[Developers] more clear installation info needed

[Johnoel Ancheta]

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/a622d1de/attachment.html>