[Brass]

Originally posted by Gee4orce:
The Omni Group guys lead the way here - not only does OmniWeb automatically mount a downloaded disk image, but all Omni disk images automatically open, and have a pretty window background that includes instuctions on what to do next. Only the eject step is left.

The only problem I have with disk images is that sometimes I can't eject them because they are 'in use'. On the other hand, it's really useful to be able to run the application right from the disk image, without it even being 'installed'.

I'm sure there are plenty of really cool applications for disk images that I haven't thought of yet.

Absolutely... if only all developers did it that way!

However, I do have one gripe with OmniWebs method... It would be nice (at least for me) to have the toolbar visible by default. That way, I don't even have to open another window (or use the toolbar pill) to install the application. I can just drag the icon directly to the Apps icon in the toolbar. Now THAT is a quick and easy install - truly ONE STEP!!!

[Brass]

Originally posted by biscuit:
Anyway, hows this for an improvement. When you have the .dmg mounted (with window open and a nice instruction-filled background) you drag and drop the App onto your HD icon. Up pops a dialog asking if you want to store it in your applications folder. Job done. I think this was a nice touch from OS 9 (for extensions etc. anyway) that really helps to organise things. And in OS 9 it didn't even matter that much, OS X is the one that likes Apps in the Apps folder.

How about this too. The developers could have some control on it maybe, i.e. include info which the Finder can interpret on where to store the file. Now things can be put deep into Library folders without the need to go digging. I dunno, maybe a step too far?

biscuit

Hey, I really like that idea. I mean the Apps are all just bundles anyway, there's no reason why the bundle couldn't optionally include another file called "default location" which just included a path name. Then every time the Finder attempted to copy/move such a file to somewhere other than the default location, it could pop up a dialogue something like "The recommended location for this is in /Applications. Place it there now?". And there could be a system preference to never show this dialogue. NB: The dialog would not appear if you were putting it directly in the default location anyway.

[krove]

Originally posted by Rickster:
One of my favorite things about it is that it subtly encourages keeping only the stuff you need from a software distribution: when software comes as a compressed folder with a readme and an app and other nonessential junk like URL files and EULAs, people tend to drag the whole folder to their Apps folder. And before long, they start to lose the advantage of self-contained apps -- their Apps folder is full of folders which each contain a single app. (You don't really need aliases and launchers and draggy things to get the simplicity of a single window full of immedately-launchable apps, you just need to eliminate unnecessary hierarchy from your Apps folder.) With disk images, people are more inclined to just drag what they want to keep (the app). But anyhow...

So right! I really can't stand apps that are nestled in a folder with application resources, etc. I want my Applications folder to contain the application (which should have all of the files necessary to its operation either stored inside the .app, in application support in the library, or preferences.

I can see an argument for folders for some of the larger apps (photoshop, office), but for other apps (i.e. BBEdit, Microsoft RDC, SnapperHead, etc) should not be nestled away. Most just have a help folder with the app, but it isn't clear to a user whether moving the help will effectively render the application's help options in the help menu unavailable.

So, PLEASE, developers, no nested folders in the applications folder!

[eno]

Originally posted by poulh:
Plus, in 10.1.5 you can type "hdid" plus a space and the URL to a disk image, and mount it remotely, right off of the http server

Grandma won't be able to do this

plus the imaginary disk idea is very confusing as well. i've seen it with every single person i've gotten to buy a mac (at least 10) and few understand it after a few years. plus only one or two install new programs.

Fcuk grandma. I don't want to use an OS made for grandmas.

You, poulh, are an i d i o t.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by eno:

Fcuk grandma. I don't want to use an OS made for grandmas.

You, poulh, are an i d i o t.

Look, even though we're both on the same side of this argument - no name calling, okay? This thread doesn't need to become a flame war.

[dfiler]

Originally posted by CharlesS:

No. It must be something which can be installed via drag-and-drop. We've had to put with the Installer madness for years - now, with OS X, we can finally return to the old simplicity of DnD installs. If they futz it up again, I and many other Mac users will be angry.

The concept of installing an app by dragging it to your Applications folder is not difficult to understand unless you've been severely brainwashed by MS...

Originally posted by CharlesS:

No, we're not. Some people may want that. I want drag-and-drop installs, in exactly the form they're currently in.

Wow, who pissed in your corn flakes this morning?

Poulh was correct in that the current install process associated with disk-image distributed apps could be greatly simplified. Don't worry, we aren't arguing against the advantages which accompany this particular download and install process. The process can be simplified and made more efficient without loosing any of the workflows lauded here.

One option would be to embed a flag telling disk copy that a particular disk image is intended as a distribution(or archive) medium. When mounted these images would open a window containing the contents of the disk image with the addition of a scrollable instructions pane and an 'Install...' button. Most users would probably click install and be done with it. Power users could drag and drop or examine the disk image contents. The image should then automatically unmount after someone has clicked the install button and the installation process is complete.

You could even give power users more options, like a button to burn the image to physical media.

While our gripes with usability are related to underlying technical hurdles, we aren't arguing against the use of disk images. Rather, the process of downloading, mounting, opening up multiple windows, dragging, and pseudo-trashing is too cumbersome. Even worse, it relies upon the user to remember all these steps rather than going to the extra effort to accommodate users of all skill levels.

This gives me an idea... Once the grey gloom of winter hits Pittsburgh, perhaps I should make such an app. This is one area of computing which could really use the Apple touch. Imagine, a file format and installation app with all the benefits of images and drag and drop with the convenience of a single step wizard.

Step 1: download (install/contents window pops up if your browser is set to auto open that file type)
Step 2: click install or drag n' drop or choose some other spiffy option
Step 3: heheee, there is no step 3

[biscuit]

Originally posted by Brass:


Hey, I really like that idea. I mean the Apps are all just bundles anyway, there's no reason why the bundle couldn't optionally include another file called "default location" which just included a path name. Then every time the Finder attempted to copy/move such a file to somewhere other than the default location, it could pop up a dialogue something like "The recommended location for this is in /Applications. Place it there now?". And there could be a system preference to never show this dialogue. NB: The dialog would not appear if you were putting it directly in the default location anyway.

Thanks, the more I think about it the more I like it. Thanks for expanding on the idea too. Seems like it wouldn't be too hard for Apple to implement using your suggestion.

While I wouldn't want the Finder interfering too much (telling me where to put Docs etc.), can anyone think how this concept could be usefully expanded?

biscuit

[seb2]

Originally posted by biscuit:


Thanks, the more I think about it the more I like it. Thanks for expanding on the idea too. Seems like it wouldn't be too hard for Apple to implement using your suggestion.

While I wouldn't want the Finder interfering too much (telling me where to put Docs etc.), can anyone think how this concept could be usefully expanded?

seriously, what you are talking about is a windows installer wizard.

as mentioned before, there already *is* an installer coming with the os and several applications are being distributed as installer packages.

what difference is there between your suggestion and an installer besides getting a lot of redundancy?

seriously, whenever i download an application that doesn't come as application i can simply put where *i* want it to be, i go mad.

stuff that comes as .pkg is being critically inspected with pacifist before it gets installed -- if at all, stuff that comes as vise installer usually is being thrown away without getting installed because i don't know where it puts what.

i once found a directory called "vise installer moved components" in /system -- that freaked me out.

*nobody* has the right to touch my system folder.

period.

[Lew]

Worst offender in my mind is Internet Explorer. It comes as an installer, but if you check the installation log all it's doing is placing items within the app bundle. The could just as easily have done it as a drag&drop installation like they did with the classic IE.

[biscuit]

Originally posted by seb2:

seriously, what you are talking about is a windows installer wizard.

Yes, I thought someone would say that. I can see your point on this one, I was trying to word it carefully to emphasize the fact that I don't want too much interference. I don't like it when things get chucked around the system folder either.

I've come up with a best of both worlds plan though. Apps should have a default location readable by the finder as this can make drag and drop easier. There should be a preference to ignore it, so people who are fussed about grouping apps etc can do that. Or maybe only show it once, when copying it to the HD?

The second point is this; it shouldn't be necessary to use the default location. At the moment some apps don't get upgraded if they aren't in the Apps folder. Change that kind of behavouir and we're in business.

I hope I'm getting this across right. I don't want a wizard, I'd just like the Finder to be a little bit more intelligent.

biscuit

[CharlesS]

You know, biscuit, someone wrote an app called MagicCarpet that does pretty much what you want, I believe.

Originally posted by seb2:
seriously, whenever i download an application that doesn't come as application i can simply put where *i* want it to be, i go mad.

I don't - I just open it with Pacifist, extract to my desktop, and then drag it wherever I want. In fact, with the latest drag-and-drop-enabled pre-release build that most of you don't have access to yet , every file in a package is drag-and-drop installable...

Anyway, I could deal with a simple check for anything .app being dragged on the hard disk, and offering to move it to /Applications, as long as this functionality could be turned off - indeed, in 10.0 this might even have been a good idea. Now we have Spring-Loaded Folders, though, so its benefit would be really minimal since if you drag an app the hard disk, it will spring open, giving you easy access to drag the app to the Applications folder.

[bewebste]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Incidentally, iCal (and iTunes) install private frameworks in /System. That's why they've been package installers, instead of drag-and-drop.

Now whether they ought to be doing such things, or should instead keep self-contained, well, I know how I feel about it...

Count me in on Charles' vision of single-click downloads from the web: click, mount the image, drag the app, done.

Another reason Apple has to use .pkgs for installation is that Software Update uses the package receipts to determine what software you have installed on your system so it can tell what updates are relevant to your system. For example, it offers different updates depending on whether you've got a receipt for 10.1 vs 10.1.4. In the former case, it offers the 10.1.1-10.1.5 combo installer, in the latter case, it offers the smaller 10.1.4->10.1.5 installer.

[bewebste]

Originally posted by Brass:


Hey, I really like that idea. I mean the Apps are all just bundles anyway, there's no reason why the bundle couldn't optionally include another file called "default location" which just included a path name. Then every time the Finder attempted to copy/move such a file to somewhere other than the default location, it could pop up a dialogue something like "The recommended location for this is in /Applications. Place it there now?". And there could be a system preference to never show this dialogue. NB: The dialog would not appear if you were putting it directly in the default location anyway.

One thing that developers could do without waiting for Apple would be to include a small Applescript on the disk image labelled "Double click here to install in your Applications folder" or something like that. The script would just copy the application to /Applications and could maybe even unmount the disk image. Well, OK, unmounting might not quite be that simple if the script is still running from the disk image that it want to unmount, but I'm sure there'd be some way to do it.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by bewebste:


One thing that developers could do without waiting for Apple would be to include a small Applescript on the disk image labelled "Double click here to install in your Applications folder" or something like that. The script would just copy the application to /Applications and could maybe even unmount the disk image. Well, OK, unmounting might not quite be that simple if the script is still running from the disk image that it want to unmount, but I'm sure there'd be some way to do it.

The problem with this is that it hides what is actually going on from the user. If you install an app via drag and drop, it is natural and logical that you would expect to remove it by dragging it to the Trash. However, if you ran some AppleScript that put it in Applications for you, a newbie will not know that that is all it did, and will expect there to be some uninstall program to remove it. So much for simplicity. The newbie will have no way of knowing that all he needs to do is drag it to the trash.

[Brass]

Originally posted by seb2:

seriously, what you are talking about is a windows installer wizard.

as mentioned before, there already *is* an installer coming with the os and several applications are being distributed as installer packages.

what difference is there between your suggestion and an installer besides getting a lot of redundancy?

seriously, whenever i download an application that doesn't come as application i can simply put where *i* want it to be, i go mad.

stuff that comes as .pkg is being critically inspected with pacifist before it gets installed -- if at all, stuff that comes as vise installer usually is being thrown away without getting installed because i don't know where it puts what.

i once found a directory called "vise installer moved components" in /system -- that freaked me out.

*nobody* has the right to touch my system folder.

period.

I think you're missing the point here. What was being advocated in that post was that people should be able to drag and drop and application to install it, but if they wanted to drag an application to somwhere other than the applications folder, a warning could (optionally) come up aking if you want it in the applications folder.

Why would you use a wizard or a separate installer application just for copying and entire directory? I despise "wizards". I want to be able to just drag things where I want them. However, some other users may need that extra tidbit of avice on where to drag things to.

[Brass]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
You know, biscuit, someone wrote an app called MagicCarpet that does pretty much what you want, I believe.


I don't - I just open it with Pacifist, extract to my desktop, and then drag it wherever I want. In fact, with the latest drag-and-drop-enabled pre-release build that most of you don't have access to yet , every file in a package is drag-and-drop installable...

Anyway, I could deal with a simple check for anything .app being dragged on the hard disk, and offering to move it to /Applications, as long as this functionality could be turned off - indeed, in 10.0 this might even have been a good idea. Now we have Spring-Loaded Folders, though, so its benefit would be really minimal since if you drag an app the hard disk, it will spring open, giving you easy access to drag the app to the Applications folder.

Don't get me wrong - I think Pacifist (and Tome Reader) are great tools - but what we really need is better standards within the default distribution methods so that people who have no idea what a .pkg or .app is will find it easy to install without having to download any third party products. The developers (and distributors) of the applications themselves (and perhaps the OS developers?) need to make things just a little bit easier (and perhaps more flexible) than they currently are.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Brass:


I think you're missing the point here. What was being advocated in that post was that people should be able to drag and drop and application to install it, but if they wanted to drag an application to somwhere other than the applications folder, a warning could (optionally) come up aking if you want it in the applications folder.

Why would you use a wizard or a separate installer application just for copying and entire directory? I despise "wizards". I want to be able to just drag things where I want them. However, some other users may need that extra tidbit of avice on where to drag things to.

I could stomach that behavior if it only applied when you dragged something to the hard disk icon. If you drag something to a specific place inside the hard disk, though, the OS should assume you know what you're doing and have a reason to put it there. It would be really annoying if it always asked this question every time you tried to put something anywhere other than the default place.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Brass:


Don't get me wrong - I think Pacifist (and Tome Reader) are great tools - but what we really need is better standards within the default distribution methods so that people who have no idea what a .pkg or .app is will find it easy to install without having to download any third party products. The developers (and distributors) of the applications themselves (and perhaps the OS developers?) need to make things just a little bit easier (and perhaps more flexible) than they currently are.

What we really need to do is dump the .pkg installers and go with drag and drop for everything except for stuff that absolutely needs to put something in the UNIX folders or /Library, or Apple OS updates that need to put stuff in /System. Unfortunately for you, fortunately for me it doesn't look like that will ever be the case, as there's always going to be some idiot developers that decide they just *have* to use the .pkg format to install just an .app bundle in the Applications folder, or decide that they should dump files in /Library even though they don't need to.

[Brass]

Originally posted by CharlesS:

I could stomach that behavior if it only applied when you dragged something to the hard disk icon. If you drag something to a specific place inside the hard disk, though, the OS should assume you know what you're doing and have a reason to put it there. It would be really annoying if it always asked this question every time you tried to put something anywhere other than the default place.

Absolutely. Either that, or have a universal setting to turn off the dialgues altogether. But I think it might help some novice users.

[nickm]

I'm in the "hate installers" camp, but respect the usability issues involved with the current state of affairs. I think some system that aided the novice, while teaching them about their computer, would be ideal.

I thought it was cool that you could drag a bunch of fonts and extensions onto the MacOS 9 system folder and you would get a dialog saying "These need to go in special folders, do you want me to place them there?" and it would be so.

What might be cool would be if you could drag any item (apps, fonts, preferencepanes, kernel extensions, etc.) to the Finder icon in the dock, and it would tell you, "This items belongs in the such and such folder, would you it installed there now?"

[biscuit]

Originally posted by CharlesS:

I could stomach that behavior if it only applied when you dragged something to the hard disk icon. If you drag something to a specific place inside the hard disk, though, the OS should assume you know what you're doing and have a reason to put it there. It would be really annoying if it always asked this question every time you tried to put something anywhere other than the default place.

Yes, I've tried to think how this could be expanded and I think it'd become too cumbersome. This and dragging to the Finder icon is probably the limit. Spring-loaded folders are great but this would be even easier.

But what about Prefs and stuff in Application support? When you trash an App they get left behind. That seems a little messy to me.

Thanks for the MagicCarpet tip, I'll check it out.

biscuit

[Diggory Laycock]

Originally posted by nickm:

I thought it was cool that you could drag a bunch of fonts and extensions onto the MacOS 9 system folder and you would get a dialog saying "These need to go in special folders, do you want me to place them there?" and it would be so.

Yes - I miss this too - I sent feeback to Apple suggesting they re-implement this for the Libraries.

However I fear that all the various types of file are too hard to distinguish under OS X (except for bundles like .prefpanes and .savers)

Hmm - Thinks - Perhaps someone could write an AppleScript folder action that checks extensions of files dropped in to "library"
and moves appropriately. If no extension perhaps it could sniff the info.plist

[Sven G]

The current situation on the software installation front is indeed rather confusing in OS X! Some of the (too) many options are:

- Disk Copy (.dmg);

- StuffIt (.sit, .bin, .hqx, etc.);

- Unix archiving/compression formats (.tar, .gz, .bz2, etc.);

- InstallerVISE;

- InstallAnywhere;

- Apple's Installer (.pkg);

- OSXPM (.pkg and .xpm) (an installer/uninstaller, but with no dependency checking, yet);

- Fink and FinkCommander (.deb) (an installer and uninstaller, with dependency checking);

- Pacifist (.pkg);

- DesInstaller (.pkg) (a simple uninstaller);

- ...

While it is certainly good and interesting to have so many file formats, Apple should really get its act together on a new "universal" installer, capable of handling everything seamlessly (of course, the drag-and-drop method should continue to be the preferred one)...

[Diggory Laycock]

I really don't see why people want to make DMG drag & drop installation any more simple.

As far as I am concerned - if I click on a DMG URL it will mount it on my desktop (however it is compressed - if this does not happen to you check these settings: http://www.monkeyfood.com/thestuff/f...s/stuffit1.jpg
http://www.monkeyfood.com/thestuff/f...s/stuffit2.jpg
)

Then all I have to do is this:

http://www.diggory.net/grazing/DMGInstall.mov


I would not want software to install itself, and unmount the DMG.

I don't see what is so complicated about the current process.

[Love Calm Quiet]

The advantage of *simplicity* or *User Friendliness* is that then I can send a link to my Grandmother ( for whom I am Mac support 1000 miles away) to VersionTracker's page about your software, and she can automatically install it and (hopefully)...

Pay YOU, developers, for your shareware

This should make everyone happy. Cannot the 'Install' button activate a SCRIPT of some sort that includes Ejecting Grandma's disk image from the desktop -- so she's not annoyed / confused by the process?

For security, could there not be some system(?) preference for how automatically (for different levels of system security) the auto install happens?

[Rickster]

Hm. Maybe the best improvement to the current situation would be:

1. Mount an image via http (that is, directly off the server).
2. The image is set up "right" (window background with instructions, etc).
3. Drag the app to install.
4. The image unmounts automatically after you close its window. Since it was mounted directly off the server, there's no file(s) to clean up.

Of course, mounting via HTTP and automatic unmount would require more work on Apple's part. Only problem with this approach is that one might still run the app off the image -- perhaps Apple could also add a "can't run apps" filesystem flag or something.

[Rickster]

(double post removed)

[MrBS]

Originally posted by ksuther:
Also, I'd like to point that that Apple expressly wishes that software be distributed on disk images if possible. This way we can get some consistency. So, it might be confusing the first time, you point it out, show somebody how it works and how to use the program, and from then on, the idea is that they will be able to do this for themselves.

13. Avoid "Setup"
The commonly used "Setup" application, along with Install Wizards, are discouraged on Mac OS X. Use a drag install instead, which is simpler and preferred by Mac users.

Mac OS X lets you build application bundles, which are represented to the user by a single icon. Application bundles contain all the required files and custom libraries required to make your application work. Users can install bundles by dragging a single icon from your install CD or a disk image to their hard disk. This kind of install is extremely simple and reliable, and is easier to implement and use than a traditional installer application.

If your product needs to install files in multiple locations, or requires administrative authentication in order to be successfully installed, you will need to use a traditional installer application. In such cases, use an installer application that respects the Aqua Human Interface Guidelines. If possible, package your application using Package Maker (part of the typical Developer install) so that it will be installed by the standard Mac OS X installer.

Typically, Mac OS X applications don't require "setup wizards", but for complex setup procedures that occur the first time an application is launched (in order to set important long-term preferences, for instance), use a standard Mac OS X Assistant (see the Aqua Human Interface Guidelines for more information). Assistants should only be run once. Offer setup and preferences to users through a thoughtful and efficient interface that gives users direct control. Make sure that your application is installed with intelligent defaults so that users can get up and running with minimal assistance.

From http://developer.apple.com/ue/switch/windows.html

Yeah, it's annoying when Apple doesn't follow their own guidelines. They gave mail.app a (minimal) install wizard instead of just opening the accounts preferences when the app is first launched. The wizard is just a neutered version of the pref pane, and it makes it impossible to set up your account to use SSL. Try it. If you're trying to get on a server that requires SSL you need to power through multiple alert windows telling you how you won't be able to read your email if you continue, and then go to the pref pane anyway and select it.

To get more on topic, DnD installs are way nicer and more straight-forward than installers. If you have an auto-opening window and a nice, instructive background picture (ala omni) it's not confusing at all.

The only problem I've run into is if you select both the .dmg and the mounted disk and try to drag them both to the trash, the finder complains that the .dmg is in use and can't be thrown away (at least it did in 10.1).
~BS

[MrBS]

Originally posted by MrBS:

The only problem I've run into is if you select both the .dmg and the mounted disk and try to drag them both to the trash, the finder complains that the .dmg is in use and can't be thrown away (at least it did in 10.1).
~BS

10.2 seems to let you drag both items to the trash at the same time w/o complaining.
~BS

[Graymalkin]

Mithras: iTunes and iCal install stuff to the System folder not to be dumb but in order to provide globally accessible frameworks to other programs.

I agree with Charles that Disk Copy images are the most effective way to move apps around. When I do run X I have an encrypted image mount in my home directory, it makes it quite simple to actively work on anything I want to keep prying eyes away from. I could easily stick that on a network share and have a private encrypted directory available anywhere on my network. I love Disk Copy.

For installations I don't think DC is very confusing at all, if you know someone who will be easily confused by it take the liberty of turning off checksumming for them.

What I would like to see is a Finder haxie that either allows me to drag a .app file to my disk icon and ask me if I'd like to put it into my Applications folder (or a handful of other places I could customize) sort of like what was already mentioned. Or instead have an Option+Click menu come up with a Send To option like the Windows Explorer menu option which is quite useful if you know how to use it properly. That'd be useful for a lot of different things as well.

The list of installer options for OSX someone just posted is true but soft of misleading. It isn't like any of those options truely compete and need a ton of extra work. They all provide the ability to download a file and pretty simply get it on your hard drive. I think Disk Copy is the best option personally and will probably start to dominate as more developers move away from older MacOS conventions.

[sushiism]

just wish people would stop compressing them with sit and gz, its annoying having to delete them after. But dmg's alone are really really great, for lack of a better description

[altimac]

Originally posted by Brass:

Disk images should be created with their window open, so that as soon as they are mounted, their window opens.

i wanted to do this (auto open window) for my own freeware, but it doesn't seems to work

i create a new blank image, put my files in, let the window open then convert this image to a compressed one which i distribute

but auto open window doesn't work

what did i make wrong ?

thanks

[Ibson]

Originally posted by altimac:


i wanted to do this (auto open window) for my own freeware, but it doesn't seems to work

i create a new blank image, put my files in, let the window open then convert this image to a compressed one which i distribute

but auto open window doesn't work

what did i make wrong ?

thanks

You need to run a small C-application when the disk image is mounted; Rickster posted it in the dev forums ages ago. I'd try and find it, but the search feature isn't working..

[Diggory Laycock]

Those interested in single-click web installers may want to look at this page:

http://www.powersurgepub.com/softwar...ls/install.htm

It seems to be possible in Java.

I personally don't like it, but others here seem to be interested in this concept.