This content requires Macromedia Flash Player 8. Please update your Flash player to enjoy the all the features of this site.
24 May

The Apollo Installation Experience

For a month or two, I have held both Apollo and Silverlight at arms length waiting for the dust and hype to settle a bit before investigating these offerings from Adobe and Microsoft. Now that I have a little time (between projects), I will attempt to install both and describe my experience here in a 2-part article. Part 1 (this part) will describe my Apollo installation experience and part 2 will document my Silverlight experience. Not exactly ‘Apollo vs. Silverlight’, but I suppose if you read the 2 posts back-to-back it might have that effect.

I realize that neither platform is fully baked yet, so I will focus primarily on the installation process and initial impressions, rather than available features and bugs. Also, there are plenty of folks out there stating their positions for and against Apollo and Silverlight, so I’ll leave that argument alone for now.

When the Apollo alpha was first released back in March, I attempted to do a ‘quick install’, but was unsuccessful. A ‘quick install’, as the name suggests, is an attempt to install software (or anything else) with only minimal effort and without reading instructions. You might argue that this is a flawed approach – if all else fails, read the instructions (or RTFM) – but I believe it’s an excellent measure of initial usability that can ultimately impact the success/failure of a product. “Don’t make me think!”, as Steve Krug would say. After all, here it is two months later and I am just now coming back to RTFM and figure out why my first attempt failed.

Apollo Installation – Ok, here we go (again):

1. I will start by navigating to the Apollo page on Adobe Labs where I find the ‘Getting Started’ tab and instructions to ‘Run Apollo Applications’ (I am running Firefox 2.0.0.3, btw).

2. I am instructed to download the Apollo runtime, so I click on that link which takes me to a dedicated download page (away from the rest of the ‘getting started’ instructions).

3. I am now required to check the ‘I have read and agree to the terms…’ box, which I do. BTW, section 3.1 under ‘Restrictions’ in the EULA is pretty interesting. It specifically prohibits installing the runtime on any non-PC device. This could suggest that Adobe is considering a player/runtime licensing model for devices (similar to Flash Lite).

4. I can now select the appropriate download link for my OS (Windows) which opens a dialog window with the option to ‘Save File’. Clicking this downloads a Windows installer file (apollo_win_alpha1_031907.msi).

5. I find the downloaded file and double-click on it. A dialog window pops up that says ‘Adobe Apollo 1.0 Alpha 1′ is installing… But before this process completes, a second dialog pops up that alerts me that ‘A network error occurred while attempting to read from the file:’ followed by the path to the file. I hit ‘Ok’ on the alert which closes both dialogs. I am going to ASSUME that the installation failed and try again. Same result. In fact, now that I think about it, this is the same problem I had when I first attempted to install Apollo back in March.

6. I wonder what the problem might be. I have deleted the original installer and checked in the Task Manager to see if there might be an existing Apollo process – doesn’t appear to be, so I will download the installer again and give it another go. Argh! No luck!

7. I notice that the network error message refers to an installer file name slightly different from the one I downloaded – ‘apollo_win_alpha1_031907(2).msi’ instead of ‘apollo_win_alpha1_031907.msi’. So, I changed the name of the local installer file – added ‘(2)’ – and whaddayaknow! “Installation was successful.” I should clarify here that all of the installer files that I’d previously downloaded had been deleted from my system before attempting to install Apollo (today). So, it is odd that the installer would look for the ‘(2)’ version (which would result from downloading the file twice to the same directory).

8. Great, now I will attempt to check out some of the ‘Sample Applications’. Clicking the link takes me to a page with a few examples to download along with their source code. I’ll try ‘Pixel Perfect’ (it’s my personal motto)… Clicking the link pops up the standard ‘Opening’ dialog with the option for ‘Open with’ defaulting to ‘Apollo. Application Installer’. Clicking ‘Ok’ opens an ‘Application Install’ dialog with several warnings about ‘unverified publisher’ and ‘unrestricted system access’. I ‘trust’ the source, so I click ‘Install’. I am presented with standard ‘add shortcut’ options, though surprisingly, ‘Installation Location’ is fixed. I click ‘Continue’ and choose to run the app on ‘Finish’. Aha! Success!

Ok, I can’t say that installing Apollo was completely painless given the difficulty I had with the file name bug, and some of the nits I picked above, but it worked out eventually.

For my next trick, I will attempt to install Silverlight. Wish me luck!

11 Responses to “The Apollo Installation Experience”

  1. 1
    mike chambers Says:

    Please keep in mind that Apollo is an alpha, and thus a lot of the steps you had to go through won’t be there in the final release (as well as the dialogs)

    Also, an Apollo / Silverlight install comparison seems a little odd to me since they are not really related.

    I think a more appropriate comparison would be Flash / Silverlight.

    mike chambers

    mesh@adobe.com

  2. 2
    Brendan Says:

    @Mike:
    What is up with that? Why can’t people realize that Apollo doesn’t go to the same school as Silverlight? It seems just so damned obvious that Silverlight and Flash are twins separated at birth (and that just one of them got their Superpowers – you pick which!).

    Apollo doesn’t have many peers for comparison – who would you pick?

    Brendan

  3. 3
    Maz Says:

    Basically Silverlight is browser based whereas Apollo has its own desktop platform… So I guess you should pick one of those : WPF, XULRunner, JavaFX…

    I have some of them bubbled in that : http://blog.bubble-mind.com/public/bmind_Webtechno.jpg

    {Maz}

  4. 4
    Craig Babcock Says:

    Hi Mike,

    I can see why you might view this as an apples and oranges comparison. But, it really isn’t my intention to draw comparisons between the two products. My perspective is not that of an organization with a defined business objective, seeking the best solution for my needs. Rather, I am approaching this as a professional developer looking to familiarize myself with a pair of new technologies that may or may not (ever) be ready for primetime. I need to be able to advise my clients if and when a particular solution is viable and understand what it takes to implement it. As for Apollo and Silverlight, I have chosen to start at the beginning – installation. Given that I tried (and failed) to successfully install either one the first time around, I felt that it might be worth while to make a more concerted effort and document the process for both.

    It is not a competition and I have no intention of scoring or declaring a winner ;-)

  5. 5
    Tom Chiverton Says:

    “I will attempt to install Silverlight. Wish me luck”
    I needed it ! When I tried to install it it told me to use a browser I don’t have on an operating system I won’t use :-)

  6. 6
    pod6 - SERENITY NOW! » Blog Archive » The Silverlight Installation Experience Says:

    [...] newest runtime/client technologies from Adobe and Microsoft – Apollo and Silverlight. Yesterday, in part one, I detailed my somewhat difficult, but ultimately successful, installation of Apollo. Today, I will [...]

  7. 7
    Oliver Goldman Says:

    Your installation experience on Windows was confounded by some unfortunate behavior in the Windows Installer. I’ve written up a brief explanation of the problem and what we’re doing to address it in the Apollo beta.

    regards,
    Oliver Goldman
    Apollo Engineering
    Adobe Systems Inc.

  8. 8
    John C. Bland II Says:

    @Brendan:
    Apollo = Desktop. Silverlight = Browser. The comparison is Silverlight to Flash/Flex in the browser. (as Max pointed out)

    @Craig:
    You see the comparison you’re making in your opening paragraph. Although you say you aren’t it is definitely clear that your point is to showcase the install experience of both platforms. If not, they wouldn’t be posted as a part 1 and 2. ;-)

    Also, for an explanation of your issue: http://blogs.adobe.com/simplicity/2007/05/dont_rename_that_msi.html. That should help you see why there is a prob (seemingly Microsoft related). As was noted (by you and Mike), that was an Alpha. ;-) Things are getting better.

    Hopefully your next “install” post will showcase a clean install (as I experienced; very slick).

  9. 9
    Craig Babcock Says:

    John >>
    I took the liberty of fixing the link in your post – thanks for the explanation.

    Oliver >>
    The link is missing from the anchor tag in your post. I notice that you are the author of the explanation referenced by John above, if you would like me to add this link (or another one) to your post, let me know and I will do so.

  10. 10
    Oliver Goldman Says:

    John posted the link that I intended to. Please do add it to the original post.

    regards,
    Oliver

  11. 11
    Keith Ulrich Says:

    I’m not sure I’ve come to the right place, but here goes…

    I just tried to install the brand new beta version of AIR on my Win2K machine. First I uninstalled Apollo, and I checked my Task Manager to verify that it was gone.

    Then I double-clicked the AIR installer executable (air_b1_win_061107.exe) and immediately got this error: “The procedure entry point AttachConsole could not be located in the dynamic link library KERNEL32.dll”

    Help! And thanks in advance.

Leave a Reply

© 2010 pod6 – SERENITY NOW! | Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS)

wordpress logo