Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #98032 > unrolled thread

Re: installer user interface glitch ?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: installer user interface glitch ? Chris Warrick <kwpolska@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 11:06 +0100
    Re: installer user interface glitch ? rurpy@yahoo.com - 2015-11-01 07:43 -0800
      Re: installer user interface glitch ? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 02:52 +1100
        Re: installer user interface glitch ? rurpy@yahoo.com - 2015-11-01 08:24 -0800
          Re: installer user interface glitch ? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 03:43 +1100
            Re: installer user interface glitch ? rurpy@yahoo.com - 2015-11-01 11:41 -0800
              Re: installer user interface glitch ? MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2015-11-01 20:46 +0000
              Re: installer user interface glitch ? Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> - 2015-11-01 22:48 +0100
                Re: installer user interface glitch ? rurpy@yahoo.com - 2015-11-02 07:53 -0800
              Re: installer user interface glitch ? boB Stepp <robertvstepp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 16:28 -0600
              Re: installer user interface glitch ? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 09:38 +1100
              Re: installer user interface glitch ? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-11-01 19:50 -0500
            Re: installer user interface glitch ? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-11-02 12:32 +1100
              Re: installer user interface glitch ? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:50 +1100
          Re: installer user interface glitch ? alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2015-11-03 09:04 +0000
      Re: installer user interface glitch ? Michiel Overtoom <motoom@xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-01 16:54 +0100
      Re: installer user interface glitch ? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-11-01 20:02 -0500

#98032 — Re: installer user interface glitch ?

On 1 November 2015 at 09:23, t_ciorba--- via Python-list
<python-list@python.org> wrote:
>
> hi,
> i am not sure what is wrong, but after launching the installer for windows XPsp3 python-3.5.0.exe i couldnt see what i have to select, it was a white board and the only button on it was "cancel". here is a screen of it:

Windows XP is not supported. Please upgrade to a modern version of
Windows, or switch to Linux. (you could also use 3.4.3, but Windows XP
is insecure, and more apps will follow suit.)

-- 
Chris Warrick <https://chriswarrick.com/>
PGP: 5EAAEA16

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#98050

On 11/01/2015 03:06 AM, Chris Warrick wrote:
> On 1 November 2015 at 09:23, t_ciorba--- via Python-list 
> <python-list@python.org> wrote:
>> 
>> hi, i am not sure what is wrong, but after launching the installer
>> for windows XPsp3 python-3.5.0.exe i couldnt see what i have to
>> select, it was a white board and the only button on it was
>> "cancel". here is a screen of it:
> 
> Windows XP is not supported. Please upgrade to a modern version of 
> Windows, or switch to Linux. (you could also use 3.4.3, but Windows
> XP is insecure, and more apps will follow suit.)

Why, oh why, do the python.org front page and other pages that offer
a Windows download not say a word about it not running on Windows XP?

Even if one is anal enough to go to the page about the 3.5 release.
  https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-350/
a page with a lot of Windows-specific info, there is not a word
about XP.

Or perhaps the number of posts to this list are declining and having
people download Python-3.5, have it fail, and then ask why here is
part of a secret plan to increase list volume?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#98051

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 2:43 AM, rurpy--- via Python-list
<python-list@python.org> wrote:
> Why, oh why, do the python.org front page and other pages that offer
> a Windows download not say a word about it not running on Windows XP?
>
> Even if one is anal enough to go to the page about the 3.5 release.
>   https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-350/
> a page with a lot of Windows-specific info, there is not a word
> about XP.

A partial answer to that is in PEP 11:

https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0011/#microsoft-windows

Windows XP isn't special here. There's no mention of Python 2.7 not
working on Windows 95, because it's simply an unsupported operating
system. The only reason that people keep coming asking about XP and
not (say) Win2K is that there are a lot more XP boxes out there. Do
the other download pages need to stipulate which versions of which
OSes they support, or should that be left up to the installer?

There *is* a plan to have the installer give a better error message
for this situation. But I don't think the web site necessarily has to
have noise about old versions of OSes. Where would you draw the line?

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#98054

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 8:52:55 AM UTC-7, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 2:43 AM, rurpy--- via Python-list <python-list@python.org> wrote:
> > Why, oh why, do the python.org front page and other pages that offer
> > a Windows download not say a word about it not running on Windows XP?
> >
> > Even if one is anal enough to go to the page about the 3.5 release.
> >   https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-350/
> > a page with a lot of Windows-specific info, there is not a word
> > about XP.
> 
> A partial answer to that is in PEP 11:
> 
> https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0011/#microsoft-windows
> 
> Windows XP isn't special here. There's no mention of Python 2.7 not
> working on Windows 95, because it's simply an unsupported operating
> system. The only reason that people keep coming asking about XP and
> not (say) Win2K is that there are a lot more XP boxes out there. Do
> the other download pages need to stipulate which versions of which
> OSes they support, or should that be left up to the installer?

I dont recall seeing anyone posting asking why they could not get 
Python to install on Windows 95 recently.  I only read this group
intermittently but I have seen *many* posts asking why they couldnt
install on XP.

You acknowledge yourself: "there are a lot more XP boxes out there."

> There *is* a plan to have the installer give a better error message
> for this situation.

A better message from the installer is necessary but not sufficient.
Don't make people go through the effort to download the whole thing,
do their planning and preparations for using or upgrading Python 
only to discover at the last moment it wont work.

That is really shitty customer relations.

The reality is that people trying install Python-3.5 on XP *is* a 
problem.  Telling them they should have read some obscure release 
notes is not a solution.

> But I don't think the web site necessarily has to
> have noise about old versions of OSes. Where would you draw the line?

I think my responses above answer that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#98056

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:24 AM, rurpy--- via Python-list
<python-list@python.org> wrote:
> I dont recall seeing anyone posting asking why they could not get
> Python to install on Windows 95 recently.  I only read this group
> intermittently but I have seen *many* posts asking why they couldnt
> install on XP.
>
> You acknowledge yourself: "there are a lot more XP boxes out there."

Yes, there are. This is not a customer base; they are not paying me,
nor (as far as I know) the PSF, to support them.

>> There *is* a plan to have the installer give a better error message
>> for this situation.
>
> A better message from the installer is necessary but not sufficient.
> Don't make people go through the effort to download the whole thing,
> do their planning and preparations for using or upgrading Python
> only to discover at the last moment it wont work.

The largest installer [1] is 30MB, which might have been considered
large a decade ago, but on today's connections, that's probably going
to download in less time than it takes people to search for "python",
find python.org, and decide to click the download link. The web
installer is less than one megabyte. If you can't afford to download a
single meg of executable to find out whether something works on your
system, you probably can't afford to download the page with the info
telling you not to bother downloading the binary.

> That is really shitty customer relations.

See above, and define 'customer'.

> The reality is that people trying install Python-3.5 on XP *is* a
> problem.  Telling them they should have read some obscure release
> notes is not a solution.

Nor is telling them they should have read the web site that they
downloaded it from. Remember, people can click a direct download link
*on the python.org front page* and be immediately downloading Python 2
or 3 for the OS that the browser announces. Where would you put the
big fat noisy warning?

>> But I don't think the web site necessarily has to
>> have noise about old versions of OSes. Where would you draw the line?
>
> I think my responses above answer that.

Not really, no. There are currently a large number of XP boxes out
there, for some definition of 'large'. Presumably that number is
dropping. At what point will it be appropriate to ditch the warning?
And what about older versions of non-Windows OSes - if there are a
large number of people still running an old Mac OS, should we include
something on the front page that warns everyone about a lack of
support? How large is large? I say again: Where would you draw the
line?

ChrisA

[1] Based on the file sizes here:
https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-350/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#98061

On 11/01/2015 09:43 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:24 AM, rurpy--- via Python-list <python-list@python.org> wrote:
>> I dont recall seeing anyone posting asking why they could not get
>> Python to install on Windows 95 recently.  I only read this group
>> intermittently but I have seen *many* posts asking why they couldnt
>> install on XP.
>>
>> You acknowledge yourself: "there are a lot more XP boxes out there."
> 
> Yes, there are. This is not a customer base; they are not paying me,
> nor (as far as I know) the PSF, to support them.

I wasn't asking *you* to do anything. And I wasn't asking for python
to support XP. I'm not sure how you have possibly got that idea.
In fact I wasn't *asking* anyone to do anything.

I was pointing out (the obvious) that there was a problem with people
not understanding that Python-3.5 will not run on XP and suggesting a
low-cost way to reduce that problem.

>>> There *is* a plan to have the installer give a better error message
>>> for this situation.
>>
>> A better message from the installer is necessary but not sufficient.
>> Don't make people go through the effort to download the whole thing,
>> do their planning and preparations for using or upgrading Python
>> only to discover at the last moment it wont work.
> 
> The largest installer [1] is 30MB, which might have been considered
> large a decade ago, but on today's connections, that's probably going
> to download in less time than it takes people to search for "python",
> find python.org, and decide to click the download link. The web
> installer is less than one megabyte. If you can't afford to download a
> single meg of executable to find out whether something works on your
> system, you probably can't afford to download the page with the info
> telling you not to bother downloading the binary.

As I said it is not solely the number of minutes needed to download
something.

And not everyone in the world has high-speed reliable connection.
It wasn't that long ago my internet connection was a modem. And
even today with screaming fast 100KB/s (sometimes) connection I often
have to babysit a download to get it to complete or deal with long
outages. There are plenty of places much less connected than I am.
And of course those are the same places where people are more likely
to still be using XP.

>> That is really shitty customer relations.
> 
> See above, and define 'customer'.

customer: the people to whom you are providing a product or service.

Of course, unless the PSF has a charter that imposes some legal
requirements, PSF/Python development community has no legal
obligation to do anything for anyone. They could add spam-ware
to the installer, make backward incompatible changes on a whim,
release software that crashes when started.

Now could we return to reality please?

>> The reality is that people trying install Python-3.5 on XP *is* a
>> problem.  Telling them they should have read some obscure release
>> notes is not a solution.
> 
> Nor is telling them they should have read the web site that they
> downloaded it from. Remember, people can click a direct download link
> *on the python.org front page* and be immediately downloading Python 2
> or 3 for the OS that the browser announces. 

Where is that? I didn't see anything that wasn't accompanied with text
that could accommodate a windows xp warning. But then I was looking
at it from a Linux machine. And even if it is impossibly awkward to
provide in one case (though I doubt that's the case), there certainly
should be a warning on the windows specific pages.

AFAIK, the only place where dropping XP support is mentioned in the
docs is way down the bottom of What's New. PEP-11 doesn't count --
it unrealistic in the extreme to expect a Windows user who wants to
try Python to read (or even know about) the PEPs, or that one of
them describes supported OSes.

> Where would you put the
> big fat noisy warning?

I would not put a "big fat noisy warning" anywhere. I would put a
minimally sized but clear notice where the windows version of python-3.5
can be downloaded.
 
>>> But I don't think the web site necessarily has to
>>> have noise about old versions of OSes. Where would you draw the line?

What noise? Providing basic useful information to a significant
number of customers/clients/users, information that is not provided
elsewhere in the normal course of their actions, is not "noise".

If you want to get rid of noise, how about ditching corporate-style
PR like "Success Stories", or a big graphic of fibonacci numbers in
python?

It's really sad to see open source projects taken over by marketing
wanna-bees who think PR fluff is more important that actual actionable
information.

>> I think my responses above answer that.
> 
> Not really, no. There are currently a large number of XP boxes out
> there, for some definition of 'large'. Presumably that number is
> dropping. At what point will it be appropriate to ditch the warning?
> And what about older versions of non-Windows OSes - if there are a
> large number of people still running an old Mac OS, should we include
> something on the front page that warns everyone about a lack of
> support? 

Why don't you try answering that question yourself? Start by asking
how many posts to this list asking why the poster couldn't install
Python-3.5 on an old MacOS system you've seen.

> How large is large? I say again: Where would you draw the
> line?

If you insist on a concrete number (I presume so you can pick nits
with it rather than the general proposition), 5 years. Then reevaluate.
Once someone has actually adds a note dispute about whether it should
be there will fade into nothingness and removing it after xp truly
is insignificant will be contentious.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#98063

On 2015-11-01 19:41, rurpy--- via Python-list wrote:
> On 11/01/2015 09:43 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:24 AM, rurpy--- via Python-list <python-list@python.org> wrote:
[snip]
>>> That is really shitty customer relations.
>>
>> See above, and define 'customer'.
>
> customer: the people to whom you are providing a product or service.
>
A customer is someone who receives goods or services in return for some
kind of monetary or other payment.

The PSF makes Python available as-is, gratis.

Those who are downloading Python from the PSF are not "customers".

[snip]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#98066

Actually, adding the XP - do not look here --
message for several webpages has been on the pydotorg
todo list for more than a week now.

Not sure why it hasn't happened.

Thank you for the reminder.

Laura

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#98110

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 2:48:58 PM UTC-7, Laura Creighton wrote:
> Actually, adding the XP - do not look here --
> message for several webpages has been on the pydotorg
> todo list for more than a week now.
> 
> Not sure why it hasn't happened.
> 
> Thank you for the reminder.

You're welcome.  And thanks for the reasonable response.  Everytime
I post to this list it is like stepping into Alice's Wonderland so
it is a nice change.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#98069

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> wrote:
> Actually, adding the XP - do not look here --
> message for several webpages has been on the pydotorg
> todo list for more than a week now.
>
> Not sure why it hasn't happened.
>
> Thank you for the reminder.

I have to confess I do not understand all of the hullabaloo generated
in this thread, but I think it would be helpful if there were an
obviously placed minimum requirements note for the download page.
Something like "Requires Windows Vista or greater ...", etc.  I
imagine many people are like myself, just trying to learn Python and
want the latest version, etc.  Many software products include a
minimum requirements statement on their download page, so--at least to
me--it does not seem unreasonable for the Python folks to do the same.
If nothing else it might reduce the number of recent XP users from
asking the same questions over, and, ..., and over.  Of course if such
people would only type in their issue into their favorite search
engine...  But that is a different issue--heavy sigh!

-- 
boB

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#98070

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 9:28 AM, boB Stepp <robertvstepp@gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course if such
> people would only type in their issue into their favorite search
> engine...  But that is a different issue--heavy sigh!

In their defense, "the installer for Python has a blank window" isn't
nearly as internet-searchable as an actual text error message - plus
the problem exhibits itself in a number of different ways (probably
relating to exactly what parts of XP are available, or something).
Once there's a clear error message saying that this Python doesn't
work on this Windows, it'll be easy for people to look up info on it,
and then find a fully-supported Python 3.4 installer.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#98075

On 11/1/2015 5:28 PM, boB Stepp wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> wrote:
>> Actually, adding the XP - do not look here --
>> message for several webpages has been on the pydotorg
>> todo list for more than a week now.
>>
>> Not sure why it hasn't happened.
>>
>> Thank you for the reminder.
>
> I have to confess I do not understand all of the hullabaloo generated
> in this thread, but I think it would be helpful if there were an
> obviously placed minimum requirements note for the download page.
> Something like "Requires Windows Vista or greater ...", etc.

I agree.  A Minimum Requirements box is pretty standard on both boxes 
and web pages.  For Python, a sentence suffices.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#98079

On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 03:43 am, Chris Angelico wrote:

> Remember, people can click a direct download link
> *on the python.org front page* and be immediately downloading Python 2
> or 3 for the OS that the browser announces. Where would you put the
> big fat noisy warning?

Maybe the website shouldn't do that then.

Seriously, if the browser announces Windows XP, it's probably not a good
idea to download a version which is known not to work with XP...



-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#98080

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 03:43 am, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> Remember, people can click a direct download link
>> *on the python.org front page* and be immediately downloading Python 2
>> or 3 for the OS that the browser announces. Where would you put the
>> big fat noisy warning?
>
> Maybe the website shouldn't do that then.
>
> Seriously, if the browser announces Windows XP, it's probably not a good
> idea to download a version which is known not to work with XP...

Maybe Laura would know how plausible this is, but...

I expect most people who go to the front page are looking for the "one
most obvious download". (Okay, we have two - 2.7 and 3.x - but leaving
that aside.) There's detection of what your OS is, which then selects
an appropriate download file; it'd be really cool if a browser UA that
represents XP would cause the link to point to 3.4 instead of 3.5. Or
would that cause more confusion than it solves?

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#98142

On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 08:24:22 -0800, rurpy wrote:

> On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 8:52:55 AM UTC-7, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 2:43 AM, rurpy--- via Python-list
>> <python-list@python.org> wrote:
>> > Why, oh why, do the python.org front page and other pages that offer
>> > a Windows download not say a word about it not running on Windows XP?
>> >
>> > Even if one is anal enough to go to the page about the 3.5 release.
>> >   https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-350/
>> > a page with a lot of Windows-specific info, there is not a word about
>> > XP.
>> 
>> A partial answer to that is in PEP 11:
>> 
>> https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0011/#microsoft-windows
>> 
>> Windows XP isn't special here. There's no mention of Python 2.7 not
>> working on Windows 95, because it's simply an unsupported operating
>> system. The only reason that people keep coming asking about XP and not
>> (say) Win2K is that there are a lot more XP boxes out there. Do the
>> other download pages need to stipulate which versions of which OSes
>> they support, or should that be left up to the installer?
> 
> I dont recall seeing anyone posting asking why they could not get Python
> to install on Windows 95 recently.  I only read this group
> intermittently but I have seen *many* posts asking why they couldnt
> install on XP.
> 
> You acknowledge yourself: "there are a lot more XP boxes out there."
> 
>> There *is* a plan to have the installer give a better error message for
>> this situation.
> 
> A better message from the installer is necessary but not sufficient.
> Don't make people go through the effort to download the whole thing, do
> their planning and preparations for using or upgrading Python only to
> discover at the last moment it wont work.
> 
> That is really shitty customer relations.
> 
> The reality is that people trying install Python-3.5 on XP *is* a
> problem.  Telling them they should have read some obscure release notes
> is not a solution.
> 
>> But I don't think the web site necessarily has to have noise about old
>> versions of OSes. Where would you draw the line?
> 
> I think my responses above answer that.

I would have to agree, at least in general

1) The web page should always list the Versions of Windows that ARE 
supported.

2) As support for Win XP has only just ceased it should be specifically 
mentioned for V3.5, I would see no need to continue with this for V3.6 +
Likewise Win95 2000 etc. should have been mentioned at the release when 
support was dropped & no further

As adding a "Not supported on Win XP or Win 7 Minimum" notice is such a 
minimal "Bug Fix" I don't see the issue. 



-- 
 _____________________
< U.S. Postal Service >
 ---------------------
   \
    \
        .--.
       |o_o |
       |:_/ |
      //   \ \
     (|     | )
    /'\_   _/`\
    \___)=(___/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#98052

> On 01 Nov 2015, at 16:43, rurpy--- via Python-list <python-list@python.org> wrote:
> 
> Why, oh why, do the python.org front page and other pages that offer
> a Windows download not say a word about it not running on Windows XP?

I'm also curious why Python 3.5 won't run on Windows XP. Which features does it use that require Windows 7 or higher? Or is the decision to not support Windows XP based on Microsoft ending the product support lifecycle for XP?

Greetings,

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#98077

On 11/1/2015 10:54 AM, Michiel Overtoom wrote:
>
>> On 01 Nov 2015, at 16:43, rurpy--- via Python-list
>> <python-list@python.org> wrote:
>>
>> Why, oh why, do the python.org front page and other pages that
>> offer a Windows download not say a word about it not running on
>> Windows XP?
>
> I'm also curious why Python 3.5 won't run on Windows XP. Which
> features does it use that require Windows 7 or higher?

The initial issue was some system functions that are new in Vista.  Then 
came MS's new-with-Win10 toolset that does not support XP.

> Or is the
> decision to not support Windows XP based on Microsoft ending the
> product support lifecycle for XP?

As I explained in another message, it was the other way around, in a 
sense.  As long as MS supported XP, Windows CPython devs either 
refrained from using new not-in-xp features or maintained old 
workarounds.  The has been more or less the same policy for other 
versions of Windows.


-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web