations. This is just one of many reasons why Microsoft want application developers to migrate to MSIX.

What matters is what Serif's statistics are for install failure, not MS'.

If Serif has those levels of failure, then whomever is creating the msi install is failing. 

And to compare, what is the level of support tickets or here on the forum for install failure compared to the historical msi installation failure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a BIG problem for me as I run Affinity apps with Cartoon Animator 5...well I USED TO 

I've changed permissions, I've tinkered with stuff I usually don't like to mess with. I bought Affinity Apps to AVOID this garbage with Adobe, now you go and do this!

Please fix it!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand why MSI is not an option. Windows Installer is an old one that has superseded by the new MSIX.

But there are some disadvantages about the managed Windows Installer. The new MSIX has his own closed Folder in the `C:\ProgramFiles\WindowsApps\[...]` this is protected by the TrustedInstaller. (Yes ok, this is good for Code Integrity by the way) So we don't have really the choice for the location. And no, the 'Move' function in the Settings is not an alternative! If we move the content do D:\ for example we have struggle with the Trusted Installer in D:\ -> This is completely a mess up.

Additionally MSIX is supported from Windows 10 2004 on or later. So Windows 8(.1) is completly kicked out.

And the next big thing - Some companies don't want the Windows Store nor the App Installer per policies. - So they are kicked out.

As nice as it may be, it just isn't. And the struggle with Powershell scripts says to me: This makes more problem than it solves...

But the really big question is: Why do you not make a two way solution? Why dont make a regular Setup like V1? Firefox for example can do this also -> Exe Setup or MSI. Choose what YOU want and what you NEED. This would be customer frendly.

Or has the new designed 'App' hit the wall so that this is no longer possible? It would be really sad if this is technically not possible anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, MikeW said:

If Serif has those levels of failure, then whomever is creating the msi install is failing.

Not necessarily. Problems can be caused by user registry modifications, user privileges, third party applications running in the background or even modifications to system config by third party apps.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I just read the reasons for the switch. As a professional in the software industry responsible for a large, complex Windows application, I’ll give you my view on the most of the reasons.

  “MSI had an installation success rate of ~85% (and we have many requests to our tech support team for v1 install failures). MSIX promises a 99.9% success rate.”

We have an MSI installer. Sure, it fails sometimes, but it’s probably less than the 0.1% claimed for MSIX. We are not flooded with “it doesn’t install” support calls. Maybe we just have an amazing installer?

  “MSI requires admin privileges to install.”

Whether admin privileges are required or not depends on what the installer does. Our MSI installer does not require admin privileges, providing it’s installed into a directory that doesn’t require admin rights for write access. We offer our users a choice.

   “MSI apps are not sandboxed from other applications.”

You do not need to use MSIX to sandbox an application. We’ve successfully sandboxed our EXE / DLL / MSI desktop application. It can be done if you keep dependencies local.

  “MSIX can perform in-app delta updates which are smaller and faster.”

Windows Installer supports deltas, or did I misunderstand? See “Delta Patch” in the Microsoft documentation. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/msi/d-gly

  “MSI cannot guarantee that an uninstall will leave your machine in the exact state prior to install.”

Again, it depends on how your application works. Our install is registry-free and installs into a single directory. It can be uninstalled by deleting the folder or via the uninstall.

  “MSI does not require a digital signature. MSIX does (this means any MSIX that appears to be from Serif, will be guaranteed to be from us and only us).”

Technically true, but misleading. Surely what matters is that MSI files can be signed. Presumably the v1 MSI files were signed?

 

My guess is that this is more to do with the fact that developing Windows Installer installations is a pain, and nobody wants to do it. But we do it because it’s what customers want.

 

Having said all this, I have paid for the whole lot as it is a staggeringly good offer. I just hope it installs!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Diklabyte said:

I can understand why MSI is not an option. Windows Installer is an old one that has superseded by the new MSIX.

It hasn't been superseded, though - both are current, viable, acceptable installation packaging options.

MSIX is newer, but it has not replaced MSI. 

Keith Reeder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mark Ingram said:

Not necessarily. Problems can be caused by user registry modifications, user privileges, third party applications running in the background or even modifications to system config by third party apps.

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

Keith Reeder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Keith Reeder said:

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?

Agreed with this, as a customer I couldn't care less about what Microsoft wants.

It's ridiculous that the method of installation has consequences beyond the install process and a utility (aflauncher) is being worked on to act as a quick and dirty workaround for one of them to address it. It sure seems like the MSIX installer is creating more issues then it's solving and is wasting time that could be spent elsewhere.

"MSIX promises a 99.9% success rate. "
Operating on a promise and developing with the cutting edge is a dangerous move.

I've submitted a refund request, v2 has a few changes and features that I like but I can stick with v1 if this install procedure is going to be way moving forward. In hindsight I should have tried the trial first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Mark Ingram said:

Not necessarily. Problems can be caused by user registry modifications, user privileges, third party applications running in the background or even modifications to system config by third party apps.

What about the first parts of my comments?

Serif will never eliminate the need for install support. You quoted MS statistics. That is a strawman argument. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Vonsnake said:

Agreed with this, as a customer I couldn't care less about what Microsoft wants.

It's ridiculous that the method of installation has consequences beyond the install process and a utility (aflauncher) is being worked on to act as a quick and dirty workaround for one of them to address it. It sure seems like the MSIX installer is creating more issues then it's solving and is wasting time that could be spent elsewhere.

"MSIX promises a 99.9% success rate. "
Operating on a promise and developing with the cutting edge is a dangerous move.

I've submitted a refund request, v2 has a few changes and features that I like but I can stick with v1 if this install procedure is going to be way moving forward. In hindsight I should have tried the trial first.

Yeah, I went back to v1 as I migrate to Inkscape, Sribus and Gimp.
Then I am done with Affinity.

I never thought of doing the Trial because..

1) I assumed that Affinity was EXE installs, not window apps.
They didn't even tell us this was going to happen.
Back a few years, Adobe did a similar thing in not telling users that their program would only work on Windows 10.
Made a lot of people mad because they didn't announce it and lots of users installed to only find out it wouldn't work on Windows 8.

2) Their wasn't any ground breaking new features, so, why would I need to try it first.

This is so lame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/10/2022 at 10:02 AM, Grumpy Hec said:

3) - the lack of adequate .asphoto support in other DAM applications including Bridge.

 

Wait..... So let me get this straight..

You are blaming Serif that other applications don't support the affinity file format?
Just repeat that a few times in your head and maybe you'll start to understand how silly that is..

  • Windows 10 Pro
  • Intel Core i7-4770 3.40Ghz
  • 16 GB RAM
  • Nvidia Geforce GTX 980
  • Samsung EVO 850 SSD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Xzenor said:

You are blaming Serif that other applications don't support the affinity file format?

It is difficult to support a file format without specifications.
other devs wanted to implement support for showing higher preview images.

Just ask Serif developers what they think about the at best incomplete specifications from PSDs. ;)

 

 

Sketchbook (with Affinity Suite usage) | timurariman.com | gumroad.com/myclay
Windows 11 Pro - 22H2 | Ryzen 5800X3D | RTX 3090 - 24GB | 128GB |
Main SSD with 1TB | SSD 4TB | PCIe SSD 256GB (configured as Scratch disk) |

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.