Symbolic links to other drives are remarkably easy to set up on Windows. I use this on a regular basis, as I share your small SSD/large HDD setup. You create them by opening a command prompt in administrator mode and using mklink /D

http://en.wikipedia....S_symbolic_link

Oh sure, the links are easy enough to make.


Creating the links to replace "C:\Program Files" and related folders is the hard part as windows does not play nice when you want to touch those folders.

The single correct way to install software in my opinion would be to not install it at all. Installing in this case would mean to copy the folder containing the program from the CDROM to some location on your harddisk or unpacking a zip file that you have downloaded.
...
...

Basically this is what Ive said for years (decades) I reckon I could find a post of mine here from >10 years ago saying this.

MS cocked up huge with the way they designed it, true it sort of made sense back in the day (with limited HD/mem space), like filenames being 8.3 characters long
but it was obvious from the word go mem/HD space will increase at a much faster rate than program size would. And it has turned out thus.
That bad choice has come back and bitten MS in the ass, its part of the reason apple OS's have the reputation of just working, they made the smart choice.
Even nowadays I occasionally see dll hell trying to run an app. gahhh, things should just work!

Yeah, on Win7 I guess you use symlinks (mklink), mounted volumes and unattended setup to manipulate which stuff gets placed where. Or you could try changing the default "Program Files" paths in the registry like in this guide:

http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/39689-program-files-directory-change-default-installs.html

Being computer literates, we should all be able to figure these things out

Oh sure, the links are easy enough to make.

Creating the links to replace "C:\Program Files" and related folders is the hard part as windows does not play nice when you want to touch those folders.

When I've done this, my workflow looks like this:

• Install 12GB program to C:\Program Files
• Move 12GB directory to D:\Whatever
• Run mklink to link it back to its original location
  As long as you have at least enough space to install your programs one at a time, it works like a charm.

[quote name='Luckless' timestamp='1310772767' post='4835834']
Oh sure, the links are easy enough to make.

Creating the links to replace "C:\Program Files" and related folders is the hard part as windows does not play nice when you want to touch those folders.

When I've done this, my workflow looks like this:

• Install 12GB program to C:\Program Files
• Move 12GB directory to D:\Whatever
• Run mklink to link it back to its original location
  As long as you have at least enough space to install your programs one at a time, it works like a charm.
  [/quote]
  
  I had been trying to find a way to just use a single link for the entire program files folder while keeping all of its protections in place, but I think your way would be the easiest. Maybe just work out a little script to grab anything new and move it over.
  
  Thanks.

Sarcasm aside, matter of fact is that install location is an irrelevant technical detail that will overwhelm 99% of all non-technical users. It is also a way to phenomenally screw up an install when you don't know what you're doing (keep in mind that we technically literate users are a small minority). Why increase workload on support lines and make your main user base confused/unhappy just to please maybe 0.1% of power users ? Not asking for install location makes indeed perfect sense for an installer. You wouldn't believe how many people try to install software on a DVD drive or USB key without even realizing it.

What doesn't make perfect sense is the whole installer framework on OS side. It should not be the reponsability of the installer to decide on install location. All that should be handled transparently by the OS, configurable through policies for power users and/or administrators.

Although there could be good reasons for specifying a different install path, especially if we are talking about products that is intended for advanced users or professionals. But for the most part I agree. The problem with Google and Adobe products is that their deployment strategy does not follow recommendations outlined by Microsoft. For instance, Chrome is very minimal with the install procedure, but Chrome installs itself under the user's profile directory, as opposed to the Program Files folder as expected. Worse still, some of these applications leave orphaned files (after patches, etc) that can accumulate a few hundred megabytes.

On a side note, I have to say the Windows Installer system is actually not bad, and works quite well when used properly by the vendor. Unfortunately, it's a bit of a PITA to work with. I only used WiX, which is powerful, but I wish there was a more straightforward system to build MSI deployment packages. If anyone has suggestions, I'd love to hear about them.

But really, what is wrong with having an installer that works like this:

1. When launched you are given a page that details WHAT the program is.
"Foobar Tool Set
An aid to all your Foobar needs"

2. Have two buttons at the bottom: A) Advanced Install, "For Advanced User Only", B) Automatic Install, "Handles all the install options for you."


And look at that, you have magically avoided all the issues with an installer being 'hard'. It tells the user WHAT they are trying to install so that they know this is actually what they wanted, and magically gives users who need to install stuff else where the option to do so. Anyone who can still manage to screw that up simply shouldn't be allowed on a computer in the first place.