Why Is Desktop Software Hard To Install?
Those of us who believe that desktop software is still relevant in a browser-based world should be up in arms about how hard it is to install software (on Windows, at least - it's easier on the Mac). Multiple security warnings, required OS updates, and tech-heavy language make downloading and installing software too scary a prospect for non-technical users.
Desktop software on all platforms can and should be really easy to install. All it requires is for the user to click a link, click “Run” and the application should be up and running. In future they should be able to access it directly from their hard drive (start menu, Applications folder, command line, whatever is appropriate for the platform). Anything more complex is purely because the developer chose to make it more complex.
For instance, Microsoft’s World Wide Telescope is difficult to install because the developers chose to use .Net 2.0 and not bundle it with the download. They chose to require all the latest Windows updates and security packs and they chose to use a setup wizard for the install. None of this is actually needed and the same problem happens with web apps where users are forced to upgrade their browser or switch to IE or upgrade flash etc.
Install experience is not decided by the platform used, it’s decided by how simple the developers choose to make it.
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:15 am
Man, I could not agree more. User wants to install the software - that’s all the installer needs to know.
If it needs any other components, just deal with it.
Let’s walk through a typical windows install:
- Welcome to the installer, click next (well, duh. oh really, was I installing something?)
- Choose installation location (does this matter? This is basically preset on most platforms - figure it out. If I change it, its more work for me, and something’s probably going to break, anyway)
- Choose components (fair enough, I guess… save space for bloatware on small hard drives… but seriously, just add a higher hdd space requirement)
- Do some other product configuration (can’t I do this in Tools->Options after install?)
- Wait for actual install to happen (why didn’t it just skip to this step in the first place).
- Installation complete, click finish
Its just ridiculous.
I have to say Mac is much easier… but the drag-drop to applications is a bit unintuitive the first time. Instead of the program icon with a picture of an arrow pointing to applications, why not have a button saying “Install this application”… or make the picture of ths applications folder an actual shortcut to it. Still, this is a better user experience than a typical windows installer.
Linux apps are quite nice when package management is available… but when you have to compile… I’m sorry - what? Compile? And the ./install or ./configure, make crap is stupid - why can’t I run it from an icon? Whenever I have to install a linux app this way, my success rate is about 1 in 10. This is an INSTALLER, people… i’m not trying to do anything difficult. I shouldn’t really need to know anything about how to install the software - that’s the installer’s job!
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Yes, I’ve ranted about stupid Mac disk images with a picture of the applications folder before: http://www.symphonious.net/2006/06/08/ill-tell-you-where-you-can-drag-your-icon/
It’s all very intuitive if you actually put a symlink to the applications folder and include some text rather than trying to do everything via images.