Transmute V2.07    Suggested by guinness - Updated by Checker on 31 May 2010 4MB (uncompressed) - Popularity score (994) Website - Screenshot - Download - Comments (19) - Post comment - Permalink

Posted comments:

 joby_toss: This one saved me once a lot of time! I voted "It rocks!" so here is our first .Net application added to the database!
Hip hip hurray! :) [2009-12-08 20:12]

 Nick: Has someone found a way to make .NET portable? If not, then this app has no place here. [2009-12-09 05:59]

 Saleh: @Nick: Not yet and I doubt it ever will. Microsoft made it so tightly integrated with the OS it's difficult to have it as portable. [2009-12-09 06:33]

 Werner: @Nick & Saleh: In general I agreed, but we have to be aware that .NET will be available on more and more hosts in future. There are other apps here dependent on e.g. IE or others, so why not .NET? I like TPFC because it usually lists the dependencies and I can decide if this is okay for me or not. [2009-12-09 11:02]

 Nick: @Werner, the same could be said of the newer versions of VC++ and VB, but I believe TPFC provides a link to download the required runtimes so they can be placed in the app folder, no such luck with .NET apps.

This discussion, of course, should be continued in the forums, I have tried to find posts about this in the forums but it is very hard to search using the term ".net". [2009-12-10 08:59]

 ashghost: @Nick: Here's the most recent forum discussion of .NET apps, with the site's creator (Andrew Lee) and some of the more active forum members weighing in: http://www.portablefreeware.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=5651&p=21037&hilit=.net

And here's a thread I started to suggest that .NET apps be "allowed" (only in the forums): http://www.portablefreeware.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4489

Other than that, most of the "discussion" in the forums has amounted to something like the following:

"That requires .NET. It's not allowed."
"But .NET is all over the place, and as of Vista, it's included in Windows".
"Well, I use computers that don't have it and I'm not allowed to install it, so I don't consider .NET apps portable; besides, it's bloatware and I hate it."

It has reminded me of Linux vs. Windows vs. Mac flame wars at times. To each his own. [2009-12-20 22:55]

 Dilon: калужские гостиницы, сауны калуги [2010-01-10 16:17]

 webfork: I would not describe something as "portable" that can only run on a small number of systems. Since only a small number of systems have the latest .NET tools installed, .NET is not portable. If you can find some statistics to contradict this, please post them. [2010-01-11 00:34]

 Nike mm: nike air jordan shoes
nike air jordan sneakers
nike air jordan v
nike air jordans
nike air jordans 10
nike air jordans 11
nike air jordans 13
nike air jordans 4
nike air jordans 7
nike air jordans one
nike jordan air
shoes nike air jordan shoes
wholesale nike air jordan
jordan shoes
air jordan
air jordans
jordan shoe
jordan sneakers
air force 1
air force one
jordans
retro jordan
air force ones
nike jordan shoes
air jordan shoes
air jordan sneakers
cheap air jordan
cheap air jordans
air jordan shoe [2010-01-11 03:20]

 ikke: I agree with the previous comments.
Applications using .NET are definitely NOT portable and as far as I'm concerned those applications shouldn't be mentioned here.
But hey, I'm just a user... [2010-01-18 17:37]

 asdf: New version (2.0) from website seems crippled. Anyone know where we can get the old version? [2010-02-03 23:19]

 jvnorris: On the Whole .net thing. Look at it this way. Current and properly updated system pretty much all have .net on them. If you dont then you have the right not to downlaod it. But the "well my computer doesnt have it and I dont liek it" argument is useless. I Primarily run Linux apps and without using wine or some such most windows apps are useless to me.. the fact that I need to install Wine to use these apps does nto deter me. The fact that they make it know that it requires .net is all that should be needed. Its like Something with Java at its core.. There was a time that Java did not proliferate the common desktop but that is pretty much over also.

Just because you do not like it does not change the fact that it is taking a much larger share of the "COMMON" desktop environment. If we tailored everything to each persons specific setup then we would have ALOT less software here.

.NET (although I am not a huge fan of it) is here to stay and is even a required part of current WIN OS setups.

Thats Like saying I dont have SP 2 on XP so there for nothing that requires it should be here. Well just because YOU don't want to be up with the times does not mean everyone else should miss out on good and usable software. [2010-02-04 08:37]

 PJ: Indeed, dot net is annoying bloat ware. And proper programs don't use it.
And its hardly portable, though you can Thinstall it if you have access to that - but then we are talking a huge portable.
If this site has to be infected with .nets it would be nice if there was an option to filter it out. [2010-02-04 20:36]

 qwerty: Grow up and deal with it kids. Proper programs are written in just about every language available.

I don't much care for .net, and I don't much care for Java, but there are many good programs that I use programmed in both languages where the developer chose the language because it was convenient, and he/she knew it.

Just be glad that somebody else puts up a web site that costs YOU nothing, provides lists of free software that cost YOU nothing, tests and lists dependencies and how to extract the software in their time, all of which cost you nothing. It is EASY to look at something that seems interesting, see dependencies and decide 'I'm anal and I refuse to use this or accept it as portable because it needs .net or java' and move on.

If this site has to be infected with (strike .nets) whiners it would be nice if there was an option to filter them out. [2010-02-04 21:47]

 xenos: For years have wanted an app that does what this one does, but don't consider this portable. Hate .NET. Wish a program could be made like this, but much smaller, 1Mb or less. The problem of storing bookmarks over time and sharing between browsers and platforms in a standard that can last is an important goal, and I wonder what makes this so difficult, or why it isn't done. [2010-03-20 19:56]

 Billy Bob: Not portable for Internet Explorer, but X-Marks manages password syncing well between Firefox, Chrome and IE. The Firefox and Chrome add-ons are as portable as Firefox and Chrome themselves.

The other option is google bookmarks - any browser, any computer, any time, but I prefer X-Marks in my browser, [2010-03-20 20:29]

 Meks: Why would everybody discuss the .net matter while there is something much more basically wrong with this software: It's not freeware!
Or, to put it more precisely: The freeware version of it is nothing more than a bookmark backup tool, just as it is included in Firefox and other browsers.
So, what's the buzz? [2010-04-10 15:09]

 Faust: What Meks said. This isn't freeware.
If you want bookmark sync and management, you have to get one of the payware versions. [2010-04-11 02:46]

 joby_toss: Giving the direction this software's development has taken and the fact that it doesn't perform at all as it did at the time of the submission, I have to reconsider my vote! [2010-05-31 19:24]

Post your comment:

All HTML tags will be removed from your comment. URLs (http, https, ftp) will be automatically detected and hyperlinked. I reserve the right to delete irrelevant, frivolous or offensive comments. For more general topics (eg. whether apps that write to the registry, leave traces on the host machine, rely on certain versions of IE etc. can be considered portable), please post to the Portable Freeware Discussion forum. If your virus scanner has detected a virus in the application, please email the author directly or post to the forum. Note that false positives (i.e. flagging a virus when there is actually none) are extremely common for virus scanners. When in doubt, try an online scanner like Online Malware Scanner or VirusTotal, which scans files using multiple anti-virus engines. It is very likely to be a false positive if only a few engines raise the red flag.