Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

User settings storage debate

(1/6) > >>

Josh:
I was having an interesting conversation with a bunch of you in the donationcoder IRC Channel today and I wanted to post this here for more open debate.

What is the best way to store user settings? With the advent of Windows vista, microsoft is pushing users and developers to move from the age old idea of storing settings in the program's program files folder, to storing them under the individual users profile. With portable applications becoming popular, is this the best idea?

I think it is. The sheer idea that a program should require access to write to its program folder after install, to me, doesnt make sense. Once installed, unless running as an administrator, each application should store is own settings in the users data folder thus to allow for customization on a per user basis, and to help prevent infection should one user install something that turns out to be malware.

On the other hand, portability has become hugely popular. For most applications the need for portability really doesnt exist. I mean, most computers we use have certain applications that only make sense to run from your local PC. However, certain applications are nice to have and use on the go (browsers, word processors, web editors, etc).  But, this also leads to a security risk as any user can take and plugin their thumb drive and load any application thus bypassying the security setup by any systems administrator.

One idea I think should be done is that each application should give the user the option of making the application portable via an ini file which stores the settings for the application so it can be read from disk vice the registry. I've seen several apps allow users to select, on install or through the options dialog, what mode the application is to be installed (portable or fixed). This is one idea.

What are your thoughts security-wise, portability-wise, etc

Perry Mowbray:
On the other hand, portability has become hugely popular. For most applications the need for portability really doesnt exist. I mean, most computers we use have certain applications that only make sense to run from your local PC. However, certain applications are nice to have and use on the go (browsers, word processors, web editors, etc).  But, this also leads to a security risk as any user can take and plugin their thumb drive and load any application thus bypassying the security setup by any systems administrator.-Josh (August 01, 2007, 09:39 AM)
--- End quote ---

Thank goodness!! Otherwise, I'd be sunk at work (where IT have tied our computers up so tightly it's hard to scratch whilst working)
One idea I think should be done is that each application should give the user the option of making the application portable via an ini file which stores the settings for the application so it can be read from disk vice the registry. I've seen several apps allow users to select, on install or through the options dialog, what mode the application is to be installed (portable or fixed). This is one idea.

What are your thoughts security-wise, portability-wise, etc
-Josh (August 01, 2007, 09:39 AM)
--- End quote ---

Having the option is great. I know that ToDoList does it this way, which means USB Drive installations are simple (just extract).

If I was choosing between two similar programmes, being able to install onto a USB Drive would swing me one way or the other (even if I didn't want to install in initially onto a USB Drive), as if I wanted to use it at work it would have to be from the USB Drive.

Armando:
One idea I think should be done is that each application should give the user the option of making the application portable
-Josh (August 01, 2007, 09:39 AM)
--- End quote ---

IMHO, it would be good to be able (as an option...) to store settings BOTH in the program's program files folder and under the individual users profile -- that way, you're covered.

Every software should also have an option to point to (or import) the right configuration folder/file (so that one doesn't have to guess, paste stuff here and there, and pray that everything will work well afterwards).

Ehtyar:
It's all well and good to say applications should make use of both the registry and files, but i fail to see the benefits of using the registry over files (the speed difference is negligible, after all the only reason registry is faster is because the hive files are in memory). The registry has no benefit for the user IMHO, and is only necessary when integration with windows needs to be achieved. Whereas ini is very helpful for those who use portable storage, which as Josh had just mentioned is becoming more and more popular. Also, you might consider the extra work on the part of the programmer, coding for both registry and ini for no apparent reason. Perhaps it would be good if you posted the debate in text format somewhere so that we may see your reasoning behind your preference of the registry.

Ehtyar.

Josh:
My main question is this. Why should a program have to write to its program files folder after install UNLESS its in portable mode? On a local install, the only folder that should be written is the user's appdata folder. That way, as I said before, drastic changes to a program are limited to said user.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page