No .exe, no interest

[UweJelting]

I am very disappointed. I expect a software vendor to provide me with an executable .exe file for installation that gives me the choice of the local program folder. This is also the case with most providers. I just don't want to do this cumbersome .msix crap to myself, especially since I don't use MS Store apps and have disabled all Microsoft spy features. If Serif continues down this path, they've definitely lost a customer. And I think I'm not the only one.

[rvst]

6 hours ago, UweJelting said:

 since I don't use MS Store apps and have disabled all Microsoft spy features. If Serif continues down this path, they've definitely lost a customer. And I think I'm not the only one.

I posted a similar complaint. I don't use MS Store apps. I don't even use the standard Windows 10 menu, instead using Stardock's menu which looks like Windows 7, precisely because I don't want to see these Windows store apps and I detest this ridiculous tablet interface on a high resolution dual monitor setup.

I just want to be able to use the new suite in a "normal" windows desktop experience. That is to say, have an icon on my desktop that I can double click. And oh boy, do I have to jump through hoops for that to happen.

I had to copy all three program executables out of the installation folder (so I can use them for the icon for my desktop shortcut) and then make a desktop shortcut to point to the iconless executable shortcut in %APPDATA%\Local\Microsoft\WindowsApps. And trust me, if you're not a technically literate user, even finding and accessing those executables in the first place is non-trivial. 

I totally don't see what Affinity is trying to do by moving to a Windows App model. It just degrades the experience. 

Oh, and the program startup time is 3x slower than Affinity 1. And because it's a Windows App, I don't get to choose where to install it, so it wastes precious space on my system drive when it could instead, in a normal app, be installed to a user-defined location. 

EDIT: Before anybody points me to this link on how to create a desktop shortcut. I know how to do this. The problem is that the shortcut is created entirely without an icon in one case, and tiny, illegible icons in the other cases. Here's an image of my manually created icons on the left and the icons that get created if you try to create them using the recommended method on the right. It looks like a dog's breakfast. 

[Nox]

I agree, delivering the suite as "Windows Apps" and not normal ".exe"-applications is extremely customer and user unfriendly. Not even Adobe dared to take this tainted path.
It rips off all the control the user have about their PC and the programs and makes things unnecessarily complicated.

I'm very disappointed.

[walt.farrell]

FYI, there's a new FAQ addressing some of the reasons they've taken this approach. 

 

[laurentia]

2 hours ago, Nox said:

I agree, delivering the suite as "Windows Apps" and not normal ".exe"-applications is extremely customer and user unfriendly. Not even Adobe dared to take this tainted path.
It rips off all the control the user have about their PC and the programs and makes things unnecessarily complicated.

I'm very disappointed.

Hi,
I totally agree! 
Windows users are not like Apple users, they need to see under the hood and the "WindowsApps" folder is not accessible even as an admin. My few useful programs are accessible by shortcuts and there, it's impossible.
I also ask for the return of ".exe" files 

[nucleardirk]

After reading the „pro“ and „contra“ I can understand Serifs mentality. But to be more user friendly there should be customers choice if the would like to download and install the exe or the msix version. So Serif, leave it to your customers please!

[Old Bruce]

22 minutes ago, nucleardirk said:

But to be more user friendly there should be customers choice if the would like to download and install the exe or the msix version. So Serif, leave it to your customers please!

Wouldn't that double the maintenance costs? Plus create different and or more bugs for Windows users? Note that I am neither a Windows user nor a programmer, just moderately curious.

[Horseflesh]

I don't see the problem making a shortcut. I right-click on a v2 product in the start menu and pick Create Shortcut. It says "I can't do it here, want it on the desktop?" And then I have a shortcut. 

BUT I am on Windows 10 AND I have replaced the Start Menu with Open Shell, so maybe that's why it works for me. 

I don't like not being able to change install location, but then again... I didn't. My boot drive is always my fastest drive and apps like this would go there anyway. 

I am a classic WIndows guy and I do not like the direction Microsoft is taking things either. But if using MSIX buys Serif time to add features, it is a compromise I will happily make. 

[LazyLouisaxxx]

Awful awful move. Give me the chouse over this please! I hate MS STORE

[MadMinstrel]

Look Serif, this is a very anti-consumer move you've made here. I do not enjoy being locked out of anything on the hard drive I own, for any reason. And frankly, I don't trust you (or Microsoft) enough to keep your stuff on my hard drive where I can't scan it for malware or simply inspect. If you treat your customers as enemies, do not be surprised when your customers treat you back the same way.

I will not be purchasing V2. Not because of spite mind you, it's just that an app packaged this way has no hope of ever working on Linux, where I spend more and more time.

Which is sad, because being quite satisfied overall with V1, I had already taken out my credit card to make the purchase when I saw V2 launched. Thank goodness I decided to take a short detour to the forums to see what's what.

I hope you reverse this awful decision, and then we can do business.

[Tia Lapis]

13 minutes ago, MadMinstrel said:

 where I can't scan it for malware or simply inspect.

What do you mean? c:\program files\WindowsApps is normally scanned by security software. And a Admin can easily look into the folder.

[Nox]

3 hours ago, walt.farrell said:

FYI, there's a new FAQ addressing some of the reasons they've taken this approach. 

 

This FAQ mostly is a sham, I can see some valid points, but there is no reason not to simply give the customers the option to download either MSI/EXE or MSIX.
Just offer MSIX as the first option for the non-technical users but give everyone who wants it the option to use the non-windows-app-crap MSI/EXE format.

 

1 hour ago, Old Bruce said:

Wouldn't that double the maintenance costs? Plus create different and or more bugs for Windows users? Note that I am neither a Windows user nor a programmer, just moderately curious.

Not really, it's just a different installer packaging format. You can even simply one-click convert MSI/EXE installers to MSIX, so in that regard they can just have to maintain one version really.

[LSG501]

While I've bought v2 due to the low price offer I can't say I'm overly happy about needing to use msix to install it. I've literally signed up to the forum to put my name down as 'unhappy' about this move.

The MSIX installer doesn't even tell me where the programs are going to be installed, when I find the likely location (thanks google...) I then need to take ownership of the folder just to see what's inside it. 

When I used MS store apps or msix in the past I've also had more issues with the programs than I have with good old fashioned msi/exe installers.

We'll not even get on to the issue about having no control of the software that is being installed onto our pc's, msix is one step away from malware in some respects. 

Oh and the FAQ...

I don't agree with a lot of the pros for using ONLY msix.... 

I like the fact that msi requires admin privileges and imo it's a con that msix didn't when I installed it. 

I've had plenty of non msix installed programs do updates that didn't require the full program to be downloaded again.... not that 550megs is much these days.

MSI installers can uninstall cleanly if coded correctly to start with....

IF affinity did their own asset management program, that many want (and were kind of expecting with v2) you wouldn't need to use ms photos (which is pretty bad and nobody should be using imo) for 'edit in...' style features.

The cons are great though...

More work to move stuff to a preferred location versus just entering it at the start... but in all honesty move might as well not be there because it doesn't go any further than drive level....it's no good if I want it on my c:\ drive but in a specific folder.

We'll need an app to fix third party bugs with App Execution Alias ... we only need the app, which I'm guessing will have to run in the background and all the time, because you've used msix as the install method...

 

[Fritz_H]

well, I was in doubt whether to upgrade all 3 applications or not .. but the more details arise, the less I am attracted to purchase the update/upgrade.

- "strange" application types that break my data-structure (drive 1 for the OS, drive 2 for applications, drive 3 for data)
(MY computer, I decide where to install applications - not those ***** of Microsoft, NO Apps from the MS App-store)
- none of the promoted features addresses my issues (mostly Usability-flaws, which still isn´t something Serif does care about, as is seems..)
- new features are too sophisticated for my use-cases.
- even the Demo-Version requires registration?

I wonder if the basics have been fixed...

Variable fonts? (nope.)
improved usability of the straighten tool?  (click+hold-draaaaaaag-release  is stupid)
did the mesh warp and perspective tools get additional handles which are accessible when zoomed into the image?
is save/save as finally capable to cover the function of the export-menu?
is the GUI finally scalable? (nope, still too tiny)
are ALL interface elements finally mouse-over sensitve? (change color when pointer hovers above)
Have the keyboard-shortcuts for non-english application-language settings finally been adjusted to combos that are easy to reach on such a non-englisch keyboard-layout? 
(e.g. these [  ] require ALTGR-8 or 9 on a german keyboard but are the default-settings for several actions...)

are locked layers finally really protected from ANY change? (locked means locked/protected)
Is it still possible to select tools even if the document contains no layers?
are those notification pop-Ups finally moveable?(or are they still somewhere in the upper right area, colored similar to the background to make them harder to see?)
Does Photo-develop Persona still tell me "please use the cancel-button" when closing the window instead of handling this window-close-event the same way as the cancel button by showing an "are u sure" window...?
Can the e.g. curves adjustment window be resized? (made bigger, for more detailed adjustments)

 

Thanks for TINY (useless) Layer-Icons.
Thanks for new live filters layers... that require HW-acceleration.. is this finally 100% fixed on Windows?
Thanks for "normals adjustments" - I did not even know that more than 0 people out there may need such a feature...
 

Sorry guys... I am not convinced.

[Fritz_H]

Interesting:

• Use 7-Zip to unpack the MSIX-Container,
• open the "affinity photo 2.0.0" Folder,
• open APP, start "photo.exe"

seems to run  (like a portable APP?)

(at least it shows the splash-screen and the "enter license" -Screen since I downloaded the "full-installer" by mistake, thinking its a demo without a key..)

Link: Affinity Photo 2 Updates (Windows) (serif.com)

 

[Corgi]

I've been a pretty happy Affinity customer for years, and up till now I've recommended it to other people. But I am on the verge of losing faith.

That the improvements in v2 (especially Photo) were more evolutionary than revolutionary was disappointing, but I was still ready to upgrade.

That existing customers received the same pricing as new customers was discouraging, but I was still ready to upgrade.

That the Windows installer is msix-only is quite frustrating and potentially a showstopper for me.

But the fact that Serif is being so closed-mouth about this Windows installer situation feels unforgiveable. I'm not looking for a list of justifications for the msix decision. I simply need to know whether they intend to release an msi/exe installer. If they intend to, then I can purchase it at the sale price and hang on for awhile, but if not, I will move on.

I know it's been less than a week since release, and that the staff are slammed. So I am going to give it a few more days. But I cannot think of one good reason that Serif can't reveal their intentions with respect to the method of installation. Even if they're not yet sure what they'll do, that's helpful information for us to have.

We're not talking about trade secret material here. Unless they provide a status update soon, it'll be hard not to interpret their silence on this issue as anything other than unnecessarily defensive or punitive.

[Tia Lapis]

13 minutes ago, Corgi said:

Unless they provide a status update soon, it'll be hard not to interpret their silence on this issue as anything other than unnecessarily defensive or punitive.

Well, the wait is probably grounded in the fact that it's the weekend and few people work currently.

[Corgi]

17 minutes ago, Tia Lapis said:

Well, the wait is probably grounded in the fact that it's the weekend and few people work currently.

Possibly, although how much time would it have taken (say, Friday), to post, "We're not going to be releasing an .msi or .exe installer," or, "We're investigating the possibility of releasing an alternate installer, and will keep you all posted." Possibly with an added sentence such as, "We're sorry that this situation has caused problems for, or disenfranchised, any of our customers."

[scottalan]

+1 to this as a negative issue with the new versions. 

I like using the Affinity Suite and, generally these new versions seem to be modest improvements with some key fixes (RAW development handling in Photo being foremost for me).

The install issue--forcing install into WindowsApps folder--is not a deal breaker but is substantially irritating to me. As both a creative and a programmer, I carefully manage my system's organization and workflows, often strategically distributing installs between different SSDs. Not having control over the install locations of the Affinity Suite subverts my organizational principles and leaves theses apps as major outliers in my system.

On the bright side, theses apps are easy to re-install. Serif, please get this issue into your development plan and release installers that allow users to define their own install locations. Otherwise, congrats on moving a good product forward.

[Mistro]

I'm a brand new customer on PC. I have no regrets about buying the universal license for the price but I do share concern about not having an exe option for program accessibility and found it was strange the way I had to install the trial but didn't realize this was why. It seems unnecessary to put hardship or confusion on a customer base without giving the familiar option we PC users are accustomed to. I was all ready to just point my other programs like Sketchup, etc. to Affinity like I did my CS6 but see the hoops that are a turn off. I'm rooting for the future of this company to continue to be a viable alternative to creative rentware and want to see Serif succeed. This move have me worried. I humbly ask that you please give us the option for either exe like most of our most used program files and if anyone wants to use the app version they still have that choice. A big key word when it comes to creative people is "Options".

[JohnDK]

1 hour ago, Fritz_H said:

Interesting:

• Use 7-Zip to unpack the MSIX-Container,
• open the "affinity photo 2.0.0" Folder,
• open APP, start "photo.exe"

seems to run  (like a portable APP?)

Yes, that seems to work - I downloaded the MSIX file, changed the extension to .zip, opened it in Windows explorer and copied the contents to a folder of my choosing.  Double clicking photo.exe runs OK, entered my username and password and it activated my trial version without issue.  Appears to be working properly at the moment. 

[walt.farrell]

2 hours ago, Nox said:

 but there is no reason not to simply give the customers the option to download either MSI/EXE or MSIX.

If they did that, they would need additional code paths for updating the product and checking for updates, which incurs additional coding, testing, and maintenance for Serif. True, they had those paths in V1, but keeping them in V2 means that V2 has more code for that purpose, and they still need the maintenance and testing for the older code going forward. 

Plus additional work packaging the code another way, and installing it to make sure the packaging worked. And running the test suites again to make sure that everything continued to work with code when packaged the second way. Etc.

It's not just a simple "oh, just make an MXI/EXE-based installer."

(Things are seldom as simple as many of the forum users like to think they are. Everyone seems to think that their favorite new item or tweak to an old item would be "simple to do". And usually, as far as I know from my 40 years in software development, "it's simple" is something only the code developers can really decide. And even then, they're sometimes wrong and something they thought would be simple becomes a nightmare once the get into the guts of it.)

[Corgi]

9 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

If they did that, they would need additional code paths for updating the product and checking for updates, which incurs additional coding, testing, and maintenance for Serif.

True, but you can also look at it the other way around. They could've released an .msi installer only, which would've had a wider acceptance, and saved the effort to code for .msix.

I don't think many people presume that creating two installers is trivial. It's just that folks want the option to install the program, on their own computers, the way they prefer, and that's reasonable.

[Mistro]

Perhaps the real question is, can the user use the program as intended and also find ways to communicate with the 3rd party programs they want to link to? As long as these are doable, then yeah, maybe it's harder or require more tasks to set up the way some would like it, but overall, the program works and we can still enjoy why we bought it in the first place. One thing I didn't hear anyone say so far is that because it's an app, it doesn't work on their windows machine. It's more a matter of convenience. I still think it would be nice to have an exe version as a choice, but the current state does not stop me from using Affinity if this is the way it is going forward. No anger here. My worry is more about other's reactions.

Edited November 12, 2022 by Mistro

[Nox]

1 hour ago, walt.farrell said:

Plus additional work packaging the code another way, and installing it to make sure the packaging worked. And running the test suites again to make sure that everything continued to work with code when packaged the second way. Etc.

I'm not sure why you defend this behaviour, these are lame excuses. Of course it is a bit more work but that this will benefit the customer. The applications are self containing (apart from the user settings which are generated by the application itself), there is no cumbersome work to do to package them.

 

1 hour ago, walt.farrell said:

It's not just a simple "oh, just make an MXI/EXE-based installer."

it is as simple as that. They already have the tools and infrastructure for creating their MSI/EXE-installers from Version 1.
Modifying this toolchain to work with V2 isn't an undoable task. Considering how much more customer and user friendly this approach is make the little bit of extra work worth to do.

I have a software development background myself and for my projects I take extra steps to make the user experience pleasant and convenient.

 

1 hour ago, walt.farrell said:

If they did that, they would need additional code paths for updating the product and checking for updates, which incurs additional coding, testing, and maintenance for Serif.

I don't want to attack you but I'm not sure if you are trolling, have no clue or think too complicated. I honestly don't know what you are talking about.
This was already part of Version 1. And from my experience fetching update information on the client side isn't complicated and serving the release info via an API (or even just a normal string) on the server is also not a big deal. The testing of these features maybe takes a few hours up to a day for one person.

 

They make a product and they want people to buy it, there is no defending in anti costumer practices because it's a little more comfy for the developers.