View Full Version : Standalone Builder

06-05-2006, 07:13 PM
Did I read the release notes correctly? "InstallShield Premier Edition offers special features that are not available in the other editions of InstallShield: the Repackager project conversion tool, additional InstallShield Collaboration licenses, and the Standalone Build."

Is there no longer a standalone build now Professional like there was for every previous version of InstallShield? How can do I my automated builds on a dedicated build machine?

I really I hope I read this wrong or there is a mistake here.



Christopher Painter
06-05-2006, 08:06 PM
"Clean Build System" is listed as a capability for both Premier and Pro. I'm not sure what you read but it's a mistake.

06-05-2006, 08:22 PM
Thanks..that is good to hear

That was a direct quote from the release notes so those probably need to be updated at http://support.installshield.com/kb/view.asp?articleid=Q112040

Its also not available from the Online Update (whereas the other components such as merge modules and legacy objects already are). Should it be listed there now?



Christopher Painter
06-05-2006, 08:38 PM
Interesting release notes.



This feature comparison shows both Premeire and Professional having clean build capabilities.

06-05-2006, 08:41 PM
But on the marketing page - http://www.macrovision.com/products/flexnet_installshield/installshield/editions/premier.shtml it states that "Standalone Build Engine — A Premier-Only Feature"

Why would this be?


06-05-2006, 10:24 PM
The stand-alone build is only available in the Premier edition of InstallShield 12.

Existing licensed users of the stand alone build from the Profession editions of IS 10, 10.5, 11, and 11.5 will have acccess to the IS12 stand alone build as well.

Thank you for pointing out the mis-leading information on the web site. The web site information will be modified to show that the stand-alone build is only available in the Premier edition for new customers.

Chris Page

06-05-2006, 10:27 PM
And you are taking away this functionality because??? Are existing clients grandfathered in to retain this functionality? Why should existing clients upgrade when we lose this functionality? This is the first I had heard of this. Did you talk to any of your existing clients? If we as an ISV removed functionality, our clients would scream at us. Is the motivation here just to squeeze another $1000 out of your clients?

Christopher Painter
06-06-2006, 08:24 AM
This is a MAJOR problem. Functionality that existed at one tier should not be moved to a higher tier. What about people on maintenance contracts?

I'm supposed to present an executive summary justifying an upgrade to IS12. This just made my job alot harder. We don't need any of the functionality in premier. This feels like a money grab. The best I can reccomend is to buy 1 copy of premier to get our 10 SAB licenses.

Christopher Painter
06-06-2006, 09:15 AM
Also of great concern is SAB protected by FlexLM? We work on isolated network and build using Virtual Machines. If DRM is going to make this difficult this will be a major issue.

06-06-2006, 12:20 PM
As mentioned, those users who have existing licenses from IS 10 or later will have access to the download. The KB is currently in the works right now - so watch out for it on the last updated KB list :)

06-06-2006, 12:27 PM
Thanks for the information.

I would still like an explanation as to why this decision was made from InstallShield.

To me this is a very scary precendent that is being set. Who is to say that the in some future version Macrovision/InstallShield will make an arbitrary decision that other features wont be part of the Professional edition and you will need to purchase the "Premier" version for InstallScript functionality or to be able to use the objects or whatever.

Also, I would like to be assured that this policy wont be changed for future versions of InstallShield and existing clients will be able to perpetually obtain the build system for future versions.

06-06-2006, 01:07 PM
We simply cannot make a guarentee in the future regarding which edition of InstallShield that certain features are going to be in. We are very aware of the sensitive nature of making adjustments to our product editions regarding which features are available in each. And we never intend to cause any bad feelings with our customers. That being said, we do have a business responsibility to run a successful business while serving the needs of our customers at the same time.

In this particular case, we decided that customers who have purchased IS Professional versions 10.x and higher should have access to the stand alone build. However, for new customers, since there is a lot of value in this feature, it makes sense that this feature would be in our most valuable version of our product, the Premier edition.

Also, in the case of the stand alone build, we have not removed support for this feature, we have just limited the product versions that this feature is included in, so all potential customers still have the stand alone build solution available, if they desire to purchase it.

We must always reserve the right to make adjustments to our products versions, or we could never run a successful business. We always try to satisfy the goals of making our customers happy and producing enough revenue so that we can continue to make the investments in development that will allow us to put out versions of InstallShield in the future. And we are always open to input from our customers regarding how we are doing against these goals.

Thank you,
Chris Page

06-06-2006, 01:09 PM
Thanks for IS reassuring the SAB availabiilty for Professional edition of IS.

Can IS or Macrovision reassure us that SAB is not FlexLM protected as concerned by Christopher?

We did ask SAB questions during beta test, but nowhere mentioned this feature has been moved out professional edition.

I thought IS 12 is a very good product during the beta test, compared to previous release. While, now I have to wonder: How come are you removing features from this product? What will be next?

I am still supprised and puzzled why SAB is not part of the Professional IS product.

Even Microsoft has given MSBuild away so that people can compile and build without development environment on a controlled clean machine.

Worried royal customer,

Qingsong :confused:

06-06-2006, 01:11 PM
There have been no changes to the licensing enforcement model for the stand alone build with IS12. So, you will find that the IS12 stand alone build operates the same as IS 11.5 with regard to installation and licensing.

Chris Page

Christopher Painter
06-06-2006, 02:32 PM
I'm royally confused then. According to IS KB articles SAB12 can be downloaded from Saturn without any registation. If there is no DRM then how can the 10 licenses be enforced? IE why bother saying it's only Premeir... seems like all we did was cause some panic among the users.

Edit: I just downloaded SAB12 and noticed it has a license check. I know IS9 and IS10 SAB didn't do this. I don't have 11.5 so I don't know.

I can't think of what the serial check is for. It can't be validating just Premier keys since the EULA says Pro Users of 10.x/11.x are licensed also.

Stefan Krueger
06-07-2006, 04:57 PM
I can't think of what the serial check is for. It can't be validating just Premier keys since the EULA says Pro Users of 10.x/11.x are licensed also. I haven't looked at this yet, but maybe in case of the Professional serial number it has to be for version 11.5 or lower (so it wouldn't accept IS 12 Pro serial numbers).

06-14-2006, 05:41 PM
I think most of the people on these boards are aware of what it takes to run a successful software comapny as a large percentage of InstallShields customer base is are software developmet companies. So when you tell me that alienating a precetage of your clients was done to keep your buisness successful I raise an eyebrow.

I am hoping this was an oversight and something InstallShield might want to reconsider. It definately makes an impact as to whether my company continues to use the InstallShield products in the future.

06-14-2006, 05:54 PM
I think Michael stated that very well. I too "raised an eybrow" or two when that statement was made. Removing features and alienating customers isn't a good business practice and in my opinion is more likely to hurt your business instead of making it more successful. But hey, this is just one software developers opinion. Others have voiced displeasure in this move already. If you feel the same way post it here and let Macrovision know it.

Shane Jimmerson

06-15-2006, 12:07 PM
I must agree with some of the other posters here. Currently I do use Premier, and I have been using installshield since version 4, and IS for Windows installer 1.2. After reading this, and a few of the other threads, here and in other places, I have started discussing with my release engineering team what our other installation software options might be.

Currently we are on version 11, and it's just barely a year old. Yet I can't even find it to download anymore from installshield's website. They have released 2 versions in a year, and support for 11 is already being faded out. I've reported a couple bugs, only to get the answer that it will be fixed in a future version, but not in a hotfix/service pack.

Having to buy a maintenance agreement just so I can upgrade my software every 6 months is crazy. The software I am writing the installer for has a longer development cycle, and upgrading Installshield in the middle of it is not really an option I want to even consider.

Now they go and remove one of the most basic pieces, standalone builder. So if I want to have a clean machine, I have to buy 2 copies of IS, or buy premier???

Like I said, I am in the research phase to find out what other installation software will fill my requirements, as I don't want to lose another important development tool if I don't happen to use the most expensive version.

06-19-2006, 07:43 AM
I also agree. I am also a long-time user of InstallShield, and I dare not even think of much money I have spent on all these upgrades. There is absolutetly no reason to have more than ONE major release per year. The problem is that the quality of the software is so bad that you are forced to have a maintenance agreement or you won't be able to use the software at all. With every new release there are some old bugs fixed, but many reported bugs still remain and new are introduced (that worked fine in earlier versions). This is the way InstallShield work to squeeze every dime from you. Now they wanna force you to go with the most expensive version just to get a basic standalone builder, which is a must for any serious company.

As you can guess I am also looking for another tool. 8-(

06-19-2006, 03:50 PM

In regards to your comment:

The problem is that the quality of the software is so bad that you are forced to have a maintenance agreement or you won't be able to use the software at all Can you provide any specifics? Let us know what doesn't work and we'll fix it.

Christopher Painter
06-19-2006, 04:45 PM
I had a long example and IE blew up on me! :(

We had an experienced C++/IS5 developer on loan to us and we put him to work refactoring VBS CA's to InstallScript. He immeadiatly had a hate list of things he noticed in IS12:

1) EXPORT / export ... bugs where the compiler doesn't complain and the IDE won't link the IS function name to the IS CA. Even after you fix the problem a restart is IS is sometimes needed.

2) Menu Bar | Build Debug is clearly *NOT* F5 as advertised. Build Debug would invoke the IS Script Debugger but F5 won't.

3) For that matter how come RUN and DEBUG will tell you that you need to rebuild your media and MSI Debugger ( clearly what F5 really is ) won't.

4) Any he ( and I ) thought that the InstallScript Editor should have "Confine Caret to Text" as the default.

5) Compile ... doesn't tell the user that it's streaming the compiled and linked script into the MSI database anymore. It clearly is though but caused some panic for awhile.

6) MSI Debugger ... why can't you right click and add/remove breakpoints?
For that matter, why isn't there a toolbar strip for these functions? It's a real pain to have to click through the menu bar or memorize and trust the shortcut keys are correct.

These were just a few quick obersvations using just one part of the program.

06-19-2006, 04:47 PM
I noticed I didn't get the Standalone build in my IS12.

I have been a loyal customer and have had versions 5.5, 6.3, 7.0, 10, 11, 11.5, and 12. I don’t think I should be penalized by having the standalone build taken away from me just because I didn’t get version 10.5. :mad:

Christopher Painter
06-19-2006, 04:49 PM
I noticed I didn't get the Standalone build in my IS12.

I have been a loyal customer and have had versions 5.5, 6.3, 7.0, 10, 11, 11.5, and 12. I don’t think I should be penalized by having the standalone build taken away from me just because I didn’t get version 10.5. :mad:



Then read response #15 and let me know if you still need help getting IS SABLD 12.

06-19-2006, 05:10 PM
My mistake...
I downloaded the standalone build and it installed with my serial number.
Sorry about that.

Christopher Painter
06-19-2006, 08:29 PM
We simply cannot make a guarentee in the future regarding which edition of InstallShield that certain features are going to be in.


I'm afraid that you just said enough for me to never, ever buy a Maintenance Plan again.

There is no way I can justify spending hundreds upon hundreds of dollars a seat per year to fund future development that may or may not include the features that previously existed in the version that I already own.

I've given InstallShield alot of slack over the years with their 6month "point' release cycles because I just accepted the cost of maintenance as the price of doing business. But now that I'm being told that critical pieces of functionality can just be cherry picked and taken away at will, there is no way that I will continue to do so.

I remember meeting with Robert Dickau one cold February back in 1998 for an InstallShield 5 Professional training session. At the end of the class we met with an IS Program Manager who asked what we would like to see in future versions. My response was that we needed SCC integration and a clean build machine solution.

We've had that functionality for years now. Microsoft gives that functionality away for free with MSBUILD. InstallShield is really making the wrong call here. The only worse possible call would be to extend the FLEX DRM onto the SABLD.

06-19-2006, 11:42 PM
It's not unprecedented. Remember InstallShield X - you were forced to buy the expensive Premier edition (with all the Linux and other non-Windows stuff, even if you didn't need it) just to receive Windows language packs. Otherwise you were stuck with one language only.

Previous to that you could buy the lowest version of InstallShield (Windows only) and buy East and West language packs as add-ons.

06-22-2006, 06:23 AM
Is it possible to reply to this thread? I keep getting locked out when replying.

06-22-2006, 06:26 AM
I have tried to reply to this post several times. Each time IE locks up on me.

There are several outstanding issues that are severe.

1. SIOA-000041910 "There is no disk in the drive. " prompt at end of installations (CD distribution only).

2. SIOA-000047161 merge of .reg file fails if .reg file includes some comments

3. SIOA-000052465 Self extracting executable fails for files over 2GB

The first item is most troublesome. I am ok if I don't need to use the InstallShield bootstrapper. I am screwed if I do to check for the MSI engine or DotNet.

Number 2 I spent several days developing a jscript file to run before I make a build that cleans all comments out of the file.

Number 3 - I was told by support to use WinZip for files over 2GB!

Edit Note: IE & NS would lock up each time I tried to use the QUOTE tag. Remove the quote tag and all is good.

Christopher Painter
06-22-2006, 09:48 AM
I need more information on the first one to judge it's severity. The second one sounds like a decent workaround and should probably be fixed. The third one.... whew.... anyone who creates a 2+GB self extracting EXE must really, really like pain! :)

06-22-2006, 10:15 AM
We'll look into #1 and #3. I'm not sure about either one without doing some more research.

I tried #2 with the sample you sent to support and it seems to work fine in 12.0. I briefly looked at the code and one thing I did see is that it assumes all .reg files will have either "Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00" or "REGEDIT4" as the first line (just like it does when you export a .reg file from your local registry). There are subtle differences between the two and thus the importer needs to know the version to parse some of the data correctly. In 11.5, I would try adding the version string in your .reg file to see if it fixes the issue. In general, the importer should definitely handle any comments within the .reg file.

06-22-2006, 10:50 AM
Regarding the third, it sounds like it may be related to Windows Installer CAB File Format Limitations (http://support.installshield.com/kb/view.asp?articleid=Q111252), which is not something we can address short of external compression (which would require a preliminary step of decompressing before starting an install, and would be awful for the file sizes involved).

06-22-2006, 08:53 PM
For #1, the issue is that whenever I include the Setup.exe bootstrapper (for DotNet and/or MSI setup) then I get this prompt at the end of setup. When the user swaps in disc 1 then the whole setup blows up as it tries to close. If I run the MSI directly then the message never appears, so the issue is directly related to the bootstrapper.

For #2, I believe that all the .reg files do include the REGEDIT4 notation as the first line. The issue is that if the first registry key path noted (and the first registry key only) that if there are comments immediately following the first key path then the import will fail. If the line immediately following the first registry key path is a standard name/value notation then all is good even if all the other registry paths contain comments. I have not tried this in 12 yet due to time constraints with my current project (we are close to release).

For #3, The 2GB issue was a request from managment to have a single file download of our application via a distribution like Digital River. As many of you know our application tends to be large due to the mapping data content. I agree that a +2GB file is enormous and that perhaps there is a better method for distribution (I am open to ideas).

For my work #1 is most severe. We cannot distribute any multi-CD / DVD distributions with this problem. Consequently I have to develop another bootstrapper myself to cover the DotNet and MSI engine installations and then launch the basic MSI setup.

06-22-2006, 09:01 PM

I agree, this could be related. None of the individual files are greater than 2GB but when setup tries to compress all the files into a single CAB file then it would be greater than 2GB.

I wonder if there is a way to integrate some download manager? This is probably more of a question for distribution companies like Digital River, but is it possible to have a download for packages like our Topo USA which is nearly 4GB of data, but the link the user clicks on starts a download manager which would start the process of copying all the various CAB files to the customer's computer?


06-23-2006, 10:23 AM
Have you looked into the "Web" Media Type, Install From The Web (preferably without OCI as the additional security in recent IE versions makes it annoying to use)? My understanding is that will let you put an uncompressed install on the web in a fashion where the MSI knows how to download the data CABs from the website in an on-demand fashion. I've not really used it myself, and I don't know if that suits your needs, but it should support a single web entry point which doesn't require a single file.

06-26-2006, 12:18 PM
I see that as a setup type; I would rather not have it as a separate project but a release type.

However, I will give it a look to see what it offers, and to see what cost is involved in converting my MSI projects over to this project type.

06-26-2006, 12:55 PM
I'm actually talking about a release option, at least in Basic MSI projects. It shows up on the fifth dialog of the release wizard (third if you launch off an existing release), titled Media Type. Instead of Network Image or CD-ROM, scroll to the bottom for Web.

08-02-2006, 08:49 AM
I think I'm still missing something. I'm the user of IS 11 premiere edition and I want to install new SAB12. There is written that users of IS 11 profesional can use SAB12 but there is nothing about users of IS 11 premiere. Premiere edition includes all the features of profesional edition, doesn't it? So why I can't pass through the SAB12 installation using my IS 11 premiere serial key?


08-02-2006, 09:59 AM
Right. InstallShield 12 Premier Edition includes everything in the Professional edtion, plus a few extra features. One of those is extra features is the Standalone Build.

Use your InstallShield 12 Premier serial number for the Standalone Build; that should work.

Debbie Landers
Macrovision Corporation

Stefan Krueger
08-02-2006, 01:38 PM
Just to avoid misunderstandings: Version 12 of the stand-alone build tool is available for download for previous users of IS 10.x/11.x Professional who upgraded to IS 12 Professional, because IS 12 Professional no longer includes the SAB. (This means that new users buyiong a full license of IS 12 Pro don't get SAB).
If you are using Premier version 11 you should also use the SAB version 11. You shouldn't mix versions here.
Users of IS 12 Premier are entitled to SAB 12, regardless whether they are upgrading from a previous version or buying a new license.

08-10-2006, 06:35 PM
I have a long list of problems with InstallShield that never get fixed and am pretty outraged that the stand alone builder is new included in only the premier edition. I know I come to this thread late in its life, but that is because I only now am able to consider upgrading to IS12, having just finished a release of our product.

One of the fundimental problems in InstallShield is that it is constantly assuming the interactive construction of installers and patches when all well-disciplined software shops use automated build and test processes that minimize human interaction. The shift of Stand Alone build to premier-only status is an extension of this philosophy, and a very cynical commentary on the state of software practice. Charging the Premier rate for something that EVERY shop should be doing, seems counter to the effort to truly professionalize the software industry. It is cynical because it assumes that shops that DO make the move to a controlled build and packaging process, say as part of a CMM effort, have deep pockets. While this may be true of those pursuing the CMM approach, this is NOT true of many "best practice" software companies.

Does Macrovision automate its build and packaging processes?

As for what is wrong in the InstallShield, I'll give you a top few items but consulting the Support call records would provide plenty of detail. I continue to wait to see ANY problem we've reported actually fixed. Thus far, even releases I am told include one of the very few fixes to one of our problems HAVE NOT FIXED THE PROBLEM.

- Quick Patch does not honor the "Whole Files" flag... various unknown things cause binary differences to be created, even when binary differences cause major errors when applied on top of a prior patch in the patch-chain.

- Still no XML file format for Quick Patch .ism files, and no Quick Patch COM Automation Interface.

- Dynamic File Linking does not support any form of patching other than Quick Patch projects.

Christopher Painter
08-10-2006, 06:51 PM
You've hit on the major reason I don't attempt to do patching. I really like Major Upgrades. :)

08-10-2006, 06:54 PM
I'd love to just do Major Upgrades, as that's what I do for all of our releases, but we have a business requirement to issue patches. When I asked what a patch is, the answer is: Something small that can be easily downloaded, quickly, and installs quickly without disturbing the files not being patched. I don't see a way to qualify a Major Upgrade as a patch, though it sure would make MY life simpler. Lacking that, Quick Patch perfectly meets the business definition of a patch. Too bad it is so badly broken and Macrovision seems not to be committed to fixing it.