Update is doing a fresh install

[walt.farrell]

On 1/26/2025 at 1:58 PM, R C-R said:

So my question is how would the source for the installer (which is neither an updater nor just a simple patch) know which is the "correct" version that is wanted?

For your scenario of downloading the Windows installer on your Mac, or using a friend's computer, it is likely that you would be using a web browser and going to the appropriate Download page and choosing a version manually.

This is different from the scenario where you run the application, and it detects that there is an update, and asks if you want to Download it. In that scenario, if you click Download, the installer is taking you to the appropriate Download page on the website. Today it just takes you to the same page you would have used when downloading manually, but it could take you to a page which is pre-set to download the MSI/EXE version, and for the architecture (x86, ARM-64) you're currently using. And for users who really do want something else, they could manually choose it. Or perhaps for that scenario they would have to manually navigate to the website, just as when using a different computer.

Or, as some other users have suggested, the MSI/EXE version could also automatically do a download/install, via an Install button as the MSIX version does, rather than requiring a manual download/install via a Download button. That is clearly a more complex undertaking, though and so is not one I've ever suggested to Serif. I've only suggested that the existing Download button should give the user the correct version for their system/installer by default.

[Pšenda]

11 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

a manual download/install via a Download button

The very fact that after pressing the "Download" button, the download does not take place, but only opens a page where you have to choose the correct installation type yourself, and only then finally download, is simply ridiculous these days.

[Obscured]

.

[mopperle]

1 hour ago, Pšenda said:

The very fact that after pressing the "Download" button, the download does not take place, but only opens a page where you have to choose the correct installation type yourself, and only then finally download, is simply ridiculous these days.

I second this. As Serif is using AWS, it is an easy task to implement an update procedure, where the according installer is directly downloaded. Or even better it does an inplace update.

[walt.farrell]

1 hour ago, Circulus said:

I just wonder why it is so hard for Serif to understand that their programs and even their way of updating is in so many ways USERUNFRIENDLY.

The update process for the MSI/EXE version works identically in V2 and in the older V1. The user needs to download the file, and manually install it.

The only new install function in V2 came with the MSIX version, where the application can download the installer and hand it off to Windows, and let Windows (a) perform the installation, then (b) close the current application, and finally (c) start the newly-updated application.

Remember that Serif was only reluctantly forced into providing MSI/EXE installers for V2. Given their preferences, only MSIX would have been available, and when forced into providing MSI/EXE they did not enhance the installation process to include the automatic download/installation function. They did add one nice function, though. The MSIX and MSI/EXE store settings and user content (assets, etc.) in different locations, and they set it up so the MSI/EXE applications would recognize that the user had previously run the MSIX version, and the enabled automatic migration of the settings and user content from the MSIX to the MSI/EXE.

[Obscured]

.

[Obscured]

.

 

[R C-R]

3 hours ago, Circulus said:

As for the (still) forcing of the msix app, it was and is a bad business decision from a user point of view as the foundation on which the affinity code works isn't working seriously with other software....

As I understand it, Serif is not forcing anyone to use the MSIX installer, just recommending that they use it. And as for not it working with other software, this is because a lot of other software vendors have not updated their stuff to work with sandboxed MSIX packaged apps, as Microsoft has been urging them to do since it was first introduced.

FWIW, Microsoft touts the benefits of this new app package format here, among other things stressing a claimed 99+% install success rate & better disk space management. So at least to some extent, there appear to be some very good reasons for the decision to recommend this new package format.

[R C-R]

There is still something I do not understand about this topic, that being why some users are reporting that using one (?) of the installer types "wipes" their user settings. From what I have read in other topics, most users do not seem to experience this. Does anyone have a clear explanation of what might cause this?

[Pšenda]

32 minutes ago, R C-R said:

Serif is not forcing anyone to use the MSIX installer

Forces because even if you have an MSI/EXE installation, when you click Download in the update prompt, it directs you to the MSIX installation type. So when updating each application, you always have to remember to change the installation type because Serif forces a different type on you.

[Pšenda]

34 minutes ago, R C-R said:

"wipes" their user settings

I think you're misinterpreting this. It's not about physical data loss/deletion, but the fact that when you choose the wrong installation type (different from your previous one), your settings for the new/different installation type are not visible - and therefore it appears to uninformed users as data loss. After installing the correct installation type, your original settings become available again.

[R C-R]

4 minutes ago, Pšenda said:

Forces because even if you have an MSI/EXE installation, when you click Download in the update prompt, it directs you to the MSIX installation type. So when updating each application, you always have to remember to change the installation type because Serif forces a different type on you.

OK, but as I understand it, you still have the option to change to the EXE version, so it really isn't forcing you to use it, right? IOW, forcing means no choice, which is not the case here?

[mopperle]

4 hours ago, Circulus said:

That user unfriendly script to point to an app within a hidden, sandboxed folder is even more sad, childish and unprofessional.

TBH, you can not blame Serif for this. This is the typical procedure of every MSIX installer and was introduced by Microsoft and can not be changed by any software vendor. Gladly Serif still Supports the „old“ exe installer.

[R C-R]

1 minute ago, Pšenda said:

I think you're misinterpreting this. It's not about physical data loss/deletion, but the fact that when you choose the wrong installation type (different from your previous one), your settings for the new/different installation type are not visible - and therefore it appears to uninformed users as data loss. After installing the correct installation type, your original settings become available again.

So basically, each type creates its own set of preferences independent of the other's? Or is there more to it than that?

[R C-R]

2 minutes ago, mopperle said:

TBH, you can not blame Serif for this. This is the typical procedure of every MSIX installer and was introduced by Microsoft and can not be changed by any software vendor. Gladly Serif still Supports the „old“ exe installer.

Something else about this I am not clear about: Can vendors still offer the old EXE installers for apps purchased from the Microsoft store, or must they all now offer only the MSIX versions?

[Pšenda]

24 minutes ago, R C-R said:

IOW, forcing means no choice

No, forcing (duress) doesn't mean you have no choice, but the fact that something you don't want is constantly being forced on you (and Serif knows this of course, because the action after pressing the Download button is triggered from an MSI/EXE application). It's like Microsoft constantly asking you if you want to use its miraculous web browser, even though you've already told them a hundred times that you're not interested.

Edited January 28 by Pšenda

[R C-R]

14 minutes ago, Pšenda said:

No, forcing doesn't mean you have no choice, but the fact that something you don't want is constantly being forced on you....

I think we will have to agree to disagree about the meaning of "force" in this context. To me, if I am forced to do something, it literally means I have no other choice than the one offered to me, not even to decline to do anything.

YMMV

EDIT: see for example https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/forcing & the text there "force verb [T] (GIVE NO CHOICE)"

[Obscured]

.

[R C-R]

1 hour ago, Circulus said:

@R C-R both @Pšenda and I are not native English speakers but what was meant is forced on/upon

That is no different from what I cited. It is not simply nagging or annoying. As what you cites says it means it is to cause something to be accepted. That is not what Serif/Affinity is doing because even though it is not as obvious as it could be, users can choose not to accept the offered version.

[mopperle]

16 hours ago, R C-R said:

Something else about this I am not clear about: Can vendors still offer the old EXE installers for apps purchased from the Microsoft store, or must they all now offer only the MSIX versions?

There are two ways to use the Microsoft Store:

- if you just want to use it as a download plattform, you can offer exe files as download
- if you want to use all other store services, like billing etc. it only works with the MSIX installer

The big technical advantage of the MSIX installer is the sandboxed installation in a container. So it can not interfere any other software. And it allows an absolute clean uninstall, as Windows just deletes the container.

[walt.farrell]

17 hours ago, Pšenda said:

Forces because even if you have an MSI/EXE installation, when you click Download in the update prompt, it directs you to the MSIX installation type

No, it doesn't. It directs you to the Download site where you must choose which version you want to download, with no hint that you should choose MSI/EXE. 

 

17 hours ago, R C-R said:

There is still something I do not understand about this topic, that being why some users are reporting that using one (?) of the installer types "wipes" their user settings. From what I have read in other topics, most users do not seem to experience this. Does anyone have a clear explanation of what might cause this?

This happens when the user was running the MSI/EXE version, which stores its preferences and user-content in %AppData%\Affinity and then mistakenly downloads/installs the MSIX version, which stores its preferences and user-content in %UserProfile%\.affinity and then runs that MSIX version. At that point, it sees the empty directory under %UserProfile% and creates a fresh (factory) version of the preferences and user-content.

The original set of data from the MSI/EXE is not lost; it's just in a different location. And as both versions are now installed the user can simply find and run the MSI/EXE version they still have installed, but of course it will prompt them to update again. 

 

[Pšenda]

10 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

No, it doesn't.

??? What is not true about the quote you responded to? ("Forces because even if you have an MSI/EXE installation, when you click Download in the update prompt, it directs you to the MSIX installation type").
It may work differently for you, but for me the application behaves exactly like this after pressing the Download button. I don't address the fact that I "have to" (and therefore it is forcing/duress from Serif's point of view) choose the correct installation type in my post at all - because it has been mentioned many times in this thread. So I do not understand your reaction and the context with the quoted part of my post, because I do not write anywhere in it that the correct installation type, i.e. MSI/EXE, would be selected/"choosed" automatically. By the way, if Serif did this - as it has been requested here for several years, then these threads and similar ones (for example, about the non-functioning StudioLink) would not exist at all.

[walt.farrell]

23 hours ago, Pšenda said:

What is not true about the quote you responded to? ("Forces because even if you have an MSI/EXE installation, when you click Download in the update prompt, it directs you to the MSIX installation type").

It does not direct you to the MSIX. It directs you to a page where you must choose which one to download. You click a dropdown, and get a list of 4 possible installers to download. This should be handled better. However, any user having this problem:

• Ignored Serif's recommendation to use the MSIX initially, and deliberately chose to download the MSI/EXE installer.
• Presumably, since they felt strongly enough to do that before, they will still feel that way and will again choose the MSI/EXE installer. So I can understand if Serif chooses not to improve this. But I still agree that it could work better.