>Why, isn't the m$ famous by always having open and freely available specs & documentation, to which it religiously sticks?

This is for free, documented and with SDK. Google for "windows installation tools msi".

>I've had instances of M$ stuff being impossible to uninstall, because for that it required the setup first (which was not just setup.exe or an .msi, it usually came with hundred megabytes of stuff) but couldn't find it. Why? M$ provided the setup as a self-extracting zip, which would delete itself when done. And if you extract it again, it's no use, it was stored in registry with full path, which included the temp folder where it was extracted, and that folder had a randomized name. How could it happen? Because the original setup, which needs to be present when uninstalling, and the self-extracting one were written by two companies who don't speak to each other, M$ and M$.

The self expanding crap is not part of the original msi design. And it's wrongly programmed by folks not knowing what they do. Next you blame MS for the interface of gitk under Windows.

>>The reg storing it, the msi database providing it and the MS Installer system is sophisticated and reliable and keeps the system stable. If there would not be those with the cheap installers and those installing code in user data space.
>
>Exactly where m$ told them to put it, a couple of windowses ago.

Win 3.0? Since W2K there is not much change on the system.

>>The good on a msi is, the internal database holds the info for info install as for uninstall.
>
>The inno also provides an uninstaller by default. Don't remember whether it keeps several versions of the things-done file or only the last one, but it does know what it did the last time, at least. Of course, if you ran it a dozen times, for each new version, I guess it remembers only the last one. But then I think msi isn't better in that respect.

If the developer does so. I have a lot of Innos that do not. And Inno is one of the better ones. There is worst. On a msi (ok, finding a self extracted is a pain) it's automatic, and using the sdk from above, one can fix problems with regedit and file explorer. If one is a saint.
The msi remembers just paths by itself. Anything else must be coded. This is why InstallShield is used, msi might do, but this is like knowing all parameters of openssh.

>And, ah, BTW, if you could still have a proper firewall, you'd see that each run of a .msi actually calls home, no matter what.
A drop in the ocean. And it is a useless check for a more recent version of the installer exe.

The real problem with Inno is, it does not store and check the same way as an msi. If you have both on the same file it's a killer. Lazy programmer just pushing a normally msi installed dll in the Inno, because too numb / lazy / inexperienced to include the msi and run it. Like installing the dll next to the exe. I hate this. There is a proper way.