You have 2 programs to choose. You're an average windows user.
The first one requires a simple one click install.
The second requires downloading a source, which you need to configure make and install yourself. You would also need to download minGW and Msys, and familiarize yourself with linux commands.
Which one you pick?
It's funny when Windows users try to pretend that the fact that their platform doesn't come with a C compiler is a feature and that anyone who'd want one clearly has some sort of personal problem.
Name:
Anonymous2010-07-16 21:55
As a non-average Windows user, I tend to prefer software that was compiled with either MSVC++ or Intel C++.
Cygwin GCC or MinGW GCC is absolute shit, even compared to GCC on other platforms. For whatever reason, MinGW/Cygwin GCC produces code as much as 200% less efficient than GCC on Linux, with the same compilation flags.
Name:
Anonymous2010-07-16 21:58
>>20
this. also, GCC in cygwin and mingw can't create 64-bit windows executables, only 32-bit x86.
I'd pick the installer one, but I usually prefer if they wouldn't require installers at all, just an archive (zip, rar, 7z or something else) with the executables, DLLs and any resources that are needed.
I'd also like to see the source available, in case I'd like to make modifications to it or use it in some more advanced form, or just understand its functionality better(I'm fine with reverse engineering binaries if source is not available, if I need to confirm that something is safe or better understand it). Requiring MinGW or Cygwin is fine, but it'd be even better if they allowed other compilers to work (MSVC, ICC, ...), but that would mostly lock them to C89 and C++, so I can see why someone might not provide support for that.
As a Windows user, I've installed both binary only(installer or archive), and open-source software that you have to build yourself(either with msvc, cygwin/gcc, mingw, and others), along with plenty of other source-only software(non-C). Worst cases that I've seen so far with source-only software is when people use really unportable assumptions in their code which would break on Windows (mostly *nix-only assumptions beyond what cygwin/mingw would provide) and require me to make modifications/patch the software extensively for Win32 support...
Oh wait, disregard what I said, I'm not an average Windows user.
>>28
MS had a package manager for their own apps since pretty early (Add-remove programs). What they didn't have was the option of putting other people's app in their own OS. Frankly, I wouldn't even want that, why should Microsoft have to deal with all the mess that comes with that (verification of the software, some maybe even proprietary or suspicious, verification that the components are proper, possibly some silly policing and much more). It's fine like it is today, open, but not too open. I don't want a fucking App store for Windows.
>>32
Did you consider how much of a mess this would be for Windows?
There are a lot of proprietary applications. Microsoft would have to hire people to reverse engineer every damn release to make sure they're not harmful (scanning with AVs is not enough). They'd have to add some signature/auth checking. How would they decide what apps go in and what don't? They'd have to do some policing, which is another huge mess. They'd also have to require people make installers in some special way as to be compatible with the package manager (probably MSI with the option to silently install). What about install paths, this isn't unix-like, so applications get their own directories, while some things may be installed globally (like some runtimes that other applications also need).
This may work to some extent with open source software, but it'll probably be a huge mess on Windows, not to mention I don't want Microsoft to be doing policing stuff like Apple does.
There are a lot of proprietary applications. Microsoft would have to hire people to reverse engineer every damn release to make sure they're not harmful (scanning with AVs is not enough). They'd have to add some signature/auth checking. How would they decide what apps go in and what don't? They'd have to do some policing, which is another huge mess. They'd also have to require people make installers in some special way as to be compatible with the package manager (probably MSI with the option to silently install). What about install paths, this isn't unix-like, so applications get their own directories, while some things may be installed globally (like some runtimes that other applications also need).
so basically it'd be exactly like apple's app store, except with microsoft in charge instead of apple.
>>30 I don't want a fucking App store for Windows.
I heard they have one planned for Windows 8 or 9.
>>28 Microsoft is building an open package management system for Windows.
That crap is just filled with XML and PE-based installers instead of actual program packages.