Installer (Innosetup) - welcome page yes or no?

[Mike Torrettinni 198]

I'm updating my installers and came across the info that Microsoft is recommending to skip welcome pages and go straight to the actionable content of installer: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/uxguide/win-wizards#wizard-pages

 

I've never had anybody complain about the welcome page and I see it as a confirmation or introduction to what users are installing. Even though the setup name includes product name, it can happen the setup name is changed into something more generic for delivery purposes, so the welcome page shows the exact product version.

 

Is this something I'm behind the progress and this is 'the new thing' with installers?

 

I'm curios what you guys think of this, did you remove the welcome page from your installers for any reason?

 

[Der schöne Günther 316]

I don't have installers, but I think there's nothing wrong with that. It's not like you have to introduce your program, the user has already decided to install. The welcome page they use for their example makes no sense, because it provides absolutely no information. Same like "Setup has now finished" you sometimes see.

 

By the way: Compare with this totally stripped down MSIX install experience on Windows:

 

Edited October 5, 2021 by Der schöne Günther

[Mike Torrettinni 198]

10 minutes ago, Der schöne Günther said:

I don't have installers, but I think there's nothing wrong with that. It's not like you have to introduce your program, the user has already decided to install. The welcome page they use for their example makes no sense, because it provides absolutely no information. Same like "Setup has now finished" you sometimes see.

 

By the way: Compare with this totally stripped down MSIX install experience on Windows:

 

 

You are right in a way! I think there is a difference between download and install (which happens less often) vs 'check for updates' and install (which can happen weekly or bi-weekly for a lot of software). I really don't like notepad++ or filezilla cumbersome update every couple of weeks. Annoying.

 

In my case my projects are usually installed couple of times a year. Not all users always install all update versions throughout the year, so having welcome page to show the exact version they are installing is quite welcome.

And I have 'run project' checkbox at the end, default non-checked.

Edited October 5, 2021 by Mike Torrettinni

[Stano 143]

27 minutes ago, Mike Torrettinni said:

And I have 'run project' checkbox at the end, default non-checked.

A matter of taste. In the vast majority of cases, I turn it off. It's usually on the last page.

[Mike Torrettinni 198]

Actually I forgot one detail that half of my users install my tools as a 3rd party product with bigger product suite, so the welcome screen is needed so users know what is being installed.

 

Interesting Microsoft doesn't have guidelines for all these various installation options.

 

[Der schöne Günther 316]

Just a side note: For classic setups, I always untick "Start application" because those installers usually run with elevated permissions and will then also start the application elevated.

[Mike Torrettinni 198]

16 hours ago, Der schöne Günther said:

By the way: Compare with this totally stripped down MSIX install experience on Windows:

I was tempted to create 1 page setup, only having the real necessary information, but squeezing in the EULA window is a little tricky. But interesting, for sure!

[Fr0sT.Brutal 900]

Back in old times when I was trying lots of soft, I had numerous setup files sometimes named like BWDSQHSetup.exe which I downloaded months ago and I was really glad to see a welcome screen which not only mentioned it will install "MookaWooka Pro" but also contained a few words about what the hell that soft is

[Bill Meyer 337]

When your products mostly have single word generic names, I suppose you can make use of installers which present no meaningful information.

[Mike Torrettinni 198]

13 minutes ago, Bill Meyer said:

When your products mostly have single word generic names, I suppose you can make use of installers which present no meaningful information.

???

[Bill Meyer 337]

1 minute ago, Mike Torrettinni said:

???

Microsoft:  Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc.

[Rollo62 536]

4 hours ago, Mike Torrettinni said:

I was tempted to create 1 page setup, only having the real necessary information, but squeezing in the EULA window is a little tricky. But interesting, for sure!

Yes we all have such EULA pages.

But to be honest, I don't know if this makes any legal difference, if we have it or not.

Is there any known legal case, that was won or lost because of EULA or missing EULA ?

Maybe in USA, such "overinformation" is needed, I don't know,
but in good old Europe I doubt that.

 

To the contrary, in EU new laws tend to ban such "read and click in a hurry" contracts, as not legal in some other cases ( not EULA ), but at least for web-pages contracts.

I would assume the legal power of such EULA page is quite low (at least in EU).

 

Instead of the EULA, I prefer to have a special, nice "welcome" page(s) in the app itself.

This can be used for EULA, but also for all other setup requirements.

I think this is much better than InnoSetup ever could be, so why not using such an app self-setup welcome page, and leave the setup minimal ?

 

 

[Mike Torrettinni 198]

1 hour ago, Rollo62 said:

nstead of the EULA, I prefer to have a special, nice "welcome" page(s) in the app itself.

This can be used for EULA, but also for all other setup requirements.

Interesting. I'm still trying to come up with 1 page/click installer and I hope I can come up with process that allows it.

But EULA should be part of the setup, as you expect this kind of useless stuff to be there. Not in the app, once installed it should be ready to be used.

[Rollo62 536]

1 click is fine, but I like at least to define a folder where it shall go.

 

Yes EULA before install, but still I'm not sure about its purpose in Europe or other countries.

I think this is mainly an US law thing, and everybody worldwide just copied the same behaviour, as it looks cool.

I'm no lawyer, but I think in EU this doesn't make much sense anyway.

If a user installs something on purpose, he is responsible, no matter if texts showed up before using it.

Of course if the software formats the disk, than the manufacturer should be in focus, but I assume we talk about

normal, non-critical apps for the moment, that could be installed and uninstalled with no harm.

Maybe somebody has experiences from real cases, and could share this info.

[Mike Torrettinni 198]

1 hour ago, Rollo62 said:

1 click is fine, but I like at least to define a folder where it shall go. 

This is still just an idea, but 1 click is meant that all important/needed info is on 1 page, including installation folder, and Install button. Review the info and install. Simple, quick.

[Lars Fosdal 1792]

I like installers that have proper parameter support - including /Silent

[Mike Torrettinni 198]

3 hours ago, Lars Fosdal said:

I like installers that have proper parameter support - including /Silent

Yes,I never had problems with Innosetup. Actually with first versions, years ago, I didn't even know some customers use /silent option to install my software. I only learned that later. So, it's working out of the box.