Installer that does .exe installation possible?

[Pablos544]

Hi,

I got a little script that just uses FileInstall() to do a couple of simple .exe installations.

I was wondering if it's possible to do fancy things like:

• create Program Manager Folder
• create shortcut link to .exe to be installed in Start menu

So far I've only found AutoIt3 gives you FileInstall(), and DirCreate()

Is this about all I can hope for? 

Cheers, Pablo.

[Jos]

I don't know what you mean with " Program Manager Folder ", but folders can be created easily as are shortcuts.
Just check the helpfile for the thing you want to do and look at the examples.  Post back when you have questions.

Jos

[Pablos544]

Jos of course you're right.  I forgot Program Manager folders in Windows 95 onwards were simply 'normal' folders.

Dur... sorry  but I'm really thankful to you for clarifying.  You're a life saver

All the best,Pab.

[Jos]

  On 5/16/2017 at 6:54 PM, Pablos544 said:

Windows 95

Expand  

mmm win95 ...  you're sure you didn't use some 15x3.5 inch floppies labeled Window 3.11 to install that computer?  

Jos

[Pablos544]

yes I did as it happens lol 

[Jos]

Says something about your age as does mine :-)

[Pablos544]

that's nothing I've got 2 x BBC Micro's (didn't know C64) 

[Jos]

Think the first computer I worked with was a HP 9854A  (1978/79) , which was use in the company I worked for at the time.
It had a Printer and a Plotter connected by means of a clunky I/O bus, but was working nicely. Created several programs with the build in basic.
The good old days.

Jos 

Edited May 16, 2017 by Jos

[Nunos]

Maybe some of those will help?

https://www.autoitscript.com/autoit3/docs/appendix/clsid.htm

https://www.autoitscript.com/autoit3/docs/macros.htm

 

Also could mean shell:startup and shell:common startup or shell:programfiles or shell:programfiles x86

Hope these help. 

[Subz]

Personally I use InnoSetup for creating installers, with files, shortcuts, eula etc... I highly recommend using the QuickStart Pack http://www.jrsoftware.org/isdl.php#qsp as its Gui based and doesn't take long to create a complete install/uninstall very quickly  .

 

[MilesAhead]

  On 5/16/2017 at 10:45 PM, Subz said:

 

Personally I use InnoSetup for creating installers

 

Expand  

+1.  I used Inno quite a bit a few years back.  It is especially nice if you already know Pascal as it uses that for scripting. There is even a nice free styling tool for adding a bit of glitz to the install dialogs.  At least there was.  The Dll for it only added about 1/4 MB to the installer size if I remember rightly. I got away from installers when everyone demanded stuff be "portable."   Tough to go far wrong with Inno though.

 

[Subz]

@MilesAhead I think the Pascal code is if you want to do anything fancy i.e. customized Wizard pages, or run custom checks during the script initialization, but using the Inno Script Studio (included with QuickStart Pack) you shouldn't have to code anything.  The only thing when packaging AutoIt scripts is to either have the compiled AutoIt exe outside the setup.exe file or submit the setup.exe to AV companies as I have found most AV companies don't like AutoIt scripts being packed within the setup.exe.

[MilesAhead]

  On 5/16/2017 at 11:21 PM, Subz said:

@MilesAhead I think the Pascal code is if you want to do anything fancy i.e. customized Wizard pages, or run custom checks during the script initialization, but using the Inno Script Studio (included with QuickStart Pack) you shouldn't have to code anything.  The only thing when packaging AutoIt scripts is to either have the compiled AutoIt exe outside the setup.exe file or submit the setup.exe to AV companies as I have found most AV companies don't like AutoIt scripts being packed within the setup.exe.

Expand  

Right.  With Inno the "macro scripting" to do things the built in functions cannot is a subset of Pascal.  If you know Turbo Pascal or Delphi you will feel right at home writing your own functions/procedures.  Afa as AV scanners I think you are better off just to include a disclaimer that there are bound to be false positives.  As the number of scanners increase the likelihood of false positives rises.  So you can find yourself wasting time exponentially if you try to rework your code so as not to trigger a scanner.  After all, there are more scanners being published every day.  How can you pass tests you do not know even exist?  It gets to absurdity at some point.