Comparing Windows uninstallers, getting upset and then deciding to make my own

Re:Comparing Windows uninstallers, getting upset and then de... by dextersgenius on Saturday August 19, 2023 @06:56AM (#37187462)

MSIs are so bloated and horribly designed, it isn't even funny. Why does it insist on storing a copy of the entire .msi - and any patches - in C:\Windows\Installer? From what I've observed, the original MSI is required to perform repairs and reconfiguration, or setting up new-user defaults for that app. This seems horribly inefficient to me, and on heavily used system this can easily waste space on the C: drive.

And occasionally you run into issues with the MSI database corrupting, where you can't install/upgrade/uninstall something (we see this commonly with Adobe apps) , so you'd need to resort to third-party tools like MSI Zapper to get rid of all the references from the database. What a messy system.

I miss the days when programs used to use NSIS (Nullsoft) installers - they were tiny, and super easy to make and automate.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Comparing Windows uninstallers, getting upset and then de... by alkonaut on Saturday August 19, 2023 @02:32PM (#37191674)

To make an uninstall of course you need the msi db parts (but you wouldn’t need the entire binary content). To make a reinstall (aka repair) you DO need both the db and the content.

I haven’t heard msis being bloated. I assume they contain exactly what they need to contain (though unsure about compression methods).

In the past when storage was scarce it seems like a strange design but these days I can’t say it feels so wrong.

[ Parent | on HN ]