Are most people going with .zip or .exe files for their downloadable installers? I currently have a self-extracting EXE installer. However, I was just poking around with PADGen and they are pushing zip files (they claim some distributors won't put exe files on their CDs).

Any input on which is best to go with?
-Scorpio

I used to .ZIP files exclusively. But I got tired of explaining to Internet/Windows newbies how to install WinZip (or another Zip file archive program). So now I use an .EXE. For The Journal, anyway. For Artifact, we still use a .ZIP, but that's because we've used the same download URL for over 3 years and I don't feel like changing it.

There was a time, around 1997-1998, when Netscape would screw up d/l-ing an .EXE. .ZIP files didn't have that problem. These days, though, it doesn't seem to matter.

My perception is that all professional programs use self-extracting installers. I don't know how widespread this (arguable) view is though.

The bottom line is what is going to allow greater access to your game.

The nice thing about Exes is that it will work with nothing more than a browsers and if they click on the link, one way or another they will get it running.

However, with Zip you are fundamentally putting up a filter of possible customers. For instance, do a quick survey of all the normal people you know that have computers... ask them what a zip file is and what you do with it. I'm sure you'll find a family member that won't have a clue.

Course the filter works the other way as well. That is you don't want to miss out on opportunities to get it included in other places if they are snobby about EXEs.

So you might want to do both. Might check as see if Pad will let you specify a ZIP and exe in the links. Set up one as a exe and the 2nd or 3rd mirror as a zip?