Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!tybalt.caltech.edu!toddpw
From: toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: What's so great about INSTALLER?
Message-ID: <1990Aug7.201808.4044@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu>
Date: 7 Aug 90 20:18:08 GMT
References: <9008061215.AA15378@jade.berkeley.edu>
Sender: news@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 58

lwv27@CAS.BITNET writes:

>What I wish is that installer was a bit smarter.

Bingo. Installer WORKS, it's simple to operate, but it shields the user from
too many details -- that and the disk-swap problem are why most of us avoid
the installer when we can.

I'd like Installer to be the kind of program even us die-hard system jocks can
appreciate, while maintaining the simplicity that makes new users comfortable
with it. The Mac built its reputation on programs that embodied this ideal,
and I think it's an admirable one.

>For instance, I would like it to at least have an option of telling me
>what is installed on the disk that I am about to update.  It would also
>be useful to tell me which items are 'out of date' (either by date or
>perhaps by a checksum on the items).  I am more than willing to wait for
>these activities to take place.

I agree. How do you know what you can remove, if The Installer Knows and won't
tell you? I have successfully removed features I never had installed! Also,
a feature in the installer that analyzes the files in question for version
numbers, as well as mentioning them in the About as well as the Script Name,
would make a LOT of people feel more secure that they have the correct versions
of certain software installed. (How do you KNOW you have 5.0.2? I thought I did
because the dealer said so, AND THEY WERE WRONG!)

I realize this might make it less user friendly; however, that cost is well
worth the peace of mind people get when all they have to do is launch
Installer, insert the boot disk, click 'versions', and check the numbers they
see against what they know should be there.

Checksums on the various system files should be MANDATORY. This crap about
"Oh, your system files must be corrupted; try re-installing your system disk
and see if that clears up the problem" should have been dealt with by the Mac
System Software people long ago. Let's beat them to the punch.

Actually, how tough would it be to add an optional checksum feature to OMF2,
so that the Loader could verify that a given segment hasn't been corrupted
since linking. This would slow down loading, however.

>Another useful feature - perhaps critical if GS/OS is ever updated again,
>would be the ability to maintain on a single hard disk multiple versions
>of the OS.  Perhaps that ability is already there - I don't have a
>HD yet, but can see where having a lot of software which depends on a
>particular version of an OS could be a problem.

Weelll, last I heard was that the system folder HAD to be called system and
HAD to be in the root directory of the boot volume. This was more a limitation
of the ProDOS file, which has to find the system folder, than of the system
itself, which is supposed to use prefix * to get at the system folder.

I agree that the capability should be there. Until the market is moving again
so that even idiots like Mediagenic and Quantum update their software properly
we'll have to put up with certain programs needing 4.0 or older.

Todd Whitesel
toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu