tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9537945.post-10348299774614045982007-12-21T08:31:00.000-06:002007-12-21T08:31:00.000-06:00Well, I just don't see "the point". Sure, saving a few MB on the .NET 3.0 framework's rediculous ~200MB size is a good thing, but is this really a best practice? Wouldn't Microsoft have done it if they thought it was?<BR/><BR/>Compression formats being cab compliant is one of the major things that Microsoft Windows Installer requires. Deployment tools are designed around your install using proper Cabs.<BR/><BR/>What Microsoft is (or more specifically isn't) doing with their installs have nothing to do with the fact that the MSI spec only supports Cab compliant compression algorithms.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps my wording of "Best Practices" left something to be desired; however, the fact remains that many installation authoring companies are just walking over what MSI is supposed to do in order to add a bullet point to their feature list. <BR/><BR/>That's fine & great, but it's starting to get to the point where an MSI is no longer just an MSI. Now it's a Wise MSI or an InstallShield MSI or a WiX MSI or a whatever you used to create it MSI.<BR/><BR/>So my question is, are they really helping the situation? I don't know about that. My thought is more that they're doing something, but I guess it remains if that's the right thing?<BR/><BR/>I would like to think that some community backlash on the topic and actually getting in touch with some of the people involved would go further.<BR/><BR/>To me, reliance on LMZA compression to resolve a fundamental flaw in the whole design of a 3rd party application is just asking for more woes later.<BR/><BR/>But eh - maybe it's just me? :)ShadowWolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17170306422408594103noreply@blogger.com