<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1>I would +100 this suggestion.  AFAIK, under Windows, there is no easy way to do a side-by-side installation, and certainly no way within the reach of a typical user.  Without the ability to do a side-by-side, many users are not going to test the Beta builds, and the quality of the release will suffer.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>I would propose that all Beta and Dev releases (which are sorely needed BTW, since the recent Beta releases have been “Dev” quality, not “Beta” quality) would install to a “Dev” location, and only the RC’s and final releases would install to the release location.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>AFAIK (at least for the predecessor project OpenOffice.org), there is (was?) a well-documented switch that changed the product name and installation location.  Under Windows, it would for example change the UpgradeCode property in the Windows Installer file, the program base directory path and base registry key, and the ProductKey and UserInstallation values in bootstrap.ini.  These parameters need to be set and tested by the person who creates the build.  I’m not sure if a patch is needed, but even if it is, there would need to be a commitment to use it and an understanding how it would be used.  If we come to such an agreement and a patch is needed, I would be happy to look into it, but in order to prevent that effort from being wasted, IMO, we should discuss and agree first on whether this is something we want to do.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Thank you,<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Allen<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p></div></body></html>