Whats the difference between using "setup" or "Windows Installer"?

[xMax]

It just happens to be so often. You download a driver or a utility or perhaps anything, and you are given the windows installer package and the setup file where you can install the program by running either of the two files.

Im thinking that perhaps the installer is actually completely archived into a single file, while the setup requires the additional configuration settings files and perhaps other files to be present in order to be properly installed. But if thats so, then whats the point of using the setup when the installer is just a single simple file. The only explanation i can think of is perhaps for those who want to modify the configuration settings.

Anyways, im asking because i want to copy these files onto my USB flash and if all i need is the single file installer version for some of the programs im installing, then that would save me space and time. But im worried because im thinking that there may be files missing.

I dont know...

 

[Nothinman]

Huh? Usually the .msi file is all you need these days if one exists. If there's a setup.exe along side it, it probably just runs the .msi for you.

 

[xMax]

Ok. Ill take a look and see if this makes sense.

 

[spyordie007]

If an installer uses the Windows Installer than the setup.exe generally either loads up a .msi or extracts it from an archive and loads it up.

Installing from the MSI is usually supported by most vendors (i.e. if I wanted to install Office 2003 Pro I could run pro.msi off the CD). In fact it's usually how applications are deployed under group policy.

 

[xMax]

Q: spyordie007

"If an installer uses the Windows Installer than the setup.exe generally either loads up a .msi or extracts it from an archive and loads it up. "

Is that english. I know your probably in a hurry or like to keep sentences as short as possible, but my god, that statement is like a riddle.

Thanks for the confusion there bond.

 

[Nothinman]

Actually the only typo I see in his sentence is the use of than instead of then.

 

[scottws]

Yeah, I thought it was pretty straightforward.

 

[spherrod]

Originally posted by: xMax
Q: spyordie007

"If an installer uses the Windows Installer than the setup.exe generally either loads up a .msi or extracts it from an archive and loads it up. "

Is that english. I know your probably in a hurry or like to keep sentences as short as possible, but my god, that statement is like a riddle.

Thanks for the confusion there bond.

makes sense to me

 

[spyordie007]

Probably *could* have stated it a little clearer but I think everyone gets the idea.

Some application installers (setup.exe) load up an msi that is sitting available ready to go (like Office).
Some application installers first extract the msi (to the windows installer and/or a temporary directory) and than load it up.

 

[xMax]

I get it, so the windows installer package file is just really a zipped version while the setup.exe is unzipped. Ok. Thats simple.

I still think your initial explanation was a little difficult to comprehend for someone who is not so familiarized with computers.

 

[Ulukia]

Other way around. The setup executable will generally read from or unpack the MSI, either way the raw data needed is derived from the MSI.

 

[xMax]

Man, that doesnt make sense. The windows installer package file is always larger than the setup file which also needs all these other little files to work. i tried taking the windows installer file and running by itself in an empty directory to see if it works, and it did. I then tried just taking the setup file and running IT from an empty directory, and it didnt. It kept showing these messages relating to missing files.

 

[Nothinman]

Man, that doesnt make sense. The windows installer package file is always larger than the setup file which also needs all these other little files to work. i tried taking the windows installer file and running by itself in an empty directory to see if it works, and it did. I then tried just taking the setup file and running IT from an empty directory, and it didnt. It kept showing these messages relating to missing files.

Because the setup file is only there for compatibility, the .msi file actually contains the package. It's like an .rpm or .deb on Linux.

 

[xMax]

I get it now. In plain and simple. There is the "windows installer package", which is the .MSI file, and then there is the setup "application", which is the .EXE file. The .MSI is essneitally like a compressed file containing all the files that are needed. The .EXE file requires an assortment of other files of varying sorts to run.

So the question is: Why do companies provide the user with both? I would guess its because some computers, running older versions of windows, or are missing windows components, will not be able to run the .MSI file and for this reason the company will also provide the .EXE file, which will run on any computer.

if thats not the explanation, then it would have to be that the .MSI file is simply compressed and nothing more.

Or the explanation is both, compatibility and compression.

 

[Nothinman]

So the question is: Why do companies provide the user with both? I would guess its because some computers, running older versions of windows, or are missing windows components, will not be able to run the .MSI file and for this reason the company will also provide the .EXE file, which will run on any computer.

AFAIK if you don't have the Microsoft Installer already installed it won't buy you anything other than telling you to install it. I believe they just include it because people are used to clicking on setup.exe.