Is it acceptable to have commercial applications that doesn’t install themselves to regular “program files” location?
Which one is better? An application that can run anywhere without installation (#1) or integration or one that requires a full installation (#2) (using registry, program files, settings stored in AppData, documents stored in Users/…/, etc)
To me it seems like an application that can run flawlessly even from a previous Windows install (because of its ability to run from any location, etc) is better.
I can even put it on my thumb drive and use it anywhere I like. Or better yet if I were to bring the settings from one copy to another, that would be done very easily, whereas the other application that is spread all over would require a feature for it.
Why try to solve a non-problem?
Any ideas and pros/cons about this? What do you think is better, more acceptable for you? Would you mind if an application was like #1? It also seems like it’s easier to integrate these kinds of applications to pipelines where they can be thrown anywhere to process data passed to it.
It’s becoming more acceptable and perhaps even expected that applications are self contained and don’t require complicated installation programs. This is particularly true for the smaller utility applications.
If you look at the questions on Super User that ask for software to do X a significant number of answers are given that suggest software that doesn’t require installation so it can be run from CD/DVD or thumb drive.
So if your application can work like this then by all means offer it as a possible installation method. There’s nothing stopping you offering both – a “full” installer for the less computer literate and a zip file download for the tech savvy.