Is it only, that support for a pure zip version of fb2k has been abandoned for the beta versions of 0.7, or will there be one again for the final version?

Probably yes, for the final version. Not sure for beta.

I also hope to see ZIP files during beta.

Since foobar now depends on the OS-specific utf8api.dll, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Peter completely abandoned the zipped version, just to avoid all the trouble.

yes that might be true, but IMHO foobar2000 was always meant for people who have at least a litte bit of computer knowledge. And I don't think, it's would confuse novices if there was the installer-version on the front page, and the zipped version depper down in the directory hierachy.

It's got nothing to do with being computer knowledgeable, zip is the standard, it's pretty dumb and ignorant to ignore that fact.

Zip is the standard? When is the last time you bought a commercial product which came without an installer?

well, foobar is not commercial, and a lot of freeware programs come only in a zip version, so I think people who use freeware apps (and not Windows media player e.g.) already know how to use zip files.

In WinXP you even have native *.zip support from the windows explorer.

It's also a bit more complicated using a ZIP in this case, as you have to sift through two different folders worth of components, (select which you want and drag them into the components folder inside your install folder) then drag Foobar2000.exe to the install folder, then drag the correct utf8api.dll to the install folder.

Of course, it goes this way for me, using 7z with the .RAR:



Simple.

The only thing I prefer about ZIP is that the command-line extractor I use can update extract. Not sure if I can combine x and u modes with 7-zip... oh well.

One thing about most freeware ZIP distributions, everything is usually arranged exactly as it would be in the program folder. Not so with this package.

Whatever floats your boat, eh?

I didn't say that foobar was commercial. I was simply pointing out that zip is not the standard way to distribute programs.

I dont know how many times ive abadoned apps just because i dont want to mess with an installer. You just dont know want might happen.

Standard way to distribute or not, its alot better with zip. If all programs could keep their shit in the same dir and operate with an ini file instead of bloating the registry that would be even better.

mhe: So I guess you installed whatever OS you're running from the .zip version
Great.

Yup...


Would you believe I've never used Winamp before? That installer scared me something fierce. I've heard horror stories... some of them place an AOL icon on your desktop.

Ok, I think I get the joke.

But anyway, I never had the icon on my desktop. Sure, it was in Winamp's folder, but not on my desktop. Anyway I never selected it during installation.

No but maybe i should? So i can argue why .zip is better than an installer for an app?

I also like the .zip/.rar/.7z/.tar.gz/.ace/(insert other non self expanding file compression formats here) package for installing most any app that gives me the choice, foobar included. You never know what an installer is doing, and some installers won't work if you don't have admin privs on a machine.

I do agree that a non .zip installer is needed as the main distro format for a program if you want non-tech oriented people to be able to use it. But a non exe installer is nice for those of us who don't want to have to figure out what got installed where. And how many random registry entries and shortcuts were just added to our machines.

If the installer won't work sans admin privileges, then a zip won't magically work either.

Actually they will depending on the program. If the reason a program needs admin privs is that its trying to install some standard dll which already exists on your machine, or some other non standard dll which does not have to go in the windows folder, but could go in the programs folder, or any other folder in your PATH, then a zip will work fine where an installer fails because many just do a check for admin privs before even trying to install the app.

I installed adobe acrobat 5 on an NT4 machine without having admin privs, the installer dies with a "no admin privs" dialog box right away, by running the installer, and before hitting ok to the dialog, grabbing all the decompressed files out of the %TEMP% folder and manually installing them. Program ran just fine without having admin privs like the installer claimed I needed...

It all depends on the program, and in that case a .zip installer would have saved me a lot of trouble.

Meh. That's really the fault of the poor installer, rather than a flaw with installers in general. But I can se your point there.

But foobar's installer doesn't do such assinine things.

Installer for 0.7 beta 15 features new paranoid mode that can be activated with /e command line parameter. This switch prevents all registry modifications and allows to just uncompress files.

i really hope there's a pure archive version available (zip/rar)
glad to see more people with similar opinion on forced installers
i kinda like to have complete control over what goes where and executable forced installers are just a no-no, very bad juju :)
(you never know what kind of junk they will install into your system directories or registry)
i usually try to unpack commercial installers by hand when possible ;) (installshield, wise, msi, etc)

If you don't trust the installer, why would you trust the program itself ?
Topic closed to prevent further stupidity. Read Case's reply two posts up.