Umm, I don't  think so, GUI installer (graphical installer, where you click) does offer a choice of installation directory. I'm asking the same for CLI (command line installer, where you only type commands).

Ok, that's concerning.

1. Where is it documented?
2. Why do you give your users an option to select installation path via GUI, if it doesn't work correctly? There is no warning in the installer.
3. Why won't everything work with changed installation path? I find it hard to believe for such an advanced software. Most of programs just store installation path under some registry key and use it from there instead of hardcoding Program Files (x86) location.
4. Let's say I want to sacrifice "properly including updates , bug fixes commands and all" and still change the path via CLI. Can I create a feature request for it?

Sorry, but I would rather hear an explicit "Not a feature, not gonna do it", than receive nonsense arguments about non-default installation path not being supported and then get ghosted.

Hello,

Sorry to hear you are having trouble.

In the next update, the GUI will cease to offer a different path for install.  ProgramFiles has the permissions required and hence its use.

No other options will be available for alternate install locations.

Sean Drohan
Stardock Support Manager

As a developer myself, I really do not understand why more software vendors are starting to eliminate the option for a custom installation location. The option to do that has been around since Windows was still in its 3.x versions. Many people like myself prefer to reserve C: drive for the system (OS) only, and install all other apps on a different volume. Taking away this option and forcing users to install a piece of software where the vendor thinks it needs to go feels like a great big middle finger to the customer.

I do understand - but by and large, Sean, the vast majority of software vendors provide the option for a custom installation location and just via environment variables and the Registry alone, Windows provides great flexibility in supporting this. I don't mean to be offensive, but when I see a vendor do this, it comes across as laziness - something done more for the benefit of the developer vs the customer. That being said, Fences is a great product (as attested by my upgrade purchase of v4 earlier this morning, which is how I came to discover the removal of this option) - and if I didn't like it as much as I do (and had not already been using it for several years), I would not use it for that reason alone (as I have other software products).

I've never used the quoting functionality here, so I apologize if I goof it up.

Famous words many times over from those assuming that people need it.

That kinda my point. If an application has that much of an issue with the path of a program's installation location, it stands to reason the issue is with the application design - not the user. From my experience, a large part of an application's codebase is functionality to address all the <insert word of choice here> things that a user can -and probably at some point will- do that they shouldn't do - which should not include restricting them on where they want to install the program.

Birds of a feather flock together, I guess - but that doesn't make it right. I may very well be in the minority with my opinion, but I feel like if I don't express it to the person/entity I'm paying money to for a project or service, then the assumption will continue to be that what is being done is in the interest of "saving people from themselves".

Again, no offense meant - I appreciate your respectful responses and not ignoring them as in many a case with other forums. I take pride in the development work I do, so I speak from a professional standpoint the frustrations I have regarding the decision to remove that option.

Well, this is massively disappointing. So, it is essentially impossible to buy the software for just one user without it potentially breaking other software for my other users. Good Lord am I glad that you had a thirty-day trial before I pulled the plug. 

Oh? So, it is possible to confine installations to specific user accounts? Great. Apologies. Could you lead me to a support site or document which details these steps?

I, too, am a software developer, and it is not a good thing to require Fences to be installed in a certain location, particularly the C drive.  All apps should be able to be installed on any drive and programmers should code so that they work fine from anywhere.  I agree that this is taking the easy way out at the expense of the user.  I install all my tools to other drives and reserve the C drive for the OS.  

Regardless of how you'd prefer to classify it or where you think it should be installed, that doesn't justify removing the ability to select a custom installation location - an ability that has existed in Windows software for decades. Fast forward, now we have a very select few of vendors that think users need to be saved from their own selves because they're deemed too stupid to choose their own installation location.

The decision was not made lightly but we have no regrets after making it.

The amount of support required (time) to resolve issues resulting from clients installing to locations that did not have the proper permissions to run or run consistently \ fully was considerable - so much so that it distracted from the development of the core product(s) itself. 

And in no universe do we see any client as 'stupid'.

Thanks for the feedback.

Sean Drohan
Stardock Product Lifecycle Manager