🔴 Seeking Feedback: Replacing ImageGlass MSI installer with MSIX

[d2phap]

Since the MSI installer causes a lot of issues about cached libraries (such as #2142) and it can't be debugged on my side, this poll is mostly for advanced users (such as IT admin,...).

I am planning to change ImageGlass installer from MSI to MSIX format. This will affect those who manage the app auto-deployment because they usually run some commands or script from the MSI format. I don't know whether MSIX provides the similar commands as MSI, and I cannot maintain both formats.

The next version of ImageGlass will only contains:

• Portable release: .ZIP format
• Installer release: .MSIX format

Share your thoughts here!

Update Jun 16, 2025

It seems that the MSIX format contains many limitations besides a lot of advantages. I will postpone this plan and continue using MSI format in the future versions. The main limitations:

• Limited MSIX Support: App Installer is not included by default on VDI environments, Windows Server / LTSC
• Unfamiliar IT workflows: auto-deployment via scripting or enterprise software deployment tools (like SCCM, PDQ Deploy, Group Policy, etc.)

[swanknight]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that it's a lot more difficult to silently deploy MSIX compared to MSI?
Either way, I found this comparison, perhaps someone will find it useful:

https://www.advancedinstaller.com/msix-limitations.html

[d2phap]

From https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/msix/desktop/managing-your-msix-deployment-enterprise:

by using available PowerShell cmdlets the installation and uninstallation of an MSIX packaged app can be performed silently.

[Skydea777]

Yes, especially if you are using a third party tool to deploy software in an organization, right now my users seem to get bombarded with Image Glass Notifications because an Update is avaiable and the Standard Viewer is getting constantly reset, man, Windows11 is just such a shitshow...

[xmha97]

Hi,

I really appreciate your hard work on ImageGlass and your efforts to improve the packaging by moving toward MSIX. I fully support this transition, as MSIX solves many long-standing issues, such as file association problems and the app failing to launch after updates due to cached libraries.

That said, I kindly ask you to continue providing the MSI package alongside MSIX for the following important reasons:

---

1. Limited MSIX Support on Enterprise and Server Editions

ImageGlass has users on Windows 10/11 Enterprise LTSC and Windows Server 2016–2025. These editions do not include the App Installer app by default, which is required to install MSIX packages.

---

2. Certificate Installation Required for MSIX

MSIX packages must be digitally signed, and the signing certificate must be trusted by the system.

• Installing certificates can be technically challenging for many users.
• In managed environments or for users without admin privileges, certificate installation may be impossible.
• Most MSIX packages that install smoothly (e.g., from Microsoft Store) are signed by Microsoft, whose certificate is already trusted by Windows. For example, I downloaded Firefox's MSIX package via the Store (using https://store.rg-adguard.net/), and it was signed by Microsoft — not Mozilla.

Additionally, some applications like RetroArch provide both classic installers (NSIS) and MSIX/AppX packages. As noted on their website, manual certificate installation is required to install their MSIX version:
https://buildbot.libretro.com/stable/1.20.0/windows-msvc2019-uwp/x64/RetroArch-msvc2019-UWP_x64.cer

This requirement can cause frustration among non-technical users or those with limited permissions.

---

3. Better Compatibility with Deployment and Automation Tools

MSI is widely supported by enterprise software deployment tools (like SCCM, PDQ Deploy, Group Policy, etc.). Many organizations rely on these tools for scripting and mass deployment, and MSI integrates seamlessly with them.

---

4. MSI is More Suitable for Offline Environments

In environments without internet access, MSI files can be installed without additional dependencies, whereas MSIX installations may require extra steps (e.g., App Installer, certificate installation, or PowerShell configuration).

---

Final Thoughts

MSIX is clearly the future, and I strongly support your effort to modernize ImageGlass packaging. However, offering both MSI and MSIX ensures maximum accessibility and user satisfaction across diverse environments — including enterprise, restricted, or offline users.

Thanks again for your excellent work!

[d2phap]

The digital certificate is not a concern to me, I bought a cert for code signing so I can use it to sign the MSIX. Thanks for sharing, I updated my first post.

[vaelfonia]

Offering both MSI and MSIx would be good, I think.

[PaulCoddington]

Offering both would be preferable, I think.

Apart from what has been mentioned above, there are some other annoyances with MSIX.

1. User cannot control the application name and submenu it appears in within the Start Menu or easily place shortcuts to the app elsewhere. If you go down this route, please do not contaminate the application name with version numbers, etc, and keep it simple, clean and sensibly alphabetical (e.g. "ImageGlass"). Some of the worst cases out there have forced users to put up with "Brandname™ AppNameTooLongToFit for Windows v1.2.3.4 Pro Edition".

2. Some apps may have trouble calling ImageGlass as an external viewer if it is installed as an MSIX.

[d2phap]

Thanks for sharing, I updated my first post.

Some apps may have trouble calling ImageGlass as an external viewer if it is installed as an MSIX

ImageGlass provides both app protocol imageglass: and app executable alias imageglass.exe so this concern is fine now.

[Aquind]

While both would be ideal, I understand time is a limited resource for development...

Which is why I support MSI over MSIX mainly due to increased flexibility across a wider variety of systems, MSIX being relatively new and not integrated into many users and IT familiar workflows, and MSI not requiring a digital signature or internet connection.

I can imagine a few years or more down the road MSIX being more beneficial depending on future OS changes but right now MSI seems best.

[d2phap]

Thanks for sharing, I updated my first post.

[erakura]

I would personally prefer MSI packaging. My biggest concern with MSIX is that it effectively limits compatibility only to systems with App Installer present, whereas MSI only requires Windows Installer, a standard feature on every Windows OS since XP. Server OSes don't have App Installer, so, as an example, ImageGlass would be much harder to deploy in VDI environments where many users are sharing a server. LTSC releases are also missing it I believe.
And, while this is obviously speculative: what's to stop Microsoft from later deciding that MSIX/APPX packaging is no longer the sweet flavor of the month? I can't imagine such a thing happening with MSI/EXE for a very long time.

[d2phap]

Thanks for sharing, I updated my first post. The App Installer is not included by default is the deal breaker to me!

[HumanMus1c]

Supports both MSI and MSIX packages as a transition for the current stage.