Installation Experience and Feedback
Hi All, Here is my installation experience, it seems to vary somewhat from some others experiences. Environment: Windows 7 64 Bit, experience was same of both Desktop and Laptop. 1. Download OpenOffice 3.4 from openoffice.org mirror. -- Time: 2 minutes. 2. Unpack . -- Time: < 1 minute. 3. Install. -- Time: 2 minutes. 4. Erm, nothing e4lse, we are done! It really was as painless and quick as that. Well Done Guys n Gals! I do have a few observations that someone might think Bugzilla worthy (all minor): a. UAC - Publisher is 'Unknown' . The User Account Control really should have 'Apache Software Foundation' as the Publisher. (Note that in the Add/Remove programs section shows 'OpenOffice.org' as the Publisher. b. The program 'Unpacks' to a folder on the 'Desktop' - Why? Really we should be choosing the 'Downloads' folder. c. The final installation folder is 'OpenOffice.org 3' -- I think this should change to 'openoffice3' d. During Installation the 'FileType' choices has 'Microsoft Word Documents' ticked by default, as per other email threads, perhaps this should be un-ticked by default but still show the screen during install so it can be ticked easily. e. Once installed, clicking 'Start' shows 'OpenOffice.org Base' program on the start menu, perhaps we can try for the main 'OpenOffice.org' jump menu first or 'Writer' ?? That's it. Gav...
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
On 6/7/12 4:57 AM, Gavin McDonald wrote: > Hi All, > > Here is my installation experience, it seems to vary somewhat from some > others experiences. > > Environment: Windows 7 64 Bit, experience was same of both Desktop and > Laptop. > > > 1. Download OpenOffice 3.4 from openoffice.org mirror. -- Time: 2 minutes. > > 2. Unpack . -- Time: < 1 minute. > > 3. Install. -- Time: 2 minutes. > > 4. Erm, nothing e4lse, we are done! > > It really was as painless and quick as that. Well Done Guys n Gals! > > I do have a few observations that someone might think Bugzilla worthy (all > minor): > > a. UAC - Publisher is 'Unknown' . The User Account Control really should > have 'Apache Software Foundation' >as the Publisher. (Note that in the Add/Remove programs section shows > 'OpenOffice.org' as the Publisher. agree, it should already fine for the Linux packages. We have to find the correct place but it shouldn't be a problem when when we know for what we are looking ;-) Please submit an issue for that > > b. The program 'Unpacks' to a folder on the 'Desktop' - Why? Really we > should be choosing the 'Downloads' folder. > > c. The final installation folder is 'OpenOffice.org 3' -- I think this > should change to 'openoffice3' at the moment we decided to keep the former name to emphasize that we are OpenOffice. In the future we can think about "OpenOfifce 4". The CamelCase with space notation is by design because that is how it is done on windows. > > d. During Installation the 'FileType' choices has 'Microsoft Word Documents' > ticked by default, as per other email > threads, perhaps this should be un-ticked by default but still show the > screen during install so it can be ticked easily. without deeper analysis of a the appropriate default that satisfies most of our users I wouldn't change it > > e. Once installed, clicking 'Start' shows 'OpenOffice.org Base' program on > the start menu, perhaps we can try for the main > 'OpenOffice.org' jump menu first or 'Writer' ?? I have no preference here, maybe it's sorted automatically I don't know Thanks for your feedback Juergen
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > On 6/7/12 4:57 AM, Gavin McDonald wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> Here is my installation experience, it seems to vary somewhat from some >> others experiences. >> >> Environment: Windows 7 64 Bit, experience was same of both Desktop and >> Laptop. >> >> >> 1. Download OpenOffice 3.4 from openoffice.org mirror. -- Time: 2 minutes. >> >> 2. Unpack . -- Time: < 1 minute. >> >> 3. Install. -- Time: 2 minutes. >> >> 4. Erm, nothing e4lse, we are done! >> >> It really was as painless and quick as that. Well Done Guys n Gals! >> >> I do have a few observations that someone might think Bugzilla worthy (all >> minor): >> >> a. UAC - Publisher is 'Unknown' . The User Account Control really should >> have 'Apache Software Foundation' >> as the Publisher. (Note that in the Add/Remove programs section shows >> 'OpenOffice.org' as the Publisher. > > agree, it should already fine for the Linux packages. We have to find > the correct place but it shouldn't be a problem when when we know for > what we are looking ;-) Please submit an issue for that > I remember the unknown publisher message is caused by lacking signature in the msi install package, it should get signed with an official certification by the signtool or signcode utility from Windows SDK. If you have the certification, this step can be done after the msi packages are generated separately and if possible, it can be integrated as one step in the build procedure. >> >> b. The program 'Unpacks' to a folder on the 'Desktop' - Why? Really we >> should be choosing the 'Downloads' folder. >> >> c. The final installation folder is 'OpenOffice.org 3' -- I think this >> should change to 'openoffice3' > > at the moment we decided to keep the former name to emphasize that we > are OpenOffice. In the future we can think about "OpenOfifce 4". The > CamelCase with space notation is by design because that is how it is > done on windows. > >> >> d. During Installation the 'FileType' choices has 'Microsoft Word Documents' >> ticked by default, as per other email >> threads, perhaps this should be un-ticked by default but still show the >> screen during install so it can be ticked easily. > > without deeper analysis of a the appropriate default that satisfies most > of our users I wouldn't change it > >> >> e. Once installed, clicking 'Start' shows 'OpenOffice.org Base' program on >> the start menu, perhaps we can try for the main >> 'OpenOffice.org' jump menu first or 'Writer' ?? > > I have no preference here, maybe it's sorted automatically I don't know > > Thanks for your feedback > > Juergen >
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
2012/6/7 Gavin McDonald > Hi All, > > Here is my installation experience, it seems to vary somewhat from some > others experiences. > > Environment: Windows 7 64 Bit, experience was same of both Desktop and > Laptop. > > > 1. Download OpenOffice 3.4 from openoffice.org mirror. -- Time: 2 minutes. > > 2. Unpack . -- Time: < 1 minute. > > 3. Install. -- Time: 2 minutes. > > 4. Erm, nothing e4lse, we are done! > > It really was as painless and quick as that. Well Done Guys n Gals! > > I do have a few observations that someone might think Bugzilla worthy (all > minor): > > a. UAC - Publisher is 'Unknown' . The User Account Control really should > have 'Apache Software Foundation' > as the Publisher. (Note that in the Add/Remove programs section shows > 'OpenOffice.org' as the Publisher. > This is due to unsignature. > > b. The program 'Unpacks' to a folder on the 'Desktop' - Why? Really we > should be choosing the 'Downloads' folder. > Yes,this one I agree with you. > c. The final installation folder is 'OpenOffice.org 3' -- I think this > should change to 'openoffice3' > This is design. > > d. During Installation the 'FileType' choices has 'Microsoft Word > Documents' > ticked by default, as per other email >threads, perhaps this should be un-ticked by default but still show the > screen during install so it can be ticked easily. > I do think the current way is accepted, or we need further user experience analysis to see if we need change the default setting. > > e. Once installed, clicking 'Start' shows 'OpenOffice.org Base' program on > the start menu, perhaps we can try for the main > 'OpenOffice.org' jump menu first or 'Writer' ?? > Same as above, this need further user experience analysis. And it is the > behavior inherited from OOo. > That's it. > > Gav... > >
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
I add one: "Microsoft Visual C++ 2010 Redistributable Maintenance" page always pops up and ask me to repair or remove it， even though vc++ 2010 redistributable pack has been installed. I prefer directly skipping the page when it's installed. 2012/6/7 Gavin McDonald : > Hi All, > > Here is my installation experience, it seems to vary somewhat from some > others experiences. > > Environment: Windows 7 64 Bit, experience was same of both Desktop and > Laptop. > > > 1. Download OpenOffice 3.4 from openoffice.org mirror. -- Time: 2 minutes. > > 2. Unpack . -- Time: < 1 minute. > > 3. Install. -- Time: 2 minutes. > > 4. Erm, nothing e4lse, we are done! > > It really was as painless and quick as that. Well Done Guys n Gals! > > I do have a few observations that someone might think Bugzilla worthy (all > minor): > > a. UAC - Publisher is 'Unknown' . The User Account Control really should > have 'Apache Software Foundation' > as the Publisher. (Note that in the Add/Remove programs section shows > 'OpenOffice.org' as the Publisher. > > b. The program 'Unpacks' to a folder on the 'Desktop' - Why? Really we > should be choosing the 'Downloads' folder. > > c. The final installation folder is 'OpenOffice.org 3' -- I think this > should change to 'openoffice3' > > d. During Installation the 'FileType' choices has 'Microsoft Word Documents' > ticked by default, as per other email >threads, perhaps this should be un-ticked by default but still show the > screen during install so it can be ticked easily. > > e. Once installed, clicking 'Start' shows 'OpenOffice.org Base' program on > the start menu, perhaps we can try for the main > 'OpenOffice.org' jump menu first or 'Writer' ?? > > That's it. > > Gav... > -- Best Regards >From aliu...@gmail.com
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
On 6/8/12 5:07 AM, Zhe Liu wrote: > I add one: > "Microsoft Visual C++ 2010 Redistributable Maintenance" page always > pops up and ask me to repair or remove it， even though vc++ 2010 > redistributable pack has been installed. > I prefer directly skipping the page when it's installed. I noticed this as well, you get asked every time when you you install under Windows. Very annoying Juergen > > 2012/6/7 Gavin McDonald : >> Hi All, >> >> Here is my installation experience, it seems to vary somewhat from some >> others experiences. >> >> Environment: Windows 7 64 Bit, experience was same of both Desktop and >> Laptop. >> >> >> 1. Download OpenOffice 3.4 from openoffice.org mirror. -- Time: 2 minutes. >> >> 2. Unpack . -- Time: < 1 minute. >> >> 3. Install. -- Time: 2 minutes. >> >> 4. Erm, nothing e4lse, we are done! >> >> It really was as painless and quick as that. Well Done Guys n Gals! >> >> I do have a few observations that someone might think Bugzilla worthy (all >> minor): >> >> a. UAC - Publisher is 'Unknown' . The User Account Control really should >> have 'Apache Software Foundation' >> as the Publisher. (Note that in the Add/Remove programs section shows >> 'OpenOffice.org' as the Publisher. >> >> b. The program 'Unpacks' to a folder on the 'Desktop' - Why? Really we >> should be choosing the 'Downloads' folder. >> >> c. The final installation folder is 'OpenOffice.org 3' -- I think this >> should change to 'openoffice3' >> >> d. During Installation the 'FileType' choices has 'Microsoft Word Documents' >> ticked by default, as per other email >>threads, perhaps this should be un-ticked by default but still show the >> screen during install so it can be ticked easily. >> >> e. Once installed, clicking 'Start' shows 'OpenOffice.org Base' program on >> the start menu, perhaps we can try for the main >> 'OpenOffice.org' jump menu first or 'Writer' ?? >> >> That's it. >> >> Gav... >> > > >
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
On 6/8/12 4:06 AM, zhangjf wrote: > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Jürgen Schmidt > wrote: >> On 6/7/12 4:57 AM, Gavin McDonald wrote: >>> Hi All, >>> >>> Here is my installation experience, it seems to vary somewhat from some >>> others experiences. >>> >>> Environment: Windows 7 64 Bit, experience was same of both Desktop and >>> Laptop. >>> >>> >>> 1. Download OpenOffice 3.4 from openoffice.org mirror. -- Time: 2 minutes. >>> >>> 2. Unpack . -- Time: < 1 minute. >>> >>> 3. Install. -- Time: 2 minutes. >>> >>> 4. Erm, nothing e4lse, we are done! >>> >>> It really was as painless and quick as that. Well Done Guys n Gals! >>> >>> I do have a few observations that someone might think Bugzilla worthy (all >>> minor): >>> >>> a. UAC - Publisher is 'Unknown' . The User Account Control really should >>> have 'Apache Software Foundation' >>>as the Publisher. (Note that in the Add/Remove programs section shows >>> 'OpenOffice.org' as the Publisher. >> >> agree, it should already fine for the Linux packages. We have to find >> the correct place but it shouldn't be a problem when when we know for >> what we are looking ;-) Please submit an issue for that >> > > I remember the unknown publisher message is caused by lacking > signature in the msi install package, it should get signed with an > official certification by the signtool or signcode utility from > Windows SDK. If you have the certification, this step can be done > after the msi packages are generated separately and if possible, it > can be integrated as one step in the build procedure. good to know that signing solve it. One more reason why we need a certificate. Juergen > >>> >>> b. The program 'Unpacks' to a folder on the 'Desktop' - Why? Really we >>> should be choosing the 'Downloads' folder. >>> >>> c. The final installation folder is 'OpenOffice.org 3' -- I think this >>> should change to 'openoffice3' >> >> at the moment we decided to keep the former name to emphasize that we >> are OpenOffice. In the future we can think about "OpenOfifce 4". The >> CamelCase with space notation is by design because that is how it is >> done on windows. >> >>> >>> d. During Installation the 'FileType' choices has 'Microsoft Word Documents' >>> ticked by default, as per other email >>> threads, perhaps this should be un-ticked by default but still show the >>> screen during install so it can be ticked easily. >> >> without deeper analysis of a the appropriate default that satisfies most >> of our users I wouldn't change it >> >>> >>> e. Once installed, clicking 'Start' shows 'OpenOffice.org Base' program on >>> the start menu, perhaps we can try for the main >>> 'OpenOffice.org' jump menu first or 'Writer' ?? >> >> I have no preference here, maybe it's sorted automatically I don't know >> >> Thanks for your feedback >> >> Juergen >>
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > On 6/8/12 4:06 AM, zhangjf wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Jürgen Schmidt >> wrote: >>> On 6/7/12 4:57 AM, Gavin McDonald wrote: Hi All, Here is my installation experience, it seems to vary somewhat from some others experiences. Environment: Windows 7 64 Bit, experience was same of both Desktop and Laptop. 1. Download OpenOffice 3.4 from openoffice.org mirror. -- Time: 2 minutes. 2. Unpack . -- Time: < 1 minute. 3. Install. -- Time: 2 minutes. 4. Erm, nothing e4lse, we are done! It really was as painless and quick as that. Well Done Guys n Gals! I do have a few observations that someone might think Bugzilla worthy (all minor): a. UAC - Publisher is 'Unknown' . The User Account Control really should have 'Apache Software Foundation' as the Publisher. (Note that in the Add/Remove programs section shows 'OpenOffice.org' as the Publisher. >>> >>> agree, it should already fine for the Linux packages. We have to find >>> the correct place but it shouldn't be a problem when when we know for >>> what we are looking ;-) Please submit an issue for that >>> >> >> I remember the unknown publisher message is caused by lacking >> signature in the msi install package, it should get signed with an >> official certification by the signtool or signcode utility from >> Windows SDK. If you have the certification, this step can be done >> after the msi packages are generated separately and if possible, it >> can be integrated as one step in the build procedure. > > good to know that signing solve it. One more reason why we need a > certificate. Agree 100%. Roberto > Juergen > >> b. The program 'Unpacks' to a folder on the 'Desktop' - Why? Really we should be choosing the 'Downloads' folder. c. The final installation folder is 'OpenOffice.org 3' -- I think this should change to 'openoffice3' >>> >>> at the moment we decided to keep the former name to emphasize that we >>> are OpenOffice. In the future we can think about "OpenOfifce 4". The >>> CamelCase with space notation is by design because that is how it is >>> done on windows. >>> d. During Installation the 'FileType' choices has 'Microsoft Word Documents' ticked by default, as per other email threads, perhaps this should be un-ticked by default but still show the screen during install so it can be ticked easily. >>> >>> without deeper analysis of a the appropriate default that satisfies most >>> of our users I wouldn't change it >>> e. Once installed, clicking 'Start' shows 'OpenOffice.org Base' program on the start menu, perhaps we can try for the main 'OpenOffice.org' jump menu first or 'Writer' ?? >>> >>> I have no preference here, maybe it's sorted automatically I don't know >>> >>> Thanks for your feedback >>> >>> Juergen >>> > -- This e- mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any attachment(s) from your system. Thank you.
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
On 7 June 2012 03:57, Gavin McDonald wrote: > Hi All, > 1. Download OpenOffice 3.4 from openoffice.org mirror. -- Time: 2 minutes. > > 2. Unpack . -- Time: < 1 minute. > > 3. Install. -- Time: 2 minutes. > > 4. Erm, nothing e4lse, we are done! > > It really was as painless and quick as that. Well Done Guys n Gals! > > I do have a few observations that someone might think Bugzilla worthy (all > minor): > > b. The program 'Unpacks' to a folder on the 'Desktop' - Why? Really we > should be choosing the 'Downloads' folder. Better yet, use a folder under %TEMP% and delete it after use. AFAICT, the unpacked files are only needed for installation, and one still has the initial download, so why clutter up the disk?
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
Am 07.06.2012 04:57, Gavin McDonald wrote: Hi All, Here is my installation experience, it seems to vary somewhat from some others experiences. Environment: Windows 7 64 Bit, experience was same of both Desktop and Laptop. It really was as painless and quick as that. Well Done Guys n Gals! Hi, On the user forums there is a lot of confusion about the right Java version for Windows x64. The right JRE for that particular platform has 32 bit and version number 1.6.x. This manual download is hard to find on the Oracle page. http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/jre-6u32-downloads-1594646.html I successfully tested embedded HSQLDB, XHTML export and various File>Wizards... with Java7 and Linux-32 and Windows-32. Just my 2 Cents, Andreas
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
Andreas Säger wrote: On the user forums there is a lot of confusion about the right Java version for Windows x64. The right JRE for that particular platform has 32 bit and version number 1.6.x. This manual download is hard to find on the Oracle page. http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/jre-6u32-downloads-1594646.html Which one should we recommend from the list exactly (for Windows 64-bit)? jre-6u32-windows-i586.exe? If so, we can put a note in the download page, especially because version 3.4 is the first one that does not have a "bundled with Java" installer. Regards, Andrea.
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
Am 09.06.2012 00:50, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Andreas Säger wrote: On the user forums there is a lot of confusion about the right Java version for Windows x64. The right JRE for that particular platform has 32 bit and version number 1.6.x. This manual download is hard to find on the Oracle page. http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/jre-6u32-downloads-1594646.html Which one should we recommend from the list exactly (for Windows 64-bit)? jre-6u32-windows-i586.exe? If so, we can put a note in the download page, especially because version 3.4 is the first one that does not have a "bundled with Java" installer. Regards, Andrea. Yes, it has to be jre-6u32-windows-i586.exe for Windows x86. Theoretically, AOO should run on Linux-64 with any Java version, 32 or 64 bit, Java6 or Java7. But I have no such system at hand. I don't know anything about Mac OS.
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
Am Samstag, 9. Juni 2012 um 00:59 schrieb Andreas Säger: > Am 09.06.2012 00:50, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > > Andreas Säger wrote: > > > On the user forums there is a lot of confusion about the right Java > > > version for Windows x64. The right JRE for that particular platform has > > > 32 bit and version number 1.6.x. This manual download is hard to find on > > > the Oracle page. > > > > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/jre-6u32-downloads-1594646.html > > > > > > > > > > > > Which one should we recommend from the list exactly (for Windows > > 64-bit)? jre-6u32-windows-i586.exe? > > > > If so, we can put a note in the download page, especially because > > version 3.4 is the first one that does not have a "bundled with Java" > > installer. > > > > Regards, > > Andrea. > > > > > > Yes, it has to be jre-6u32-windows-i586.exe for Windows x86. you can try a 64bit version and use the jvm option -d32 und tools->options->java I have to check it myself under windows on Monday when I have access to my windows machine. Maybe we can improve the Java detection mechanism here a little bit ... Juergen > > Theoretically, AOO should run on Linux-64 with any Java version, 32 or > 64 bit, Java6 or Java7. But I have no such system at hand. > > I don't know anything about Mac OS.
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
Am 08.06.2012 19:00, schrieb sebb: On 7 June 2012 03:57, Gavin McDonald wrote: Hi, b. The program 'Unpacks' to a folder on the 'Desktop' - Why? Really we should be choosing the 'Downloads' folder. We've decided to place them on the desktop so that every user can find them easily. Every user has the choice to unpack them into a different folder. Better yet, use a folder under %TEMP% and delete it after use. No! AFAICT, the unpacked files are only needed for installation, and one still has the initial download, so why clutter up the disk? this is not true. The unpacked files are needed for the so called 'maintenance mode': Starting the setup from the control panel offers you a repair and a modify mode. That's what the unpacked files are needed for. What we might delete is the packed file. Groetjes, Olaf
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
On 9 June 2012 08:57, O.Felka wrote: > Am 08.06.2012 19:00, schrieb sebb: > >> On 7 June 2012 03:57, Gavin McDonald wrote: > > > Hi, > > >> >>> b. The program 'Unpacks' to a folder on the 'Desktop' - Why? Really we >>> should be choosing the 'Downloads' folder. > > > We've decided to place them on the desktop so that every user can find them > easily. > Every user has the choice to unpack them into a different folder. > > >> >> Better yet, use a folder under %TEMP% and delete it after use. > > > No! > > >> >> AFAICT, the unpacked files are only needed for installation, and one >> still has the initial download, so why clutter up the disk? > > > this is not true. The unpacked files are needed for the so called > 'maintenance mode': Starting the setup from the control panel offers you a > repair and a modify mode. That's what the unpacked files are needed for. In that case, they really should *not* be placed on the desktop. Nor under TEMP of course. I don't know what the Windows standard location for such things is, but it's certainly not the desktop. And of course, if the user decides to remove the application, it should remove the unpacked files as well. > What we might delete is the packed file. Only if this is agreed by the user. > > Groetjes, > Olaf >
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
Am 09.06.2012 14:22, schrieb sebb: AFAICT, the unpacked files are only needed for installation, and one still has the initial download, so why clutter up the disk? this is not true. The unpacked files are needed for the so called 'maintenance mode': Starting the setup from the control panel offers you a repair and a modify mode. That's what the unpacked files are needed for. In that case, they really should *not* be placed on the desktop. Nor under TEMP of course. I don't know what the Windows standard location for such things is, but it's certainly not the desktop. On Vista and 7 it could be "c:\Users\\Downloads\". Who remembers Win XP? And of course, if the user decides to remove the application, it should remove the unpacked files as well. I don't know any software behaving like that so I don't think that we need that. If the user is deinstalling for a new install he needs these files. And in case someone has installed from a CD it doesn't make sense. What we might delete is the packed file. Only if this is agreed by the user. As always when deleting useful files.
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
On 9 June 2012 14:57, O.Felka wrote: > Am 09.06.2012 14:22, schrieb sebb: > > AFAICT, the unpacked files are only needed for installation, and one still has the initial download, so why clutter up the disk? >>> >>> >>> >>> this is not true. The unpacked files are needed for the so called >>> 'maintenance mode': Starting the setup from the control panel offers you >>> a >>> repair and a modify mode. That's what the unpacked files are needed for. >> >> >> In that case, they really should *not* be placed on the desktop. >> Nor under TEMP of course. >> >> I don't know what the Windows standard location for such things is, >> but it's certainly not the desktop. > > > On Vista and 7 it could be "c:\Users\\Downloads\". I don't think downloads is suitable either. It's not actually a download once it has been unpacked and installed - it's effectively part of the installation, and so should be somewhere where it is unlikely to be deleted. It should be probably somewhere like "Documents and Settings", in a hidden directory such as Application Data or Local Settings\Application Data. Microsoft must have a convention for where such installation support files should go. > Who remembers Win XP? I still use it. AIUI, many businesses still use it, partly because Vista was not very popular. > >> >> And of course, if the user decides to remove the application, it >> should remove the unpacked files as well. > > > I don't know any software behaving like that so I don't think that we need > that. If the user is deinstalling for a new install he needs these files. > And in case someone has installed from a CD it doesn't make sense. > > >> >>> What we might delete is the packed file. >> >> >> Only if this is agreed by the user. > > > As always when deleting useful files. > >
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
On 09.06.2012 09:57, O.Felka wrote: Am 08.06.2012 19:00, schrieb sebb: On 7 June 2012 03:57, Gavin McDonald wrote: Hi, b. The program 'Unpacks' to a folder on the 'Desktop' - Why? Really we should be choosing the 'Downloads' folder. We've decided to place them on the desktop so that every user can find them easily. Every user has the choice to unpack them into a different folder. Better yet, use a folder under %TEMP% and delete it after use. No! Yes!-) AFAICT, the unpacked files are only needed for installation, and one still has the initial download, so why clutter up the disk? this is not true. The unpacked files are needed for the so called 'maintenance mode': Starting the setup from the control panel offers you a repair and a modify mode. That's what the unpacked files are needed for. What we might delete is the packed file. But do we really need the maintenance mode? There are not that many applications on my system that offer one. We are talking about 130 MB of additional disk space. -Andre
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
AFAICT, the unpacked files are only needed for installation, and one still has the initial download, so why clutter up the disk? this is not true. The unpacked files are needed for the so called 'maintenance mode': Starting the setup from the control panel offers you a repair and a modify mode. That's what the unpacked files are needed for. What we might delete is the packed file. But do we really need the maintenance mode? There are not that many applications on my system that offer one. We are talking about 130 MB of additional disk space. As long as we don't install the complete office we need the maintenance mode. Applications that don't offer several modules as AOO does don't need a 'Modify' mode. If we want to offer to install e.g. only the Calc application we need the maintenance mode for these users that wants to use the Writer to a later time also. The 'Repair' option is also a part of the maintenance mode. As have written before, it's an option to delete the unpacked file to save disk space. The unpacked files can be used easier to distribute the AOO without downloading. In times of hard disks with TB size saving 130 MB is not so important for me. Groetjes, Olaf
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
On 11.06.2012 15:53, O.Felka wrote: AFAICT, the unpacked files are only needed for installation, and one still has the initial download, so why clutter up the disk? this is not true. The unpacked files are needed for the so called 'maintenance mode': Starting the setup from the control panel offers you a repair and a modify mode. That's what the unpacked files are needed for. What we might delete is the packed file. But do we really need the maintenance mode? There are not that many applications on my system that offer one. We are talking about 130 MB of additional disk space. As long as we don't install the complete office we need the maintenance mode. Applications that don't offer several modules as AOO does don't need a 'Modify' mode. If we want to offer to install e.g. only the Calc application we need the maintenance mode for these users that wants to use the Writer to a later time also. The 'Repair' option is also a part of the maintenance mode. The question is whether there are more people annoyed by a folder on their desktop that contains files that hardly ever used or users that install only a part of the application then change their mind later. As have written before, it's an option to delete the unpacked file to save disk space. The unpacked files can be used easier to distribute the AOO without downloading. In times of hard disks with TB size saving 130 MB is not so important for me. Maybe not for you. Groetjes, Olaf
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
Am 11.06.2012 16:37, schrieb Andre Fischer: On 11.06.2012 15:53, O.Felka wrote: AFAICT, the unpacked files are only needed for installation, and one still has the initial download, so why clutter up the disk? this is not true. The unpacked files are needed for the so called 'maintenance mode': Starting the setup from the control panel offers you a repair and a modify mode. That's what the unpacked files are needed for. What we might delete is the packed file. But do we really need the maintenance mode? There are not that many applications on my system that offer one. We are talking about 130 MB of additional disk space. As long as we don't install the complete office we need the maintenance mode. Applications that don't offer several modules as AOO does don't need a 'Modify' mode. If we want to offer to install e.g. only the Calc application we need the maintenance mode for these users that wants to use the Writer to a later time also. The 'Repair' option is also a part of the maintenance mode. The question is whether there are more people annoyed by a folder on their desktop that contains files that hardly ever used or users that install only a part of the application then change their mind later. As we don't have any information it would end up in wild guessing. comparing these two user groups is meaningless at this point. As we started with the self extracting installer we've had to decide where to place the unpacked files. The desktop is the place where you can't oversee them. Every user has option to unpack these file at a different location. As have written before, it's an option to delete the unpacked file to save disk space. The unpacked files can be used easier to distribute the AOO without downloading. In times of hard disks with TB size saving 130 MB is not so important for me. Maybe not for you. As I have written.
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
On 11.06.2012 16:51, O.Felka wrote: Am 11.06.2012 16:37, schrieb Andre Fischer: On 11.06.2012 15:53, O.Felka wrote: AFAICT, the unpacked files are only needed for installation, and one still has the initial download, so why clutter up the disk? this is not true. The unpacked files are needed for the so called 'maintenance mode': Starting the setup from the control panel offers you a repair and a modify mode. That's what the unpacked files are needed for. What we might delete is the packed file. But do we really need the maintenance mode? There are not that many applications on my system that offer one. We are talking about 130 MB of additional disk space. As long as we don't install the complete office we need the maintenance mode. Applications that don't offer several modules as AOO does don't need a 'Modify' mode. If we want to offer to install e.g. only the Calc application we need the maintenance mode for these users that wants to use the Writer to a later time also. The 'Repair' option is also a part of the maintenance mode. The question is whether there are more people annoyed by a folder on their desktop that contains files that hardly ever used or users that install only a part of the application then change their mind later. As we don't have any information it would end up in wild guessing. comparing these two user groups is meaningless at this point. No not meaningless, just not easily possible. As we started with the self extracting installer we've had to decide where to place the unpacked files. The desktop is the place where you can't oversee them. That is one thing I still don't understand. Why is it important that the user has to find these files. The installation starts automatically after the downloaded archive has been extracted. A repair or change is triggered via a system dialog. What is the use case in which the user has to click on any of the downloaded files directly? Every user has option to unpack these file at a different location. We still need a better default. As have written before, it's an option to delete the unpacked file to save disk space. The unpacked files can be used easier to distribute the AOO without downloading. In times of hard disks with TB size saving 130 MB is not so important for me. Maybe not for you. As I have written. In another issue regarding extensions installed in the user directory you where not so forgiving about disk space. -Andre
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
Am 11.06.2012 17:17, schrieb Andre Fischer: Every user has option to unpack these file at a different location. We still need a better default. I agree. As have written before, it's an option to delete the unpacked file to save disk space. The unpacked files can be used easier to distribute the AOO without downloading. In times of hard disks with TB size saving 130 MB is not so important for me. Maybe not for you. As I have written. In another issue regarding extensions installed in the user directory you where not so forgiving about disk space. Because this is a different use case and a regression. I an professional environment, especially with user space quota, there is no need to blow up every user space with 160MB as it can be done at a central place. The installation files with ~130MB are only stored once. Groetjes, Olaf
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
On 2012-06-10 7:18 PM, sebb wrote: On 9 June 2012 14:57, O.Felka wrote: Am 09.06.2012 14:22, schrieb sebb: AFAICT, the unpacked files are only needed for installation, and one still has the initial download, so why clutter up the disk? this is not true. The unpacked files are needed for the so called 'maintenance mode': Starting the setup from the control panel offers you a repair and a modify mode. That's what the unpacked files are needed for. In that case, they really should *not* be placed on the desktop. Nor under TEMP of course. I don't know what the Windows standard location for such things is, but it's certainly not the desktop. On Vista and 7 it could be "c:\Users\\Downloads\". I don't think downloads is suitable either. It's not actually a download once it has been unpacked and installed - it's effectively part of the installation, and so should be somewhere where it is unlikely to be deleted. It should be probably somewhere like "Documents and Settings", in a hidden directory such as Application Data or Local Settings\Application Data. It should be in the folder named by the TEMP environment variable. PB - Microsoft must have a convention for where such installation support files should go. Who remembers Win XP? I still use it. AIUI, many businesses still use it, partly because Vista was not very popular. And of course, if the user decides to remove the application, it should remove the unpacked files as well. I don't know any software behaving like that so I don't think that we need that. If the user is deinstalling for a new install he needs these files. And in case someone has installed from a CD it doesn't make sense. What we might delete is the packed file. Only if this is agreed by the user. As always when deleting useful files.
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
On 11 June 2012 16:17, Andre Fischer wrote: > > > On 11.06.2012 16:51, O.Felka wrote: >> >> Am 11.06.2012 16:37, schrieb Andre Fischer: >>> >>> On 11.06.2012 15:53, O.Felka wrote: >>> >>> AFAICT, the unpacked files are only needed for installation, and one >>> still has the initial download, so why clutter up the disk? >> >> >> this is not true. The unpacked files are needed for the so called >> 'maintenance mode': Starting the setup from the control panel offers >> you >> a repair and a modify mode. That's what the unpacked files are needed >> for. >> What we might delete is the packed file. > > > But do we really need the maintenance mode? There are not that many > applications on my system that offer one. We are talking about 130 MB > of additional disk space. As long as we don't install the complete office we need the maintenance mode. Applications that don't offer several modules as AOO does don't need a 'Modify' mode. If we want to offer to install e.g. only the Calc application we need the maintenance mode for these users that wants to use the Writer to a later time also. The 'Repair' option is also a part of the maintenance mode. >>> >>> >>> The question is whether there are more people annoyed by a folder on >>> their desktop that contains files that hardly ever used or users that >>> install only a part of the application then change their mind later. >> >> >> As we don't have any information it would end up in wild guessing. >> comparing these two user groups is meaningless at this point. > > > No not meaningless, just not easily possible. > > >> As we started with the self extracting installer we've had to decide >> where to place the unpacked files. The desktop is the place where you >> can't oversee them. > > > That is one thing I still don't understand. Why is it important that the > user has to find these files. The installation starts automatically after > the downloaded archive has been extracted. A repair or change is triggered > via a system dialog. What is the use case in which the user has to click on > any of the downloaded files directly? > Agreed. > >> Every user has option to unpack these file at a different location. > > > We still need a better default. > Indeed. If the unpacked files do not need to be kept after installation (e.g. for full installation) then they should be created under TEMP and deleted after installation completes. If the unpacked files should be kept after installation (e.g. for maintenance) then they should be stored somewhere where the user is NOT likely be annoyed by them, and is less likely to delete (or move) them. Until I read this thread, I had assumed that the installation process was broken because it did not tidy up after itself, so I just deleted the directory containing the unpacked files. As I wrote earlier, there must be a standard location (or choice of location) where such maintenance files are supposed to be kept. Desktop is a bad choice in both cases. > >> >>> As have written before, it's an option to delete the unpacked file to save disk space. The unpacked files can be used easier to distribute the AOO without downloading. In times of hard disks with TB size saving 130 MB is not so important for me. >>> >>> >>> Maybe not for you. >>> >> >> As I have written. >> > > In another issue regarding extensions installed in the user directory you > where not so forgiving about disk space. > > -Andre >
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
On 2012-06-11 9:37 AM, Andre Fischer wrote: On 11.06.2012 15:53, O.Felka wrote: AFAICT, the unpacked files are only needed for installation, and one still has the initial download, so why clutter up the disk? this is not true. The unpacked files are needed for the so called 'maintenance mode': Starting the setup from the control panel offers you a repair and a modify mode. That's what the unpacked files are needed for. What we might delete is the packed file. But do we really need the maintenance mode? There are not that many applications on my system that offer one. We are talking about 130 MB of additional disk space. As long as we don't install the complete office we need the maintenance mode. Applications that don't offer several modules as AOO does don't need a 'Modify' mode. If we want to offer to install e.g. only the Calc application we need the maintenance mode for these users that wants to use the Writer to a later time also. The 'Repair' option is also a part of the maintenance mode. The question is whether there are more people annoyed by a folder on their desktop that contains files that hardly ever used or users that install only a part of the application then change their mind later. No, the question is whether cluttering up the user's desktop with installation files is user-friendly and professional. It ain't either. PB - As have written before, it's an option to delete the unpacked file to save disk space. The unpacked files can be used easier to distribute the AOO without downloading. In times of hard disks with TB size saving 130 MB is not so important for me. Maybe not for you. Groetjes, Olaf
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
On 2012-06-11 10:17 AM, Andre Fischer wrote: On 11.06.2012 16:51, O.Felka wrote: Am 11.06.2012 16:37, schrieb Andre Fischer: On 11.06.2012 15:53, O.Felka wrote: AFAICT, the unpacked files are only needed for installation, and one still has the initial download, so why clutter up the disk? this is not true. The unpacked files are needed for the so called 'maintenance mode': Starting the setup from the control panel offers you a repair and a modify mode. That's what the unpacked files are needed for. What we might delete is the packed file. But do we really need the maintenance mode? There are not that many applications on my system that offer one. We are talking about 130 MB of additional disk space. As long as we don't install the complete office we need the maintenance mode. Applications that don't offer several modules as AOO does don't need a 'Modify' mode. If we want to offer to install e.g. only the Calc application we need the maintenance mode for these users that wants to use the Writer to a later time also. The 'Repair' option is also a part of the maintenance mode. The question is whether there are more people annoyed by a folder on their desktop that contains files that hardly ever used or users that install only a part of the application then change their mind later. As we don't have any information it would end up in wild guessing. comparing these two user groups is meaningless at this point. No not meaningless, just not easily possible. As we started with the self extracting installer we've had to decide where to place the unpacked files. The desktop is the place where you can't oversee them. That is one thing I still don't understand. Why is it important that the user has to find these files. The installation starts automatically after the downloaded archive has been extracted. It should do, but with Win 7 Pro & Chrome, it did not. PB - A repair or change is triggered via a system dialog. What is the use case in which the user has to click on any of the downloaded files directly? Every user has option to unpack these file at a different location. We still need a better default. As have written before, it's an option to delete the unpacked file to save disk space. The unpacked files can be used easier to distribute the AOO without downloading. In times of hard disks with TB size saving 130 MB is not so important for me. Maybe not for you. As I have written. In another issue regarding extensions installed in the user directory you where not so forgiving about disk space. -Andre
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
On 11 June 2012 16:33, Peter Brawley wrote: > On 2012-06-10 7:18 PM, sebb wrote: >> >> On 9 June 2012 14:57, O.Felka wrote: >>> >>> Am 09.06.2012 14:22, schrieb sebb: >>> >>> >> AFAICT, the unpacked files are only needed for installation, and one >> still has the initial download, so why clutter up the disk? > > > > this is not true. The unpacked files are needed for the so called > 'maintenance mode': Starting the setup from the control panel offers > you > a > repair and a modify mode. That's what the unpacked files are needed > for. In that case, they really should *not* be placed on the desktop. Nor under TEMP of course. I don't know what the Windows standard location for such things is, but it's certainly not the desktop. >>> >>> >>> On Vista and 7 it could be "c:\Users\\Downloads\". >> >> I don't think downloads is suitable either. >> It's not actually a download once it has been unpacked and installed - >> it's effectively part of the installation, and so should be somewhere >> where it is unlikely to be deleted. >> >> It should be probably somewhere like "Documents and Settings", in a >> hidden directory such as Application Data or Local >> Settings\Application Data. > > > It should be in the folder named by the TEMP environment variable. TEMP is for temporary files. That is OK for unpacking the download if the unpacked files are to be deleted later. It is not OK if the unpacked files are to be kept for maintenance. > PB > > - > > >> >> Microsoft must have a convention for where such installation support >> files should go. >> >>> Who remembers Win XP? >> >> I still use it. AIUI, many businesses still use it, partly because >> Vista was not very popular. >> And of course, if the user decides to remove the application, it should remove the unpacked files as well. >>> >>> >>> I don't know any software behaving like that so I don't think that we >>> need >>> that. If the user is deinstalling for a new install he needs these files. >>> And in case someone has installed from a CD it doesn't make sense. >>> >>> > What we might delete is the packed file. Only if this is agreed by the user. >>> >>> >>> As always when deleting useful files. >>> >>> >
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
On 11.06.2012 17:36, Peter Brawley wrote: On 2012-06-11 10:17 AM, Andre Fischer wrote: [...] That is one thing I still don't understand. Why is it important that the user has to find these files. The installation starts automatically after the downloaded archive has been extracted. It should do, but with Win 7 Pro & Chrome, it did not. Regarding that, I tried this earlier (Win 7 Pro and Chrome) and did not have a problem. Sadly, because without reproducing the bug I can not fix it. -Andre
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 9:53 AM, O.Felka wrote: > AFAICT, the unpacked files are only needed for installation, and one still has the initial download, so why clutter up the disk? >>> >>> >>> this is not true. The unpacked files are needed for the so called >>> 'maintenance mode': Starting the setup from the control panel offers you >>> a repair and a modify mode. That's what the unpacked files are needed >>> for. >>> What we might delete is the packed file. >> >> >> But do we really need the maintenance mode? There are not that many >> applications on my system that offer one. We are talking about 130 MB >> of additional disk space. > > > As long as we don't install the complete office we need the maintenance > mode. > Applications that don't offer several modules as AOO does don't need a > 'Modify' mode. > If we want to offer to install e.g. only the Calc application we need the > maintenance mode for these users that wants to use the Writer to a later > time also. > The 'Repair' option is also a part of the maintenance mode. > > As have written before, it's an option to delete the unpacked file to save > disk space. The unpacked files can be used easier to distribute the AOO > without downloading. > In times of hard disks with TB size saving 130 MB is not so important for > me. > Adobe does something similar. I have on my Windows 7 an "Adobe" directory on my desktop with subdirectories containing the install files for Acrobat, Audition, various versions of Lightroom, CS5, etc. But as user I don't really like this. For example, as a back policy I back up my entire desktop. But it doesn't make sense waste time and storage to backup unchanging install sets that I could download again at any time. Sure, I could customize my backup policy (and in my case I have). But it doesn't make sense to me that these install sets are even visible to me as an end user. It makes more sense for them to be hidden away someplace. IMHO, of course. -Rob > Groetjes, > Olaf > >
RE: Installation Experience and Feedback
+1 @Andre I think unpacking the setup files into a desktop folder is ridiculous. It is also never explained that it is safe to deleted that folder after the install succeeds. If this procedure is continued, it should default to a sub-folder in the active user's default TEMP folder. For my installs, I unpack onto a folder of a shared server and let the installation happen from there. It also lets me reinstall from the expanded folder onto other machines and into VMs whenever I need to do a reinstall. (For a VM, sometimes I need to copy the unpacked folder into the VM temporarily to have the file locations work properly.) Note that the unpacked setup is what one would distribute on a CD-ROM, avoiding the ridiculous unpacking in that case. LO has resolved this by shipping single .msi Files for Windows now, rather than the older distributions that unpacked into a setup folder and then executed from the folder. LO has also removed the dependency on the setup folder for uninstall. I believe that is already fixed in OO.o 3.3.0 and AOO 3.4.0. Now the only uninstall problem is killing the quick start. If maintenance mode is needed, it should be done in a way that does not require access to the unpacked setup folder nor the original download. Other products also provide options for whether the extra material that is needed is retained or not. (So far, the major maintenance mode that AOO needs is a way for end users to easily backup and clean up their user profile, something maintenance won't touch.) - Dennis -Original Message- From: Andre Fischer [mailto:a...@a-w-f.de] Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 05:03 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Installation Experience and Feedback On 09.06.2012 09:57, O.Felka wrote: > Am 08.06.2012 19:00, schrieb sebb: [ ... ] >> Better yet, use a folder under %TEMP% and delete it after use. > > No! Yes!-) > >> >> AFAICT, the unpacked files are only needed for installation, and one >> still has the initial download, so why clutter up the disk? > > this is not true. The unpacked files are needed for the so called > 'maintenance mode': Starting the setup from the control panel offers you > a repair and a modify mode. That's what the unpacked files are needed for. > What we might delete is the packed file. But do we really need the maintenance mode? There are not that many applications on my system that offer one. We are talking about 130 MB of additional disk space. -Andre
Re: Installation Experience and Feedback
Am 11.06.2012 20:27, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton: (So far, the major maintenance mode that AOO needs is a way for end users to easily backup and clean up their user profile, something maintenance won't touch.) This would be a nice feature. But as the user profile is written by the Office and not by the setup the Office should maintain the user profile. Groetjes, Olaf
