[Developers] more clear installation info needed

[dave fournier]

On 11-06-29 11:53 AM, Jim Ianelli wrote:

Don't worry the committee will deal with this in 2015.
> I'll second that.  As one who rarely rtfm, this morning I went to do 
> an installation on a colleague's machine using the latest version and 
> had a very frustrating time.
>
> The steps I took (which I think are natural ones...but that's my opinion):
> 1) went to admb-project.org
> 2) clicked on downloads
> 3) saw 9.1 in "navigation panel"
> 4) thought I should get newer version (maybe a bad thought) so went back
> 5) clicked on 10.1 released in news but then no live links so cut and 
> pasted http://www.admb-project.org/downloads
> 6) got back to step 3)...wtf...
> 7) went to IDE pages (was what I was after anyway)
> 8) got 64 bit version
> 9) installed it on a fast govt 64-bit machine
> 10) tested it and it ran about 4 times slower than my own personal 
> laptop running
> 11) the "new" version also is missing version number when using the -? 
> option.
>
> Whole thing shouldn't be so crappy.
>
> And why so slow?  Compile times and run times using gcc 4.5.2.
>
> Cheers,
> Jim
>
> On 6/29/2011 11:19 AM, Ian Taylor wrote:
>>
>> Hi Developers,
>>
>> I just got an email from somebody who was having trouble installing 
>> ADMB. In my experience it's very smooth and easy, but I think he was 
>> hampered by lack of clear instructions. I'm sure folks are working on 
>> improving the instructions, but at the moment, things are pretty 
>> confusing.
>>
>> The average new user is probably using Windows and surely doesn't 
>> want to mess with source code.
>>
>> If they go to http://admb-project.org/documentation there are no 
>> longer installation instructions, just README.txt. If you open that 
>> file, you have to scroll through a lot of text, past all the 
>> instructions for installing from source code for a half-dozen system 
>> s to get distributions, which says
>>
>> Binary installation instructions can be found at 
>> "http://www.admb-project.org/documentation/".
>>
>> which is no longer accurate.
>>
>> If you type "install" into the search box on the ADMB site, you get a 
>> nice list, including links to the nice old installation for various 
>> systems, including clear steps and figures, but the links on these 
>> pages still point to installers for version 9.1.
>>
>> Also, in the past I think the MinGW installation was described as the 
>> "recommended" version. At the moment, I think that for Windows users 
>> this is still much easier to install than the versions for Visual C++ 
>> or Borland, so might it make sense to still make a suggestion to help 
>> new users who may have no idea abo ut which Another option would be a 
>> simple table listing features or trade-offs of the different Windows 
>> versions to help people pick one.
>>
>> -Ian
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Developers mailing list
>> Developers at admb-project.org
>> http://lists.admb-project.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Developers mailing list
> Developers at admb-project.org
> http://lists.admb-project.org/mailman/listinfo/developers

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.admb-project.org/pipermail/developers/attachments/20110629/99026818/attachment.html>