Installer VS Zipped Archive For Emulators

[bvcbcvbcvbcvbvcbvcbcv]

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zipped archive version because there 's no reason anymore to use installers, and how installing programs traditionally is obsolete, and that you don't get anything special by installing it over just running it in a self contained folder, and that by using the self contained folder option,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?

Edited September 6, 2018 by MalachiMaverick

[Lordmonkus]

There is a lot of misinformation in this post, not that you are posting misinformation but a lot of what you are saying you have been told is for the most part incorrect.

29 minutes ago, MalachiMaverick said:

Some people say that you should always go for the installer version because it's easier to use

Being easier mostly true for beginner users of a computer.

30 minutes ago, MalachiMaverick said:

and gives you more features etc

Incorrect, installers may give you more options to choose what parts are installed and not installed but you won't get more features, only the choice to remove some.

31 minutes ago, MalachiMaverick said:

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,

Installers do have reason so saying there is no reason is just false and installing is in no way "obsolete".

32 minutes ago, MalachiMaverick said:

and that you don't get anything special by installing it over just running it in a self contained folder

What ?

33 minutes ago, MalachiMaverick said:

and that by using the self contained folder option, you get portability,

Not true at all, just because something comes in a zip file rather than an installer it doesn't automatically mean portability. Some programs will still use your %user% folder to store settings. Dolphin (as far as I am aware) still requires you to make a txt file called portable.txt and Mesen still requires you to change the name of the executable to mesen_p.exe if you want a self contained portable mode of those emulators. This may have changed since I last checked though but they were like this so by simply being in a zip file did not make them portable.

37 minutes ago, MalachiMaverick said:

and it's not tied down to your system, and making unnecessary changes to things like start menu items, and the registry etc,

The start menu stuff is true but some programs can still leave registry entries and other files elsewhere like I explained above.

38 minutes ago, MalachiMaverick said:

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?

Your personal preference, I tend to choose zip files myself but I am not bothered by installers at all.

39 minutes ago, MalachiMaverick said:

Which side of the argument is right?

Neither.

39 minutes ago, MalachiMaverick said:

will I get anything special by using the installer that I won't get by just opting for the zipped archive version?

Nope, you won't gain or lose anything going either way.

40 minutes ago, MalachiMaverick said:

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?

Some installers contain some required files for the software to work such as Direct X or .NET library files and will install them to their appropriate locations but often times these libraries are already installed on most peoples computers to begin with.

42 minutes ago, MalachiMaverick said:

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?

As I said already, neither is superior to the other, just personal preference as to what you use.

Installers are more beginner friendly but tend to be larger file size as they tend to include other files while zip files tend to be a bit smaller but may be daunting to users not used to using a compression program to extract a file where they want. Some people prefer a program to walk them through the installation process, it makes them feel more comfortable but in the end the software gets to where you want it to be on your hard drive.

[bvcbcvbcvbcvbvcbvcbcv]

15 hours ago, Lordmonkus said:

There is a lot of misinformation in this post, not that you are posting misinformation but a lot of what you are saying you have been told is for the most part incorrect.

Being easier mostly true for beginner users of a computer.

Incorrect, installers may give you more options to choose what parts are installed and not installed but you won't get more features, only the choice to remove some.

Installers do have reason so saying there is no reason is just false and installing is in no way "obsolete".

What ?

Not true at all, just because something comes in a zip file rather than an installer it doesn't automatically mean portability. Some programs will still use your %user% folder to store settings. Dolphin (as far as I am aware) still requires you to make a txt file called portable.txt and Mesen still requires you to change the name of the executable to mesen_p.exe if you want a self contained portable mode of those emulators. This may have changed since I last checked though but they were like this so by simply being in a zip file did not make them portable.

The start menu stuff is true but some programs can still leave registry entries and other files elsewhere like I explained above.

Your personal preference, I tend to choose zip files myself but I am not bothered by installers at all.

Neither.

Nope, you won't gain or lose anything going either way.

Some installers contain some required files for the software to work such as Direct X or .NET library files and will install them to their appropriate locations but often times these libraries are already installed on most peoples computers to begin with.

As I said already, neither is superior to the other, just personal preference as to what you use.

Installers are more beginner friendly but tend to be larger file size as they tend to include other files while zip files tend to be a bit smaller but may be daunting to users not used to using a compression program to extract a file where they want. Some people prefer a program to walk them through the installation process, it makes them feel more comfortable but in the end the software gets to where you want it to be on your hard drive.

So if I want to have a completely portable LaunchBox with emulators I can do that without losing anything? So instead of installing RetroArch, installing PCSX2, and installing Dolphin, I could just go for the zipped archive versions, make a folder within Launch Box called Emulators, throw each of the Emulator archive folders into the Emulators folder within the Launch Box installed folder in my users folder, and I won't lose anything going that route?

[Lordmonkus]

It just depends on the emulator, like I said above some emulators despite being a simple zip archive still are not portable. Some emulators have an option of being portable if they are not out of the box, 2 examples I gave above would be Dolphin and Mesen. Dolphin requires you to make a txt file called portable.txt in the Dolphin emulator folder and Mesen requires you to rename the executable to Mesem_p.exe.

You will just have to check each emulator you decide to use.

[neil9000]

 

4 minutes ago, MalachiMaverick said:

So if I want to have a completely portable LaunchBox with emulators I can do that without losing anything? So instead of installing RetroArch, installing PCSX2, and installing Dolphin, I could just go for the zipped archive versions, make a folder within Launch Box called Emulators, throw each of the Emulator archive folders into the Emulators folder within the Launch Box installed folder in my users folder, and I won't lose anything going that route?

Correct.

 

[bvcbcvbcvbcvbvcbvcbcv]

12 minutes ago, Lordmonkus said:

It just depends on the emulator, like I said above some emulators despite being a simple zip archive still are not portable. Some emulators have an option of being portable if they are not out of the box, 2 examples I gave above would be Dolphin and Mesen. Dolphin requires you to make a txt file called portable.txt in the Dolphin emulator folder and Mesen requires you to rename the executable to Mesem_p.exe.

You will just have to check each emulator you decide to use.

@Lordmonkus Thanks for the clarification. I have another question now though. On the official LaunchBox website I believe it said that you could make LaunchBox completely portable, and accessible to multiple computers at once by installing LaunchBox in a cloud storage folder such as Drop Box, One Drive, Google Drive etc, and that you could turn on any PC, sign into the cloud storage service of your choice, and that the LaunchBox folder would be available to access in the cloud storage folder that would appear on that PC. But, being the fact that you said that some emulators like Dolphin for example aren't automatically portable without doing some extra steps to make it portable, does this mean that even if I went a cloud storage route like that, and reinstalled my entire PC for example, or simply used another PC for that matter that some of the emulators wouldn't just automatically work out of the box without a little extra leg work? Does this mean that I would have to do those extra steps on each, and every PC that I signed into the cloud storage service from, and if so, what are the extra steps that would be required to make everything work flawlessly on each PC? So in other words, even with a cloud storage service, and installing LaunchBox into that cloud storage folder, that still won't just make everything automatically seamless, and hassle free across all computers, right?

[Lordmonkus]

I can't answer anything regarding could storage at all.

What I would suggest though if you want a truly portable LB is to watch ETA Primes video about it. Simply install your setup to an external hard drive or USB stick, then all you would need on any system you wish to use it is any of the required libraries like Direct X and .NET.

 

[DOS76]

when its said that LB will be portable that doesn't guarantee your emulators will be.

[Agent47]

6 hours ago, Lordmonkus said:

Mesen requires you to rename the executable to Mesem_p.exe.

FYI, that method of making it portable hasn't been required for quite a while. An option was added in the settings a year or so ago and I'm pretty sure on first run you're prompted with the choice of making it portable or not.

[Lordmonkus]

Thanks for clearing that up, I don't use the stand alone at all since the RA core became a thing but I remembered it was a thing and was relevant to the conversation about sometimes zip archive emulators not always being portable out of the box.

[Agent47]

Yeah, it's not automatically portable like some other emulators but at least making it portable is super obvious to new users now unlike before.

I'm pretty sure on at least one of my machines the exe still has the _p appended to the name back from when I first installed it even though it's the newest version thanks to the auto-updater.

Edited September 7, 2018 by Agent47

[bvcbcvbcvbcvbvcbvcbcv]

On 9/6/2018 at 12:46 AM, Lordmonkus said:

There is a lot of misinformation in this post, not that you are posting misinformation but a lot of what you are saying you have been told is for the most part incorrect.

Being easier mostly true for beginner users of a computer.

Incorrect, installers may give you more options to choose what parts are installed and not installed but you won't get more features, only the choice to remove some.

Installers do have reason so saying there is no reason is just false and installing is in no way "obsolete".

What ?

Not true at all, just because something comes in a zip file rather than an installer it doesn't automatically mean portability. Some programs will still use your %user% folder to store settings. Dolphin (as far as I am aware) still requires you to make a txt file called portable.txt and Mesen still requires you to change the name of the executable to mesen_p.exe if you want a self contained portable mode of those emulators. This may have changed since I last checked though but they were like this so by simply being in a zip file did not make them portable.

The start menu stuff is true but some programs can still leave registry entries and other files elsewhere like I explained above.

Your personal preference, I tend to choose zip files myself but I am not bothered by installers at all.

Neither.

Nope, you won't gain or lose anything going either way.

Some installers contain some required files for the software to work such as Direct X or .NET library files and will install them to their appropriate locations but often times these libraries are already installed on most peoples computers to begin with.

As I said already, neither is superior to the other, just personal preference as to what you use.

Installers are more beginner friendly but tend to be larger file size as they tend to include other files while zip files tend to be a bit smaller but may be daunting to users not used to using a compression program to extract a file where they want. Some people prefer a program to walk them through the installation process, it makes them feel more comfortable but in the end the software gets to where you want it to be on your hard drive.

@Lordmonkus I just thought of another thing that might make zip archives superior to installers, and that is safety, and security. If you went the zipped archive route for everything that allowed it, wouldn't that eliminate most forms of adware, junkware, and crap bundled software installers that often come with programs these days? Now I'm not saying that a zipped archive can't be infected with real spyware, malware, or worse, viruses, but what I mean by adware, and junkware is that when you use an installer for a program, some of them, or should I say, most of them, have extra bundled crap software that is not good quality at all, and that no one actually wants, but it's in there because software developers are often paid good money by seedy companies to include this dog poop into their software installers to make some easy, and quick cash, and even worse is that they try various forms, and methods to trick you into unwillingly, and unwittingly installing it. The most common things included are free trials of crap antivirus programs, changes to your default home page, changes to your default search engine, and trying to install eleventy billion tool bars into your web browsers, along with other forms of crapware etc. Most people fall into these traps by just blindly clicking Next, Next, Next, Finish. There's programs such as UnChecky, https://unchecky.com/ which runs as a minimal back ground service at all times, and at Windows boot which automatically unchecks any check boxes which it deems to be crapware bundled into the software you actually want, and it get's about 99% of it right, and even has web integration now with their latest update, so it can uncheck boxes on websites as well now that try to give you other installers along with the one you actually want, but for those that don't want to use a separate software for this purpose, wouldn't avoiding installers as much as possible, and using zipped archive versions as much as possible eliminate practically 99% of these problems? No installer = No Next, Next, Next, Finish, which = No bundled crapware, right?

Edited September 13, 2018 by MalachiMaverick

[Lordmonkus]

What you are saying isn't wrong but again this has nothing to do specifically with installer vs zip and I am repeating what I have already stated, it just all depends, there is no definitive "one is better than the other".

[bvcbcvbcvbcvbvcbvcbcv]

1 minute ago, Lordmonkus said:

What you are saying isn't wrong but again this has nothing to do specifically with installer vs zip and I am repeating what I have already stated, it just all depends, there is no definitive "one is better than the other".

Sorry if that came off as too biased towards the zip archives.

Edited September 13, 2018 by MalachiMaverick

[Lordmonkus]

lol it's all good, you started the thread with a valid question.