Silent versus Basic MSI

Silent versus Basic MSI

Hi, I've run in to a minor snag with the MSI installer side. There's a chance though that Windows Vista is to blame though (I don't have a 7 machine yet, so I don't know if this is something that has been changed). I've tried running my installer either of these ways: MySetup.msi /qn msisetup /i MySetup.msi /qn Both start and exit within a short period of time without installing. The problem is my MSI is unsigned, and Vista annoyingly wants to prompt the user if it's okay to install. With that in mind, this works (with a single confirmation click from the user): MySetup.msi /qb msisetup /i MySetup.msi /qb So it does support automated installation. I don't think I saw anything in requirements that said you needed a signed installer. Is this okay? Thanks, Mike Kasprzak Sykhronics Entertainment www.sykhronics.com
11 posts / 0 new
Last post
For more complete information about compiler optimizations, see our Optimization Notice.

I also using Vista. & i'm getting that message to approve the installation. I think it's not the problem. Anyway other members please share your opinion.!

Hello All,

please give it a go and submit it this way. If there are any problem with that signed message the validator will respond to you. Thanks.

Best Regards,

Andre B.

Intel® Atom™ Developer Program

Michael,

Perhaps this will help, although it is speculation at this point.

The Atom store will likely be calling our MSI installers with a few parameters, including /qn. From that point, it should run with the same security context (impersonation) as the App Store. More than likely the prompt will not appear, and if it does this is the way Vista works and is not listed as a validation failure in any documents that I have read.

Well, maybe if it's possible to give an application administrative launching permissions on Windows. Maybe that's possible, I don't know. Not something I need to be concerned with, since I'm not writing a store. :)

"/qn" does work for me on my XP Netbook. So other than giving Verisign $500, I've done all I can at this point.

Did you remember to remove all Dialogues form the User Interface portion of your Package and Deployment project?

Ahh, I guess not. I never thought to check the view menu for those. Oh well, if that what the criteria wants, I'll hear back from the validator.

You can get less expensive software signing certificates from Comodo (among others): http://www.comodo.com/business-security/digital-certificates/code-signing.php

Also, not signing you app gives a really scary warning message to Windows 7 users (or fails on silent) so, really, it's probably a good idea to do this. See this article for some background: http://www.wintellect.com/CS/blogs/jrobbins/archive/2007/12/21/code-signing-it-s-cheaper-and-easier-than-you-thought.aspx

+1 for Comodo. Definitely worth it if you have several pay applications.

-1 for Comodo, I've had *terrible* experiences with them in the past. The certificates are fine but their support is horrible. A couple of years ago I wasted three weeks trying to renew my Comodo certificate, and it was a bureaucratic nightmare.

I eventually gave up and switched to Verisign, who issued me a certificate in a couple of days. Every time I've needed to contact them their support has been a delight. Yes, they're pricey, but sometimes you get what you pay for :)

For those who would like to specify their certificate budget and get a few reviews of the provider have a look at SSLShopper:

http://www.sslshopper.com/ssl-certificate-wizard.html

Leave a Comment

Please sign in to add a comment. Not a member? Join today