I just noticed that Chromium was installed in AppData in both Vista and XP. If Google does that and if other applications does this, than is that becuase there is some form of protection? Should we write installers that does the same thing as Google?
相关问题
- How does the setup bootstrapper detect if prerequi
- Wix: How can I set, at runtime, the text to be dis
- Inheritance impossible in Windows Runtime Componen
- how to get running process information in java?
- Is TWebBrowser dependant on IE version?
相关文章
- 如何让cmd.exe 执行 UNICODE 文本格式的批处理?
- 怎么把Windows开机按钮通过修改注册表指向我自己的程序
- Warning : HTML 1300 Navigation occured?
- Bundling the Windows Mono runtime with an applicat
- Windows 8.1 How to fix this obsolete code?
- chained msi's/Bootstrapper/prerequisite?
- CosmosDB emulator can't start since port is al
- Is there a way to hide the new HTML5 spinbox contr
One advantage nobody mentioned are silent auto-updates. Chrome has an updater process that runs all the time and immediately updates your chrome installation.
I think their use-case is non-standard. They need a way to fix vulnerability issues (since it's a browser) as soon as possible. Waiting for admins approving every single update company-wide, is simply not good enough.
Windows 7 and Windows Installer 5.0 provide real per-user installation capabilities now.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd408068%28VS.85%29.aspx
You can sort of fudge it in Vista and XP by using ~/AppData/Local or the equivalent like Chrome does. Microsoft themselves use this for the ClickOnce installers.
So at least on Windows 7 and beyond the solution is simple.