Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Windows Vista64 - Installer Issues
#1
Hi.

Nice work with 0.9.6 - now a lot more runs better than with the 0.9.5 release. Smile (but yea, I am cheating... I used the PG builds as well - but thats another story.)
Just wanted to drop a line that the installer doesn't work as its supposed to be under Vista64 (BE). - For me.
Looks like the directories have the wrong permissions after the setup. Because I can't set up things unless I use "execute as Administrator". The changes are dropped right at the moment I press "OK" otherwise.
It doesn't even create the ini files nor the memcards.
(According to the "user" dev policy, these files (INIs, Memcards and maybe bios files) should be in the users settings area and not in the "programs" section. - Afaik, they would be writeable there by default...)

Don't get me wrong. Its up to you how you do it - and afaik, the pure "unpack and run" version will do fine, but maybe that something that could be addressed with the next installer release? Smile

In case you need additional information, lemme know.

Regards, Bigfoot29
Reply

Sponsored links

#2
(03-30-2009, 09:19 PM)bigfoot29 Wrote: Hi.

Nice work with 0.9.6 - now a lot more runs better than with the 0.9.5 release. Smile (but yea, I am cheating... I used the PG builds as well - but thats another story.)
Just wanted to drop a line that the installer doesn't work as its supposed to be under Vista64 (BE). - For me.
Looks like the directories have the wrong permissions after the setup. Because I can't set up things unless I use "execute as Administrator". The changes are dropped right at the moment I press "OK" otherwise.
It doesn't even create the ini files nor the memcards.
(According to the "user" dev policy, these files (INIs, Memcards and maybe bios files) should be in the users settings area and not in the "programs" section. - Afaik, they would be writeable there by default...)

Don't get me wrong. Its up to you how you do it - and afaik, the pure "unpack and run" version will do fine, but maybe that something that could be addressed with the next installer release? Smile

In case you need additional information, lemme know.

Regards, Bigfoot29

i used the installer when i moved to 0.9.6 and it worked perfect for me. now im using beta builds but i still remember the install working
Reply
#3
Run as admin, if that doesn't work:
1 disable defender
2: run in XP compatability mode (the installer)
Reply
#4
This is not a bug. You should read up better the definition of bug...

It is a design choice, we can't avoid that under vista unless we put all our files in the user directory. You know, those "my documents" and such directories. Which we do not want to do. We are not going to disperse our configuration files and memcards all over the place....

So, run as an admin is your friend if you have problems...
MOved...
Reply
#5
Xou can't run the installer in compatiblity mode (because there is no option for it). There is also no option to run the installer as admin with the default msi ending. It doesn't matter also if you install the emu "for all" or "just for me". In both cases the same result.

Defender is off, but the result is the same as with "on".
I can run pcsx2 as admin. It even installs into the correct Programs (x86) directory. However, reading the FAQ or readme requires to know where the files are stored because there is no link from the menu to it. But thats just another suggestion for a next installer release. Smile
It doesn't carry any usefull information about that specific issue.

unauthorizedlogin: I guess it has to do with the directory privileges. Once set (with your previous pcsx2 install) they seem to remain. But with a clear setup, the privs are taken over from the directories above - and they don't allow user changes there (as it seems).

Thanks for the suggestions till here. Smile

Regards, Bigfoot29
Reply
#6
Krakatos: Sorry for double posting.

According to Microsofts policy regarding files that should NOT be altered by non-admins, these files should go to \users\*USER*\AppData\[Local|LocalLow|Roaming]. Then these files would be editable at least for the user that installed the package.
If you aren't going to change that, because you say that you want to keep your config files at a central location, then violate the rules. But at least tell the installer to set up the link to launch pcsx2 as admin per default without the need to manually do that.

The one or the other way, its a bug in the installer.
bug1: violating microsoft rules for user configurable software deployment
or
bug2: not making a working (in that case: a pcxs2 that can write files) link by default.

So who should read a definition? Wink

I really appreciate your work, but I have to disagree with that sort of behaviour. Sad

Regards, Bigfoot29

Edit: oh, and a friend of mine said once: "run as admin" is just a result of a bad design. I am not saying that. But at least "run as admin" is not my friend. Its nothing more (but its bad to say: nothing less) than the last option when everything else went wrong. And I have some trust in the devs, that they should be capable of not needing the emergency break. Wink
Reply
#7
User deploy what? Run the thing as admin and that's it.
Microsoft can keep this model to themselves, it really sucks we even have to care about this.
Reply
#8
Violating Microsoft design guidelines, particularly those created long after a product was first created, is hardly a bug, unless you think MS can arbitrarily declare a program buggy by releasing a new OS that lacks random features. PCSX2 itself predates Vista, and has no issues with XP.

If anything, I'd argue that the bug is with Vista failing to adhere to spec. Just skim over their CRT docs: No mention of these permission limitations.

I'll also point out that Microsoft is very bad about publishing its design guidelines. I can't find them, at least.
Reply
#9
Chicken: I expect them to be in the technet somewhere. Also I am not referring to the emulator itself. The stand alone files (un7zip and run) work well. Its just the installer, that doesn't work in the one or other direction. I said "I expect them to be..:" because I am not a dev on that level. I am writing some python code, which makes me happy. Wink I've read some about that in the past months/years. But because it never affected me, I don't have details there. Sad
Maybe I can ask some windows code geeks in a couple of days, if the problem is one that is wanted to be fixed.

I don't say "you have to follow the microsoft rules" (best practices) that are out there even since the 2000/XP release days (but due to the fact that MS didn't care these days, noone actually followed them - now lets argue what is older - pcsx2 or the MS guidelines). All I say that there is a bug in the installer by not following the best practices or by not letting the installer create a link that automatically runs the pcsx2 file in admin mode or at least describe that in the docs or a info window at setup times.

Regards, Bigfoot29
Reply
#10
I installed PCSX2 on vista 64 bit with 0 issues, you may have to disable UAC or the firewall, but it WILL install just fine.

edit: fixed typos
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)