Skip to main content

VFP Runtimes - do we need an installer?

Years ago, the conventional wisdom was that you used an installer program to install the VFP runtimes on the user's machine and then possibly had an application update over it. On network applications (that resided on the file server), this was almost a requirement - the users couldn't run the application without the runtime - but you wanted to be able to install updates without requiring the user to upgrade their runtime files if necessary.

How necessary is that today?

In some instances, very. I still have some applications that reside directly on the file server, where is also where the data lies and thus having a separate runtime installer usually helps - but this can also be detrimental. Even with today's fast networks, the performance hits that come from running an application over the network instead of the local workstation can seriously infringe on the application.

The seeming hassle of creating a separate runtime for the application also strikes fear into some developers hearts as they have to (begrudingly, at times) admit their application uses FoxPro, which can affect how a company with a larger IT department might choose to support it.

This created a chorus of FoxPro developers wanting the VFP runtime to be included with the standard Windows install to make it easier for them to deploy their applications.

So as I was rereading past posts, I came across this great one from Calvin - Enable people to run your programs without installing anything.

It got me thinking - there was a time when a desktop install of 5MB was considered very large but those days are long past. With Windows Service Packs hitting up to 1GB and even the DotNet at 22MB, a 5MB install is nothing - I could install this online in less than 2 minutes.

As FoxPro developers, we are also used to putting files into their "proper" locations - "Common Files\Shared, etc, etc" as though there were lots of applications using the same runtimes. This could reduce versionitis, something that was supposed to be dealt with in XP and now Vista. But is this something that drastically affects VFP applications?

So, coming back to the post, Calvin's entire premise is to just zip up the VFP9R.DLL, VFP9RENU.DLL and the dreaded MSVCR71.DLL and put your application (or your application stub) right in there. Don't worry about pathing, just keep everything right in their own folder.

When combined with a program like Zip2EXE, which you can set to automatically unzip and then run a specific program, or even an installer such as InnoSetup, you can build an entire setup for your application (under 10MBs) that puts everything where VFP can find it without affecting other applications.

You may already be doing something like this so tell me, how do you handle installs?

Comments

woody said…
I just use the ready2go runtime-installers from our ftp://ftp.prolib.de/public. Install that one on any windowsbox since Win95 and it checks/updates/installs everything VFP could ever need. After that, you just copy your exe into any folder and off you go.

Sine that installers can also run silently, you can easily incorporate them into your own App-installers. (See the readme.txt for commandline switches)

BTW: Our Runtime installers seem to be very popular: we have several thousand downloads on the VFP9 installer from all over the world. Maybe I should make some statistics on that one? hmm.....

Popular posts from this blog

Programmers vs. Developers vs. Architects

I received an email this morning from Brandon Savage's newsletter. Brandon's a PHP guru (works at Mozilla) but his newsletter and books have some great overall perspectives for developers of all languages. However, this last one (What's the difference between developers and architects?) kind of rubs me the wrong way. Either that, or I've just missed the natural inflation of job descriptions. (maybe, it's like the change in terminology between Garbage man and Waste Engineer or Secretary and Office Administrator)

So maybe it's just me - but I think there's still a big difference between Programmer, Developer and then of course, architect. The key thing here is that every role has a different perspective and every one of those perspectives has value. The original MSF create roles like Product Manager, Program Manager, Developer, Tester, etc - so every concept may pigeon hole people into different roles. But the statements Brandon makes are often distinctions I…

Security in Windows 10

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/08/windows_10_privacy_problems_here_s_how_bad_they_are_and_how_to_plug_them.single.html

 discusses some Windows 10 privacy settings and their implications.

"Finally, we will access, disclose and preserve personal data, including your content (such as the content of your emails, other private communications or files in private folders), when we have a good faith belief that doing so is necessary." "In other words, Microsoft won't treat your local data with any more privacy than it treats your data on its servers and may upload your local data to its servers arbitrarily"
I did a quick install on a VM choosing the Express settings. When I fully deploy this on a real workstation, I will likely choose to wade through all of the individual pages, as David recommends.

Of course, losing one's privacy is nothing new - it's happening all over the place (despite Santa Ana's police force's lawsu…

AppleSoft

I'm not TRYING to be "fanboy-flame bait" but what I saw yesterday was a typical "Do it this way, now do it this way and then we'll go back to this way" all over again.... a move similar to what Microsoft does to developers on an ongoing basis.

Remember the first iPhone? Smooth and curved, at least as far as it could be back then. I still pull out my 3G and can see the curves on it.

Then the 4 came out and "boxy" was all the rage. Everything should be "tight with corners"

Now iPhone 6.... smooth and curvy is back. Granted I don't have the actual device yet, but that's the message.

Guess that means the iPhone 8 will be back to boxy.

And honestly, Apple Watch is not worth "one more thing" --- especially when everyone knows it's going to be shown. "One more thing" would be something no one saw coming.  The device itself ? Very interesting and yes, definitely lots of potential but "one more thing" wor…