I'm still thinking the portable application architecture is the way to go...only that a custom installer needs to be written.
Fact is, Apple created the concept of 'portable apps' long ago when all you had to have was a double-clickable program. Remember when moving apps between computers was as simple as drag-drop? I believe it's still mostly that way on the Mac. My original architectures ended up spraying stuff all over the place, from the Programs Folder, to the Documents folders, to the hidden "C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data" folder and also the registry. While it was "correct" from a windows perspective, it was hard to maintain, hard to debug on different users computers, and hard to clean up on uninstall. I think some of this has to do with the various concepts of licensing in play: license to machine, license to 1 user on 1 machine, etc.. Our licenses are to individual users on any (many) machines, so it's not necessary to try and tie them to a single box. I think eventually all licenses will work this way. Certainly all the Web2.0 stuff already works this way. Lastly, Richard, I do believe you are correct about: "I thought that all non-admin accounts required that anyway, on Windows and Mac alike...." And another good reason to stick with a portable application architecture. Just my 2 cents... _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution