Why Are So Many Software Downloads OTA?

[larrytucaz]

One trend I've noticed lately--or maybe it's been going-on longer than I've noticed and I'm just now catching up--is the tendency of software providers to have you install a program over-the-air, using an "installer" EXE that you download which then downloads the software for you, as opposed to your downloading the entire contents in one file at one time.

As a result, you can't install the same software on more than 1 PC using the same file on a USB flash drive, optical disc etc--instead for each machine you have to download all over again every time. If you're setting up a PC and don't have Internet on it yet (in a non-service area, don't have networking setup correctly yet etc), you're totally out-of-luck. Or, if you prefer the older version of a software for whatever reason, or it's a program that is no longer supported etc, you can't archive it to still be able to install it regardless.

A good example of where it's beneficial (many of you probably already understand but just in case) I have the drivers for my netbook downloaded (as "fulls") so I didn't need a working Internet connection with it to get going, I had already downloaded the EXE files and put them on a USB flash, and got it going offline. I have an old file-manager program called Powerdesk, the free version; it goes back to 2001 or so, and I've not seen where the vendor is still providing that software anymore. I still have the EXE file and can still install it, even on my Windows 7 machine, despite its apparent "discontinued/no longer available" status.

The over-the-air (OTA) setup is fine for, say, automatic updates of Windows or virus protection, etc, but for a stand-alone, it's very annoying. Besides, even with Windows Update, there are workarounds I've found which allow a person to download Windows updates to a folder for archiving-manual installation so you don't have to download all of that again each time (given the 400+ megabytes that can amount to depending on how much updating you need to do, it makes a huge difference).

This over-the-air configuration trend is one of my main gripes, and may I simply ask--why are they doing it this way nowadays? I absolutely hate it. Or, better yet, any way to "capture" the files as they're downloaded so you can make a "full" executable yourself?

LRH

 

[DaveSimmons]

> why are they doing it this way nowadays?

Here are two reasons, there are probably others
1. Resuming broken downloads, IE doesn't do this itself
2. Selective downloading, skipping parts that aren't needed (already installed, optional and the user said "no," or applies to other OS version)

Microsoft often has a separate link to download the full install instead of a stub installer, so do some other companies.

 

[corkyg]

OTA can be risky if care is not taken to avoid email links. It also is a non-starter if you do not have good broadband access, i.e., when on the road abroad or paying big time by the minute satellite access.

 

[larrytucaz]

> why are they doing it this way nowadays?

Here are two reasons, there are probably others
1. Resuming broken downloads, IE doesn't do this itself
2. Selective downloading, skipping parts that aren't needed (already installed, optional and the user said "no," or applies to other OS version)

Microsoft often has a separate link to download the full install instead of a stub installer, so do some other companies.

Yes. There may be some advantages, but then again there are advantages for getting the "full" as I mentioned. Every software should be offered that way as an option, the non-OTA version, just in case. I've dealt with software packages lately that don't allow the full, and it's a trend I hate, not having the option. I've taken to fussing at companies about it.

 

[JackMDS]

There are variety of reasons for it. Some are Positive, some ar Negative (few were mentioned above).

Personally speaking, if it is Free, it the author's prerogative to do what ever he wants with his product, and it is my decision whether I take advantage of the offer, or not, so there is No point for complaining.

If it is Commercial for pay software.

I would never buy software that does not provide me with a solid stored original as backup.

.

 

[0roo0roo]

you mean online installer?

 

[Gunbuster]

It allows them to change the crap that often hitch hikes with the main app. Say MSN agrees to pay for 10k installs of the bing toolbar. Once they hit that number they can change it to something else.

 

[larrytucaz]

Yes (0r000r00) I mean online installers. I do NOT like them, at all.

Actually (JackMDS)--and I say this respectfully--but I think it is totally CORRECT to complain, especially when I've seen plenty of other programs (including freebies) that don't do this (force install over-the-air), yet when at the same time we collectively go from very few companies doing this to more & more doing it. Not all change is good, and when it's not good one shouldn't embrace just because it's change and "change is good." Not all of it is, and to notice this and call attention to it--it's totally appropriate.

And I did do something about it--the company that does this will SELL you the full-executable on CD. I bought it on eBay instead, for the principle of it, and if I can ever figure out how to "capture" the contents of the free over-the-air installation into a single RAR or ZIP, I may well upload it to a file hosting website. (Not here, obviously, but elsewhere, I may well do so.)

Thanks (Gunbuster), you've mentioned another gripe of mine--those dang toolbar installers. Even my beloved Infranview has it. All of it is starting to get me to advocate for something I've always fiercely argued AGAINST previously--government intervention. If it were up to me, "if I were King for a day" as it were, software vendors would be forbidden from making their software over-the-air only, and they wouldn't be allowed to have toolbar add-ons with it either. AND, they wouldn't be allowed to charge for their software based on those stipulations alone. (In other words, no "free" if OTA or with toolbar added, but $15 without--it would be the same, free or $15, regardless.)

I hate any form of advertising, including DVDs which lockdown users from fast-winding past the junk at the beginning, including cable TV where the subscriber is paying for access (as opposed to free broadcast TV), but anyway--I'll keep that short.

Anyway.

I sound like a "those were the days" old fogey, but really--whenever I download & install programs that meet both requirements, I'm like--now THAT'S the way it ought to be. Too often, those programs that meet those requirements are older programs. Yet I applaud ones like Mozilla, which give you the full executable and with NO nagging about toolbars whatsoever.

At any rate, again--I have seen before where sometimes you can find the "full" installation of such a program elsewhere, where someone has apparently managed to "capture" all the files and create their own full-installer. How does one do that?

 

[Red Squirrel]

I've noticed this too, and I HATE it. I rather download the entire package, once, and install as many times as I want. I also hate the fact that 99% of programs even need to be installed. Why not just zip it up in a stand alone package? That would be so much better.