Why do programs need to be installed?

[Rudyard]

In the old days I used to just copy programs to a directory and run the exe, much like virtualdub mod, there is no setup and install and playing with registrys and reboots.

Why do programs need to do this when some programs (take virtualdub for example) can run perfectly fine straight out of a folder with no install or anything?

[thecoalman]

I'm not an expert but I believe this goes back to when computers were first becoming popular and disk space was at a premium, enter the DLL . Instead of having multiple copies of the same file programs instead will share the same file. The installation will make sure this file is present and if not add it. Installation also provides other things such as if certain files have to be configured to your particular computer, association of files, start menu additions etc.

[zoobie]

my guess is that if they are dependent on the OS's files, they need to be installed.

[Faustus]

I'm not an expert but I believe this goes back to when computers were first becoming popular and disk space was at a premium, enter the DLL . Instead of having multiple copies of the same file programs instead will share the same file. The installation will make sure this file is present and if not add it. Installation also provides other things such as if certain files have to be configured to your particular computer, association of files, start menu additions etc.

Pretty much this, but hey most simple Apps on the mac are installed by dragging a single icon into the applications folder

[DereX888]

I'm not an expert but I believe this goes back to when computers were first becoming popular and disk space was at a premium, enter the DLL . Instead of having multiple copies of the same file programs instead will share the same file. The installation will make sure this file is present and if not add it. Installation also provides other things such as if certain files have to be configured to your particular computer, association of files, start menu additions etc.

Not really, and NOT AT ALL actually, IMHO.
If it were true, you'd have same thing happening on other than windows operating systems, of which many are older than NT-line.
Yet ie on linux theyre still the same way as the first poster remember "from old days" - there is no need to "install" them, at most you need to configure some of their options (ie games). No program adds any of its stuff to the 'system files' either (and its not even allowed to do such heinous thing). It happens only on Windows just because it sucks (well, that, and because of its stupid structure).
Association of files is another "windows thing" because Windows recognize files by the extensions. I suggest searching for "object-oriented" operating systems info.
One of the funniest things is that Windows NT line (from NT3.5 to NT6, aka Vista) could have had excellent object-oriented part of OS/2, the WorkPlaceShell, which has been removed by Microsoft when they remodeled OS/2 and renamed it to "Windows NT" (aka Windows 2000, aka Windows XP, and lastly known as Windows Vista - all of them are same OS/2 just with more crap in each newer version, kinda like it was with DOS - they added newer GUI to DOS, fixed few bugs, and renamed it Windows 3.1, then Windows 95, and so on...).
Either it was strictly (c) IBM, or most likely it was (back then) way too advanced for Ballmer to grasp it (after all Msoft guys are well known for lack of imagination; "64kB of RAM is enough for anyone", isn't it? )

[Soopafresh]

Exactly

http://www.portablefreeware.com

[ahhaa]

G'day Rudyard (love saying that; wish we'd thought of it!:])

Excellent Question!

now I'm wondering if the Chinese bought OS2 when they bought IBM...

[edDV]

Some reasons why:

1. So applications can interact. The registry alerts programs to to other programs existence and capabilities.

2. So codecs and processes can be pooled and delivered from the operating system so that each application writer doesn't have to do it all. I suggest you learn to write a small program and see how wonderful libraries are.

3. Patented and copyrighted modules can be shared across applications so that each doesn't need to say license screen or printer typefaces.

4. Same goes for drivers. In the bad old days, each program had to include print or mouse drivers. You might be able to print from Word Perfect but not from a database. The mouse may not work for your spelling checker, or graphics program, etc. Today, device drivers exist within the operating system so all the application needs to say is "print" to the API.

And yes, Linux does much of this as well.

[gll99]

It's the Windows OS design and the fact many programmers just use windows defaults in the installer (many probably use the MS Installer that comes with the MS Development software. Being good little boys most follow good programming convention and do it the way MS recommends it should be done. No one should blame them because that's supposed to be with good windows programming.

Remember, installing a program lets windows know the program is there. You get selectable but automatic shortcuts, program groups, key info and favorite settings may be stored in the registry and protected when the registry is backed up etc.. Lot's of housekeeping and program support goes on with a properly installed application.

I'm not defending it because I too like to try something and then have the control to get rid of it by just deleting a folder. I also don't store all my programs in the "program files" directory on the system drive, I frequently choose another drive. I can create my own desktop shortcuts and protect my ini info etc... if I so choose. Windows was designed to take the burden from the user and in most cases let the system look after the program dependencies with minimal user input.

Any programmer can circumvent this by making the installer put libraries in a directory of his or the users choice and then calling the libs from that location within his program and many do just that with their own libs. Good programming would say that MS libs should always default to the MS default locations (ie... system32) unless the app is absolutely dependant on some feature of an older unsupported feature in a system library.

There is nothing sinister here. Like it or not it's simply a design choice of the OS but the flexibility is also there if a designer chooses not to install his program. He will of course have to identify, within his program, all the proper paths to any dependencies that are not the Windows default.

[lordsmurf]

It's because they share libraries. Even the Web is going that direction, with shared js, css, dll, etc. There's nothing wrong with it, just makes things more complicated. End users shouldn't worry about it. It's the programmers that have to make the crap work. They do a pretty decent job at it, too.

[thecoalman]

Even the Web is going that direction, with shared js, css, dll, etc. There's nothing wrong with it, just makes things more complicated.

In the case of the web it makes things a lot easier, being able to go into a CSS file and changing a line or two that takes affect site wide is definitely preferable than manually changing it on each and every document. Same goes for includes, I use both includes and CSS extensively. You won't find a single piece of formatting in any of the html I code.

[DereX888]

The "installation disaster" came to Windows OSes with the invention of "Registry", which at first was a good thing (instead of having zillion *.ini files scattered across all of hdd as it was ie with Windows 3.1, you got one centralized repository of all of them - in the windows registry).
But again, its a "windows thing".
Sharing any libraries does not mean programs have to be "installed" (again "windows-only thing").
If the required library is not found in the system, and not bundled with the program itself, then the program should inform user (ie "you need Java2 RTE 1.4.0 or newer to run this program") instead of prying OS'es guts and adding it on its own whatever it needs.
Programs should never interfere with operating system, thats a basics which Microsoft seems haven't learn yet.

Even the Web is going that direction, with shared js, css, dll, etc. There's nothing wrong with it, just makes things more complicated.

In the case of the web it makes things a lot easier, being able to go into a CSS file and changing a line or two that takes affect site wide is definitely preferable than manually changing it on each and every document. Same goes for includes, I use both includes and CSS extensively. You won't find a single piece of formatting in any of the html I code.

What any CSS has to do with installing programs on Windows operating systems, what are you guys talking about?!
CSS is part of browser's rendering ability.
Either browser is capable of it or not. Same as any plugins. You add them to browser, not to the operating system (but again, on windows browsers since IE4 are supposedly "integral part of OS" so its another "windows thing" it seems LOL)

[Rudyard]

In the case of the web, where is the common library stored? I mean if its software made for windows for example you link to the windows directories for the shared files but the web could be accessed by people using many different OS's and browsers. Where is the common stuff stored?

[DereX888]

In the case of the web, where is the common library stored? I mean if its software made for windows for example you link to the windows directories for the shared files but the web could be accessed by people using many different OS's and browsers. Where is the common stuff stored?

Anything web-related *ought to* be stored within Internet Explorer (if no other default browser exist).
However reality is you will have the stuff scattered among many folders - depending you have Microsoft Office or not, depending what version of IE you have, and depending on Windows version itself (starting with [root]\WINNT\... and [root]\WINDOWS\... difference)

[Rudyard]

In the case of the web, where is the common library stored? I mean if its software made for windows for example you link to the windows directories for the shared files but the web could be accessed by people using many different OS's and browsers. Where is the common stuff stored?

Anything web-related *ought to* be stored within Internet Explorer (if no other default browser exist).
However reality is you will have the stuff scattered among many folders - depending you have Microsoft Office or not, depending what version of IE you have, and depending on Windows version itself (starting with [root]\WINNT\... and [root]\WINDOWS\... difference)

Does that mean that there is a common set of code for the internet across all platforms or that some websites will require a certain browser which in turn may mean a certain OS to work?

[DereX888]

In the case of the web, where is the common library stored? I mean if its software made for windows for example you link to the windows directories for the shared files but the web could be accessed by people using many different OS's and browsers. Where is the common stuff stored?

Anything web-related *ought to* be stored within Internet Explorer (if no other default browser exist).
However reality is you will have the stuff scattered among many folders - depending you have Microsoft Office or not, depending what version of IE you have, and depending on Windows version itself (starting with [root]\WINNT\... and [root]\WINDOWS\... difference)

Does that mean that there is a common set of code for the internet across all platforms or that some websites will require a certain browser which in turn may mean a certain OS to work?

Its more complicated than that.
Currently it looks like this:
W3C sets the web standards, to which websites and all browsers should conform to (so they could be rendered in same ways on different platforms, browsers etc).
Then there is Microsoft with its worldwide domination. Since Internet Explorer 4 none of IE browsers conforms to the W3C standards (otherwise it could not work with i.e. non-standard webpages created by Microsoft Office apps).
Then again - if 80% of machines use the "non-standard" it becomes "the standard" anyways, right?
Its a mess.

PS
See this example:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.microsoft.com%2Fen%2Fus%2Fdefault.aspx
Its a Microsoft's default english home page (http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx) as analyzed by W3C's html validator.
See how many non-standard lines (errors) of code are there (ATM there are 11 errors; as page changes there may be more or less)
One of my favorites (very common):

# Error  Line 1 column 10110: end tag for element "SCR" which is not open.

...e5fa-4fb0-8f20-e7b3bfc0cdb0.xml' > </scr>);</script><div class="j

Shoddy coding (as usual). Leftovers from a script that probably had been removed during subsequent page updates.
and so on
Yet the page will be rendered perfectly by Internet Explorer and most of other browsers, because 'thanks' to Microsoft domination other browser-writers had to take Microsoft's own 'standard' into consideration.

If we could have a peek into Windows code I bet smart guys would find zillions of such snafus there

[thecoalman]

What any CSS has to do with installing programs on Windows operating systems, what are you guys talking about?!

That was in reference to how it's similar to a DLL file when used in a external file sheet. the CSS file can be loaded by multiple pages by referencing it in the head tags. The benefit is all your formatting is one place.

See this example:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.microsoft.com% ... fault.aspx
Its a Microsoft's default english home page (http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx) as analyzed by W3C's html validator.

Try Googles home page... They actually just improved it too. One thing to be aware is those validators are not entirely accurate after the first error. A single error can cause a cascading effect giving you multiple errors through the page.

Does that mean that there is a common set of code for the internet across all platforms or that some websites will require a certain browser which in turn may mean a certain OS to work?

When you create webpage the first line is the document declaration, the web browser will render it according to the type of document (providing it supports it). The standrad for most pages is HTML or some variant. But you can use other types, they are all entirely browser dependant but HTML is the standard document type so they will all work for that type. Every browser has its quirks and bugs and no two will render every page exactly the same.

[lordsmurf]

Common files can be stored wherever you want them to be. In fact, when it comes to the Web, in order to try and spoof out low-level hackers, it's actually suggested to change to non-standard locations.

Before Windows had a registry, it had INI files. And before Windows was around, DOS had .CFG, AUTOEXEC.BAT and .SYS files. Common library/command locations is a crux of an OS. Without common libraries, why even have an OS?

You don't need an OS to run software, after all.

[DereX888]

Common files can be stored wherever you want them to be. In fact, when it comes to the Web, in order to try and spoof out low-level hackers, it's actually suggested to change to non-standard locations.

Before Windows had a registry, it had INI files. And before Windows was around, DOS had .CFG, AUTOEXEC.BAT and .SYS files. Common library/command locations is a crux of an OS. Without common libraries, why even have an OS?

You don't need an OS to run software, after all.

Thats a good question, and I think at some point 'computers' will not have any OS, at least not in as we know it.
At present we need some "programs-independent" software to configure and set all the hardware to work with each other on a same machine. Thats why we need OS. Common libraries is probably secondary reason for an OS, but if there were some actual standards for it (ie all device drivers have to go to root:\common\drivers\ directory etc) it could be solved without any OS.
But since memory chips and low-level processing chips are all so cheap nowadays, all the 'drivers' etc could be actually stored on each single piece of hardware device (the way good old BIOS is on a motheroards, and better), all it would take to do would be to implement some standardized way of interaction between each such piece of hardware puzzle that 'computers' would become at that point - and there will be no need for an OS probably at all.

Ooops, I just woke up
Nice dream... but imagine Apple or Microsoft or ATI 'bowing down' to some common standards LOL! They'd immediately create their own non-compatible with competition standards (the way Apple already is since its inception actually).

See this example:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.microsoft.com% ... fault.aspx
Its a Microsoft's default english home page (http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx) as analyzed by W3C's html validator.

Try Googles home page... They actually just improved it too. One thing to be aware is those validators are not entirely accurate after the first error. A single error can cause a cascading effect giving you multiple errors through the page.

Hahaha I just did
True about the errors cascading effect on validator. Its too simple I think.