[Datalore]

I go both ways on this one. I like fat exe's for small little utility programs, the kinds I can just throw in the system32 folder and call via command prompt whenever necessary. But for full-fledge programs like Photoshop, I like installers. Whats your preference?

[Sponsor]

[Jono]

i would agree with you, the smaller utilitys should be 'fat exe's' and larger programs as installers

[CuBie]

Jono, on Apr 8 2004, 05:09 PM, said:

i would agree with you, the smaller utilitys should be 'fat exe's' and larger programs as installers

Yep! I agree!

[Doggie]

fat exe for me.. some installers even have the balls to get the installed files from the net to install.. rather one file downloaded so u dont need to be on the net all the time (56k person here )

[Dude111]

I like EXE's that you download and they just run...

They dont screw up the registry (Are less likely to add entries) and they are much better!

[MillenX]

Fat-exe for small utility

[pm*]

installer is the best way to make better for us


.exe also better but it not awesome like this



i hate .msi completely

[pm*]

.exe & installer are easy to create through the VB & edit through the restorator