Windows7 Compatible for filePro

[Fairlight]

At Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 04:18:34PM -0400 or thereabouts, 
suspect Nancy Palmquist was observed uttering:
> 
> I hate these words "compatible" or "certified" or "compliant", when they 
> do not define what standard it meets.

Usually it means, "The vendor wasted perfectly good money to have us tell
you what they could have told you themselves."

> Currently I have embedded the filePro runtime into my installation which 
> is built with Setup Factory.  (Tried Install Shield but found it too 
> expensive and too complex to be useful.  Got my money back.)

Well, I'm not familiar with Setup Factory, other than having heard the
name.  I personally use InnoSetup, and I haven't had a technical reason to
switch to NSIS, although I have it installed...just haven't had
time/inclination/need to make a switch.

InnoSetup is free, and if you use ISTool to build your scripts, it's dead
easy as well.  (I -highly- recommend using ISTool, unless you really like
pain.)

I've looked at InstallShield myself, and it's too expensive, period.
Nevermind complexity, the price is a non-starter for my needs.

> How is cutting a unique distribution for each customer "dead easy"?  I 
> want to generate one installation CD, with the runtimes I need and my 
> software.  During installation, I want a screen to popup that can ask 
> for an Activation KEY for FilePro.   I want to be able to have a 
> customer download the installation, and install it without trying to 
> figure out the license file stuff they do now.  They keep telling me it 
> is possible, but never get around to the function of it.  I really still 
> think the license manager they added to control installations, has been 
> the item that has most killed their business.  It has most radically 
> affected the windows side of their business and driven many of my 
> customer to other stuff, or to just sit at 5.0 until they die.

It's dead easy because if you didn't just want -one- CD, you could set up a
project in InnoSetup, and just replace the actual license file in the
source location, fire up ISTool, and hit F9 to recompile the setup
installer.  :)

What you want could probably be done in Perl/Tk.  I've found a mechanism
for obtaining the physical drive serial numbers in perl.  One could use Tk
for the GUI to ask for username/password, and any other information that
needs to be submitted.

Which leaves the wildcard in this scenario the session handling with their
web site.  I remember you have to log in to obtain the license, so there's
some login mechanism that needs to be addressed.  Posting that data is
trivial, but I never had cause to look at their sessioning mechanics after
that point.  In theory, you just fake their sessioning once you post the
login info and get the reply, post the relevant drive serial and whatever
else is necessary, and then download the file from the link obtained on the
resultant page (assuming the topography hasn't changed).

So essentially you'd just need to have whatever setup tool you use install
all files, then run a program that will pop a window that shows the serial
and asks for whatever other information, and then deals with fP-Tech's web
site and obtain the license file, writing it to the appropriate location.

It's all 99.9% likely doable, but obviously not for free.  :)  And one
would need an account on the fP-Tech web site to actually test this
mechanism and do development against it.  You know...actually, fP-Tech
-should- include software that does this themselves.  Most other companies
make hardware-bound online registration seamless in this day and age.  I
was just thinking about writing this, and I got to the point where I said,
"Wait a second, why the hell don't -they- provide this already?"

As for the license manager, I know people that refuse to move to 5.0.15,
much less 5.6, purely due to that exact fiasco.  I mean, many in the
community said it was a bad idea, but they did it anyway.  Be it on their
own heads.

Except it won't be purely on their own heads.  What happens if the company
(or its website) goes away, and a legitimate licensee needs to reinstall on
new hardware?  They're pretty screwed, unless provisions are made for that
possibility in advance.  At least you're more or less confident that
Microsoft and Adobe aren't going anywhere, ya know?

> I have NEVER had an installation on Windows or Unix that worked right 
> the first time.  If I am unable to install filePro, without problems, 
> how can I expect a customer to do it?

I've never tried it myself on Windows.  I've done multiple *nix ones
without flaw...well, if you don't count the installation process itself as
one giant flaw.  :)  Bill Campbell recently outlined everything that's
wrong with the install process quite eloquently.

> Tom told Microsoft he was testing it.  I am stuck dealing with the 
> issue.  I am going to ignore them.

I think Tom made a mistake, and your stance seems wise.  :)

mark->
-- 
Audio panton, cogito singularis,