Poratble applications

[arunpawar]

Potable applications can be good even if we can use them on disk.But I have question about portable as:
1. is portable app save any setting to the registry?
2. if portable app consume more memory?
3. is portable application can be registered as ext in open with list?

 i have more set of questions but i remember these only so let me know abt it.

[Josh]

1. Typically all settings are stored in an ini or xml based configuration file
2. Typically as much as the desktop version
3. Yes, but if the drive is not inserted then the open will fail.

[PhilB66]

Read What is "portable"?.

[Josh]

I completely disagree with his definition stating that it must run on older versions of windows. What exactly is non-portable about an app that runs on xp/vista/2000 only and not the 9x/me series? Pretty much every app developer has ceased development for the 9x code base minus a few projects, and as such, I think this single portion of the definition should be removed.

[PhilB66]

Well, I do and it kind of make sense when you describe an "ideal" portable application.

[Josh]

Yes, but where do you cut the rope? I mean, by that definition, the application would have to support Windows 95 and 3.11 to be completely portable. Am I wrong?

[PhilB66]

I believe you are. Just browse through the listing to see it consists of many portable applications that do not support older versions of Windows. Maybe it's the term "ideal" that is confusing? 

[Josh]

Yes, Ideally all CURRENT windows platforms would be supported (Read: All NT Based platforms). Supporting all windows platforms (9x codebase) is getting harder and harder to do and is often requiring of far more work than the benefit gained justifies.

[f0dder]

The site says "older versions", but doesn't actually mention 9x... NT4 and Win2k and, heck, even XP can be considered "older versions" now

I don't see a reason why something has to run on 9x to be considered 'portable'. Sure, there's a few boxes you won't be able to run on, but 9x boxes aren't very widespread anymore.

[Dormouse]

Read What is "portable"?.

-PhilB66 (March 14, 2008, 06:51 AM)

There's lots of stuff that doesn't seem to find its way into the database for no clear reason. Also stuff that depends on .Net framework.

The database system could be better if it were in tabular form with a progs limitations and needs. Many of the progs in it don't run on W98 or earlier. A lot of us would like it to include progs that need .Net etc. The format of the database makes it quite difficult to search too.

All down to different definitions of 'portable', how far he is prepared to stretch his ideal definition and how well your requirements map on to his. For many people the esential issue is being able to use a prog on a computer they don't have admin rights on. For others it is the absence of writes to the registry (even temporary writes). For others it is simply whether they can carry their progs and data and use them on any computer they are likely to come across.

In some ways a Linux Live USB comes closest to the ideal, at least for those that don't want to repackage Windows.

[Cloq]

Portable applications should really be self contained to the folder the application is ran from. Any ini/cfg/xml config file should reside in the same folder as the program is in.

Registery settings should be avoid except in cases where the program ties in with a browser (e.g mass downloader.. you right click in the browser and get options to download to mass downloader) or whatever it is designed to do. If the those registry settings are missing, the application should recreate them on program launch.

Technically, just because it is a portable application, it shouldn't require any more memory than if the program was actually "installed".

Open with list, you can assign any program by browsing to it. It doesn't care if the program is "installed" or portable, just as long as it is available when it is needed.