- I write my applications to run anywhere and not require any installation. There is a huge convenience factor in this. As a collorary, they also don't require uninstallation since they do not "embed" themselves into the system (registry, config files, additional files elsewhere, etc.)

- It makes for a bigger download, of code and data that would never be used again, with one extra step the user has to do before use, and also an extra step for me to build the installer too.

I can see the advantages of an installer for large applications that need to be "installed" since they modify various other things in the system, but that's not the type of applications I work with.

The problem with that is that your software is a bad citizen in the windows ecosystem. Even a one shot can be pushed out or run via an msi package with no install. And you get the benefit of being able to easy throw it out via GPO, pull dependencies like VCRT versions etc. MSI packages are pretty small as well - our current VSTO package which has about 25,000 LoC in it is only 400k.

> your software is a bad citizen in the windows ecosystem

According to MS who seem to be trying to force the idea that all software needs to be "installed" and have an overly complex installer/uninstaller. I care more about the flexibility and convenience for my users than what MS thinks (which is ultimately heading towards locking users in a walled garden, so no surprise that "just download and run a self-contained executable anywhere" is perceived as somewhat of a threat.)

> And you get the benefit of being able to easy throw it out via GPO, pull dependencies like VCRT versions etc.

Those are not needed for what I'm doing, so they're not benefits to me. But I guess if your idea of "pretty small" is 400k, then that's not really a concern...