UD182050@NDSUVM1.BITNET (Mike Aos) (08/05/90)
I'll admit that I use it too, but I really don't understand what possible
difference there is between copying the files, and telling the installer to
do it....would someone please explain that to me?
Thanks,
-------
Mike
UD182050@NDSUVM1 (.Bitnet?) "Share and Enjoy"
UD182050@VM1.NoDak.Edu -Sirius Cybernetics Corporation
Apple IIgs 'till I can afford a NeXT!
I got LOTSA opinions. You want one? You can have it!jonah@amos.ucsd.edu (Jonah Stich) (08/05/90)
In article <4459UD182050@NDSUVM1> UD182050@NDSUVM1.BITNET (Mike Aos) writes: >I'll admit that I use it too, but I really don't understand what possible >difference there is between copying the files, and telling the installer to >do it....would someone please explain that to me? > >Mike Well, I'm not an Apple emplyoee, but I think itgoes something like this: if you use the installer, then you WONT miss anything. You won't accidentally have GS.OS from system 4.0 and GS.OS.Dev from system 5.0. This removes a lot of hassle for Apple, because they don't have to waste time trying to duplicate a bug that you report, but that is only caused by incompatibility between system files. A note to Apple: Whenever I get a new system disk, I rename it and delete that Apple 5.25 driver, and the graphic control panel, so I can install some more fonts and NDAs. This means that the Installer is absolutely useless to me, because when you try to install the new system files with it, it wants, if I remember correctly, the 5.25 driver, and the control panel(?) I think that before it becomes a really useful tool, the installer will have to have some intelligence built in--the ability to decide which files are essential, and which files (the 5.25 driver) can be left out without it being a fatal error.For now, when I need a new system disk, I just make an exact copy of my usual one, and add or delete the fonts/DAs/etc. that I don't want.... Jonah Stich jonah@amos.ucsd.edu
mattd@Apple.COM (Matt Deatherage) (08/06/90)
In article <4459UD182050@NDSUVM1> UD182050@NDSUVM1.BITNET (Mike Aos) writes: >I'll admit that I use it too, but I really don't understand what possible >difference there is between copying the files, and telling the installer to >do it....would someone please explain that to me? > >Thanks, >------- >Mike > It's not so much the Installer as the Installer scripts that do the magic. First, the Installer scripts are written by the folks who write the system software itself. They know exactly which files are needed for which features and where they go. If you were trying to install support manually for the Video Overlay Card, for example, you might not think to look in the :System.Tools:System:System.Setup: directory and find "AppleIIVOC.Init", which is some support for the tool. The Installer does because the script tells it to. Second, the scripts also know what files are outdated and should be removed. Third, the Installer copies both the data and the resource fork of files. Lots of programs do this now, but some of them will still fool you. We didn't spend a lot of time writing the Installer and the scripts because it was a check-off item ("Oh, the system software must be good now. It has an Installer."). It's there because it's useful and needed. Use it. -- ============================================================================ Matt Deatherage, Apple Computer, Inc. | "The opinions represented here are Developer Technical Support, Apple II | not necessarily those of Apple Group. Personal mail only, please. | Computer, Inc. Remember that." ============================================================================
dlyons@Apple.COM (David A. Lyons) (08/06/90)
>In article <4459UD182050@NDSUVM1> UD182050@NDSUVM1.BITNET (Mike Aos) writes: >I'll admit that I use it too, but I really don't understand what possible >difference there is between copying the files, and telling the installer to >do it....would someone please explain that to me? If you're making an exact copy of an existing working system disk, there's no problem as long as your copy utility gets both forks of extended files. When you go *adding* stuff, though, the Installer knows not only what to add in groups but what to *remove* for you from older versions of the system software. Matt D replied, in part: >We didn't spend a lot of time writing the Installer and the scripts because >it was a check-off item ("Oh, the system software must be good now. It has an >Installer."). It's there because it's useful and needed. Use it. For the benefit of anybody who misread that first sentence on the first try (like I did), it says Apple spent time creating an installer and scripts because it's useful and needed, not because somebody decided "there has to be an installer." By the way, future improvements to the Installer are likely, and your comments can be useful. (Don't bother posting that it takes a -lot- of disk swaps in certain popular configurations...we know already!) -- David A. Lyons, Apple Computer, Inc. | DAL Systems Apple II Developer Technical Support | P.O. Box 875 America Online: Dave Lyons | Cupertino, CA 95015-0875 GEnie: D.LYONS2 or DAVE.LYONS CompuServe: 72177,3233 Internet/BITNET: dlyons@apple.com UUCP: ...!ames!apple!dlyons My opinions are my own, not Apple's.
phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Stephen Harker) (08/06/90)
In article <12176@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>, jonah@amos.ucsd.edu (Jonah Stich) writes: > > A note to Apple: Whenever I get a new system disk, I rename it and delete > that Apple 5.25 driver, and the graphic control panel, so I can install > some more fonts and NDAs. This means that the Installer is absolutely > useless to me, because when you try to install the new system files with it, > it wants, if I remember correctly, the 5.25 driver, and the control panel(?) > I think that before it becomes a really useful tool, the installer will have > to have some intelligence built in--the ability to decide which files are > essential, and which files (the 5.25 driver) can be left out without it > being a fatal error.For now, when I need a new system disk, I just make an > exact copy of my usual one, and add or delete the fonts/DAs/etc. that I don't > want.... > You can always edit the installer scripts to delete non-essential files being installed. Needless to say only do this if you know what you are doing or have an appropriate reference such as the Technotes. I have done this successfully. -- Stephen Harker Monash University
delton@pro-carolina.cts.com (Don Elton) (08/06/90)
In-Reply-To: message from UD182050@NDSUVM1.BITNET The main differences would be if you tried copying the files with a program that doesn't know how to properly copy resource forks or if you botched up which files needed to be copied and/or where they need to be copied to. The installer just eliminates these problems. Most people that have had difficulty using new versions of system software have those problems because they didn't think they needed to use the installer. UUCP: [ ucsd nosc ] !crash!pro-carolina!delton MCI: delton ARPA: crash!pro-carolina!delton@nosc.mil CIS: 72010,37 INET: delton@pro-carolina.cts.com AOL: delton pro-carolina [300-2400 baud] 803-776-3936, login: register
lwv27@CAS.BITNET (08/06/90)
What I wish is that installer was a bit smarter. For instance, I would like it to at least have an option of telling me what is installed on the disk that I am about to update. It would also be useful to tell me which items are 'out of date' (either by date or perhaps by a checksum on the items). I am more than willing to wait for these activities to take place. Another useful feature - perhaps critical if GS/OS is ever updated again, would be the ability to maintain on a single hard disk multiple versions of the OS. Perhaps that ability is already there - I don't have a HD yet, but can see where having a lot of software which depends on a particular version of an OS could be a problem. -- Larry W. Virden Business: UUCP: osu-cis!chemabs!lwv27 INET: lwv27%cas.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.Edu Personal: 674 Falls Place, Reynoldsburg,OH 43068-1614 Proline: lvirden@pro-tcc.cts.com America Online: lvirden CIS: [75046,606]
wombat@claris.com (Scott Lindsey) (08/07/90)
In article <4459UD182050@NDSUVM1> UD182050@NDSUVM1.BITNET (Mike Aos) writes: > I'll admit that I use it too, but I really don't understand what possible > difference there is between copying the files, and telling the installer to > do it....would someone please explain that to me? Very simple. Humans are more likely to make mistakes copying files than the installer is. In the future, if the GS installer becomes more like the Mac installer, it may actually be copying resources in addition to files. In other words, it's a good habit to get into. -- Scott Lindsey | I dig iguana in their outer space duds Claris Corp. | saying, "Aren't you glad we only eat bugs?" ames!claris!wombat| DISCLAIMER: These are not the opinions of Claris, Apple, wombat@claris.com | StyleWare, the author, or anyone else living or Dead.
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (08/08/90)
lwv27@CAS.BITNET writes: >What I wish is that installer was a bit smarter. Bingo. Installer WORKS, it's simple to operate, but it shields the user from too many details -- that and the disk-swap problem are why most of us avoid the installer when we can. I'd like Installer to be the kind of program even us die-hard system jocks can appreciate, while maintaining the simplicity that makes new users comfortable with it. The Mac built its reputation on programs that embodied this ideal, and I think it's an admirable one. >For instance, I would like it to at least have an option of telling me >what is installed on the disk that I am about to update. It would also >be useful to tell me which items are 'out of date' (either by date or >perhaps by a checksum on the items). I am more than willing to wait for >these activities to take place. I agree. How do you know what you can remove, if The Installer Knows and won't tell you? I have successfully removed features I never had installed! Also, a feature in the installer that analyzes the files in question for version numbers, as well as mentioning them in the About as well as the Script Name, would make a LOT of people feel more secure that they have the correct versions of certain software installed. (How do you KNOW you have 5.0.2? I thought I did because the dealer said so, AND THEY WERE WRONG!) I realize this might make it less user friendly; however, that cost is well worth the peace of mind people get when all they have to do is launch Installer, insert the boot disk, click 'versions', and check the numbers they see against what they know should be there. Checksums on the various system files should be MANDATORY. This crap about "Oh, your system files must be corrupted; try re-installing your system disk and see if that clears up the problem" should have been dealt with by the Mac System Software people long ago. Let's beat them to the punch. Actually, how tough would it be to add an optional checksum feature to OMF2, so that the Loader could verify that a given segment hasn't been corrupted since linking. This would slow down loading, however. >Another useful feature - perhaps critical if GS/OS is ever updated again, >would be the ability to maintain on a single hard disk multiple versions >of the OS. Perhaps that ability is already there - I don't have a >HD yet, but can see where having a lot of software which depends on a >particular version of an OS could be a problem. Weelll, last I heard was that the system folder HAD to be called system and HAD to be in the root directory of the boot volume. This was more a limitation of the ProDOS file, which has to find the system folder, than of the system itself, which is supposed to use prefix * to get at the system folder. I agree that the capability should be there. Until the market is moving again so that even idiots like Mediagenic and Quantum update their software properly we'll have to put up with certain programs needing 4.0 or older. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu