Page 1 of 1
Are IE-based web browsers portable?
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 6:28 am
by Andrew Lee
I am setting up this forum thread to discuss whether IE-based web browsers are portable, due to the torrent of comments that have been flooding the entry for
Maxthon Classic.
A representative comment is as follows:
Chris L. Franklin: with a dependence like Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.5 and above. Can this really classified as portable, I mean if so then why are java apps not considered portable ?
My position is this:
Personally, I use Firefox Portable. However, from time-to-time, I am forced to use Internet Explorer when I visit certain sites (government sites are notoriously for this). For that, I used to run a portable IE-based browser (
Crazy Browser, if you are interested), but recently, I have been relying on the IE Tab extension to do the job.
A lot of portable apps are also dependent on the IE rendering engine.
GreatNews, the unbeatable RSS reader, comes to mind. In fact, the vast majority of Win32 apps that I have come across that renders HTML content in any meaningful way is dependent on IE.
Let's face it: IE _is_ part of the Windows OS, and many Win32 apps do use it, whether it is upload/download via FTP or HTTP, or render web content. Java, on the other hand, is definitely not part of the Windows OS in that sense.
.NET, however, is a different beast, and seems on its ways to becoming part of the OS. I promise you when IE and Microsoft Office are written in managed code, I will add portable .NET apps to the database.
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 8:51 am
by m^(2)
I definitely agree that dependency from Internet Explorer is not a problem. But dependency from IE 5.5 is - there are too many computers that still use windows versions older than Millenium. And it is often so that when sb. uses archaic windows version, he doesn't update it - and so IE.
.NET is not portable and for me won't be until it's preinstalled on 95% computers I meet or will have a portable interpreter.
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 4:57 pm
by freakazoid
Crazy Browser, a.k.a. "AM Browser" is also my IE clone of choice!
Just wondering why the 3.0 beta 2 is not considered portable.
What registry settings does it occupy?
Can JauntPE be used on it?
Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 4:13 am
by Andrew Lee
Just wondering why the 3.0 beta 2 is not considered portable.
What registry settings does it occupy?
From V2.x onwards, settings are written to the registry instead of a local INI file:
Code: Select all
HKU\S-1-5-21-329068152-343818398-725345543-1001\Software\Crazy Browser\Download and Execution\DL_Images: 0x00000001
HKU\S-1-5-21-329068152-343818398-725345543-1001\Software\Crazy Browser\Download and Execution\DL_Videos: 0x00000001
HKU\S-1-5-21-329068152-343818398-725345543-1001\Software\Crazy Browser\Download and Execution\DL_BGSounds: 0x00000001
HKU\S-1-5-21-329068152-343818398-725345543-1001\Software\Crazy Browser\Download and Execution\DL_NoScripts: 0x00000000
HKU\S-1-5-21-329068152-343818398-725345543-1001\Software\Crazy Browser\Download and Execution\DL_NoJava: 0x00000000
HKU\S-1-5-21-329068152-343818398-725345543-1001\Software\Crazy Browser\Download and Execution\DL_NoRunActivexs: 0x00000000
HKU\S-1-5-21-329068152-343818398-725345543-1001\Software\Crazy Browser\Download and Execution\DL_NoDLActivexs: 0x00000000
HKU\S-1-5-21-329068152-343818398-725345543-1001\Software\Crazy Browser\Download and Execution\DL_AutoOffline: 0x00000000
HKU\S-1-5-21-329068152-343818398-725345543-1001\Software\Crazy Browser\Main\Domain_Ctrl: "http://www.%s.com"
HKU\S-1-5-21-329068152-343818398-725345543-1001\Software\Crazy Browser\Main\Domain_Shift: "http://www.%s.net"
HKU\S-1-5-21-329068152-343818398-725345543-1001\Software\Crazy Browser\Main\Domain_CtrlShift: "http://www.%s.org"
HKU\S-1-5-21-329068152-343818398-725345543-1001\Software\Crazy Browser\Main\Domain_Alt: "http://www.ambrowsersearch.com/search?w=[%UTF8URL%]"
HKU\S-1-5-21-329068152-343818398-725345543-1001\Software\Crazy Browser\Main\StartPage: "http://www.ambrowsersearch.com/start"
HKU\S-1-5-21-329068152-343818398-725345543-1001\Software\Crazy Browser\Main\ConfirmCloseAll: 0x00000001
HKU\S-1-5-21-329068152-343818398-725345543-1001\Software\Crazy Browser\Main\ConfirmCloseApp: 0x00000001
HKU\S-1-5-21-329068152-343818398-725345543-1001\Software\Crazy Browser\Main\ConfirmCloseLocked: 0x00000001
HKU\S-1-5-21-329068152-343818398-725345543-1001\Software\Crazy Browser\Main\ConfirmClosePopWin: 0x00000000
HKU\S-1-5-21-329068152-343818398-725345543-1001\Software\Crazy Browser\Main\ConfirmQuickSave: 0x00000001
HKU\S-1-5-21-329068152-343818398-725345543-1001\Software\Crazy Browser\Main\TabsPosition: 0x00000001
HKU\S-1-5-21-329068152-343818398-725345543-1001\Software\Crazy Browser\Main\TabsMultiLine: 0x00000001
HKU\S-1-5-21-329068152-343818398-725345543-1001\Software\Crazy Browser\Main\CheckForUpdateDays: 0x00000007
Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 2:38 pm
by MISIIM
I don't think IE based browser should be considered portable due to the history/settings/cache being written to the local machine. I don't think it matters if non-browser applications require IE though.
Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 4:34 am
by m^(2)
MISIIM wrote:I don't think IE based browser should be considered portable due to the history/settings/cache being written to the local machine. I don't think it matters if non-browser applications require IE though.
Settings? What important settings have to be written on a host machine?
History? Is it important? Not for me.
Cache? "Portable" here doesn't mean "leaves nothing behing+(...)", but rather "works well enough when run from a pendrive w/out installation".
Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 5:39 am
by Nomad CF
I personally do not think IE is nor should be classified as portable. Nor should it be taken for granted that a PC should / will have IE it on it. For work and "play" I end up bouncing back and forth between both windows and Linux platforms so to me portable means it will run on windows and with wine and save it's setting local to the apps location. Not that i'm say all apps need to be able run under wine to be classifiable as portable. But it's just another example of how I view / define a portable app.
Side Note: I run Windows FLP every place I have to use windows and during the install I choose not to install IE.
Side Rant: Java can be installed on just about very OS (cell phones use it as a OS) on the other hand .NET / IE can not be.
Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 2:22 pm
by Kermode
Nomad CF wrote:I personally do not think IE is nor should be classified as portable.
That's good then because nobody has suggested that, nor is this thread about that.
Nomad CF wrote:
Nor should it be taken for granted that a PC should / will have IE it on it.
The site has to make some assumtions about what is installed. Otherwise you could say it should just be hardware with no installed software at all. IE is default on most machines out there (even if this site should choose not to accept that).
I am fine with that.
Nomad CF wrote:
Side Note: I run Windows FLP every place I have to use windows and during the install I choose not to install IE.
You are sure to be a tiny minority
Re: Are IE-based web browsers portable?
Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 2:24 pm
by Kermode
Andrew Lee wrote:
My position is this:
Personally, I use Firefox Portable. However, from time-to-time, I am forced to use Internet Explorer when I visit certain sites (government sites are notoriously for this). For that, I used to run a portable IE-based browser (
Crazy Browser, if you are interested), but recently, I have been relying on the IE Tab extension to do the job.
A lot of portable apps are also dependent on the IE rendering engine.
GreatNews, the unbeatable RSS reader, comes to mind. In fact, the vast majority of Win32 apps that I have come across that renders HTML content in any meaningful way is dependent on IE.
Let's face it: IE _is_ part of the Windows OS, and many Win32 apps do use it, whether it is upload/download via FTP or HTTP, or render web content. Java, on the other hand, is definitely not part of the Windows OS in that sense.
I agree with you on all that.
Andrew Lee wrote:
.NET, however, is a different beast, and seems on its ways to becoming part of the OS. I promise you when IE and Microsoft Office are written in managed code, I will add portable .NET apps to the database.
.NET however I try to avoid, so if and when you decided to add it - I hope you will flag them with an icon or something so i can avoid it
Re: Are IE-based web browsers portable?
Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 2:31 am
by spchtr
Andrew Lee wrote:Let's face it: IE _is_ part of the Windows OS
Not entirely true. The korean version of windows for instance does not include Internet Explorer.
Just a thought. As an aside, since Internet Explorer can be removed from windows as well, there may well be some computers which will be incapable of using a browser that uses IE's engine.
Re: Are IE-based web browsers portable?
Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 5:35 pm
by MiDoJo
LOL Revived a dead topic did we
Also AndrewLee Decided that anything with dependences wouldn't be listed in the DB (with a few exceptions)
Re: Are IE-based web browsers portable?
Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 8:48 am
by toomuchjunk
Do you guys think this topic is obsolete now that Chrome and its clones are so prevalent? Again, I realize I am bringing back an old post, but I have been very curious as to the options for portable web browsers, especially if they provide high availability servers when I am on the move. I would be very interested in knowing some alternatives that may not be quite as mainstream as I am used to. There is only so much information you can gather in line at the
IT staffing agency. Any feedback I could get would be very helpful.
Re: Are IE-based web browsers portable?
Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 9:30 am
by SYSTEM
toomuchjunk wrote:Do you guys think this topic is obsolete now that Chrome and its clones are so prevalent? Again, I realize I am bringing back an old post, but I have been very curious as to the options for portable web browsers...
I personally find
GreenBrowser interesting. It's a very feature-rich IE-based browser.
However, I use Opera because it has even more features and a better rendering engine.
Re: Are IE-based web browsers portable?
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 11:05 am
by webfork
toomuchjunk wrote:Do you guys think this topic is obsolete now that Chrome and its clones are so prevalent? Again, I realize I am bringing back an old post, but I have been very curious as to the options for portable web browsers...
- I don't care for IE, but when you're somewhere that won't let you use anything besides IE, its nice to have some tweaks available to give you better functionality.
- There are negatives to using Chrome, but one not frequently talked about is that the browser is licensed under BSD, Google can pull the code at any time and stop playing nice with open source the way they did with Honeycomb. The program's gotten a lot of attention for its speed and all the marketing Google's done, but its mostly gone unnoticed here on the site and by techy folks I know.