Hi, I was always curious. When an emulator like RetroArch, PCSX2, or Dolphin, etc as an example gives you the choice between the standard installer version, or the zipped archive version that contains everything in a self contained folder, which one should I pick? Some people say that you should always go for the installer version because it's easier to use, and gives you more features etc, while others say you should always go for the zipped archive version because there 's no reason anymore to use installers, and how installing programs traditionally is obsolete, and that you don't get anything special by installing it over just running it in a self contained folder, and that by using the self contained folder option, you get portability, and it's not tied down to your system, and making unnecessary changes to things like start menu items, and the registry etc, and you don't have it appearing under your installed software menu, and claims it makes it easier to remove the software completely by just getting rid of the folder since uninstalling standard software that was installed traditionally will leave traces of itself behind in folders, in start menu items, and in the registry etc. Some programs still have to be installed though, and thus don't give the option to be downloaded as a zipped archive, but for those that do have the zipped archive version as a choice, which one should I pick? Which side of the argument is right? For example, when I get the PS2 emulator, PCSX2, or the GC/Wii emulator, Dolphin, or the multi system emulator everyone loves so much that is slowly but surely taking over the world, RetroArch, will I get anything special by using the installer that I won't get by just opting for the zipped archive version? And if the zipped archive versions are so much better than why even offer installers anymore for programs that don't require it as a mandatory thing in the first place? And even stranger is the fact that the PSP emulator PPSSPP used to only have the zipped archive version as the download option, but then later added the installer version, and the same exact thing happened with RetroArch as well. They too used to just be an only zipped archive kind of program, but then eventually added the installer as an option as well. But if the installers are so inferior to the zipped archive versions, then why do some programs who only started out being zipped archives add installer options later as if it was somehow some sort of an improvement? See, this is where I've always been confused for a long time now. When it comes to programs giving the choice between the two, which one is the superior option?