Repository navigation
MSI Missing #28290
Description
Prerequisites
- Write a descriptive title.
- Make sure you are able to repro it on the latest released version
- Search the existing issues.
- Refer to the FAQ.
- Refer to Differences between Windows PowerShell 5.1 and PowerShell.
Steps to reproduce
I will be submitting a PR to revert #27213
This was removed, before MSIX provides 1:1 equivlant functionality.
Expected behavior
msi included with releasesActual behavior
msi not includedError details
people remove things that work, before fixing things that do not.Environment data
the community has a voice.Visuals
n/a
Reacted by Khaled J, Dave R and Flavien MICHALECZEK
Reacted by Khaled J and Flavien MICHALECZEK
Activity
doctordns commented on Oct 30, 2026
I think, long term, removing MSI to be a good thing, assuming Microsoft improves .MSIX to support the richness of MSI. That has not happened, but Microsoft imposed it. It is a terrible decision A more community focused decision would have to waited till MSIX parity is achieved.
Since the decision was imposed, I doubt the decision will change. Microsoft rarely,but not always, backs down from bad decisions. I doubt the folks behind this would change thd approach.
DandelionSprout commented on Oct 30, 2026
My personal viewpoints of MSI contra MSIX:
———MSI———
+ Silent installations are very easy 95% of the time.
+ Very broad compatibility with any Windows version that contains msiexec.exe.
— Insists on creating a clone of the installer to C:\Windows\Installer, and if a user deletes that clone, it becomes a whole lot harder to uninstall the app if needed.
———MSIX/AppX———
+ Basically just a wrap-around of a portable app, for better or for worse (Mostly for the better in my eyes).
+ Even easier to install silently, hadn't it been for…
— Dear lords do MSIX licences that include verified certificates cost a lot. I've seen estimates of 800€/dev.
— Compatibility with older Windows versions are so-so, making them usually fail to support Windows ≤8, W10 İoT, Windows Server ≤2016, Wine, ReactOS, and Windows Server Core in general. There is a 1-in-3 chance an app works if the MSIX is extracted as if it was a regular ZIP.
rismoney commented on Oct 30, 2026
The biggest shortcoming of MSIX is that it is not a machine-wide application deployment model. It is designed around per-user package registration, even when the package is installed or staged for the entire machine. This is not appropriate for all software, the way winget, msix, and this entire packaging ecosystem works. Running an MSIX installer as SYSTEM doesn't automatically make the application available to every user. This foundational understanding is how nearly every enterprise deploys software using agent based deployments running under SYSTEM account, using silent switches for unattended rollouts.
MSIX is for self-contained desktop applications that benefit from package isolation, clean upgrades and per-user registration. This is outside the use case for how Powershell should be packaged. It is not aligned with fleet management at all, particularly servers.
Microsoft imposing something does not make it right. I don't see MSSQL or Visual Studio shipping MSIX. Someone clearly doesn't read the docs, that put this in motion on this open source project. This ship should be righted before this tips the project into yet another 5.1/core perpetually fragmented user base
BlackV commented on Oct 31, 2026
Is this adding anything that the other many issues already logged here do not cover off?
https://github.com/PowerShell/PowerShell/issues?q=is%3Aissue+state%3Aopen+label%3APackage-MSIX
rismoney commented on Nov 1, 2026
Yes, the forthcoming unwind, until there is parity.
ukdocCT commented on Nov 11, 2026
Now that v7.7 is GA and there are still some major blockers on its deployment on a system wide basis, why has no MSI installer been made available?
Not being able to have system wide install will form a blocker for any enterprise deployment team and will severely restrict the take up of v7.7.