The site http://portableapps.com distributes repacked portable freeware applications, many of which are already portable to begin with as long as you download the Zip/USB version.

Do you still download their portableapps repack or go to the software's website and download the zip version?

My vote, zip version. The only advantage I can see of using the paf version is that the Suite launcher can auto install the application as opposed to having to add an application manually. I suppose it makes life easier for the less technical crowd but you're adding an extra wrapper not to mention an irritating splashscreen.

_________________
This site is the reason I have to keep buying bigger flashdrives.

Sums up my view exactly

It depends.

The reason I sometimes pick the PA version over the official archive version is because I feel that in most cases the portability is better tested by PA.

If I can find comments about the official archive release that verify it's portable or the developer really advertises it as being portable I may go with the archive release.


Regarding splash screens...
They're all annoying but they serve purposes, like letting you know that the program is launching and that it's the portable version. In this case they are a necessary evil that exist as a license requirement/favor to the original application developers so that users are notified that they are not using an official distribution.

However, John also did a favor for the users as most of the launchers can use an INI file to disable the splash screens (in case you didn't realize this check .\{AppName}\Other\{AppName}PortableSource\Readme.txt for the launcher options).

I would use the one from portable apps because they are made portable to extend the life of your USB stick (at least that is what I understood of their site)

I just try to be consistent and download the paf self-installer as a general rule. Not all apps get distributed as zips. That way, I know what to expect if I have to go back into my archives to do a new or re-install.

I'm glad to see such useful feedback. I was not aware of this. Good find. Another interesting perspective although I'm not sure how much difference a wrapper can make on flash life. Also, with the rapid advances in USB flash technology I find that I replace my drives for larger, faster, cheaper drives far before they die of wear. I used my old 1G intensely but it just sits in my drawer now that I have a 4G.

Has anyone done any startup or runtime performance tests with paf versions and INI versions? This may be interesting. I'll give it a shot when I have some time and get back to you.

Thanks again for all the great feedback.

_________________
This site is the reason I have to keep buying bigger flashdrives.

If you add the INI file just to remove the splash screen I doubt it affects performance very much.

I've gone through and done that on most of their apps and haven't noticed a difference at all. That said, I haven't actually spent any time comparing with and without the INI file.

I generally use the ini file on all of the portableapps I use, it doesn't make difference in performance as such if anything (this may just be psychological) they seem to start slightly faster.

I still don't understand some of the apps they portabalize though, how can you optimise sumatra for usb?

I'm pretty sure that it only writes to the text file once per document and that could easily be stopped with a read only file.

I can't see any performance difference between splash screen enabled / disabled. But in most casees I can easily see the difference between original and PA version, the only exceptions (from the programs I use) are OO.o and FF - they start so slowly that additional 0.5s doesn't make a difference



Sumatra, Notepad++, Miranda, ???: The only difference is a splash screen with John's name + repacking for compliance with what they call "Portable Application Format".

_________________

I think DOSBox Portable is somewhat laughable. The default config file included with DOSBox hasn't even been modified, just an added splash screen and more bulky directory structure.

NOT TRUE!

All of the software that's available from portableapps.com are nothing more than repacked copies of the official versions - the only thing the portableapps.com versions do is add a "launcher" program to try and get them to work with the portableapps menu

I'd get my software from the original, official release, sites - you know what you're getting then.

The portableapps.com versions are typically older, out-of-date, copies as well.

If the portables are made correctly you should be able to use the portables on computers with the actual application installed without errors or registry entanglements.
If you cant tell any differance then its a good thing.
This means you are using your settings and not the installed versions config and any changes to the app's config are reflected in your config and not the system's installed version.
Some apps have very minor effects on a system and the wrappers address them.
7Zip in particular (even without file associations) cant be used on a library computer without depositing an ass load of registry entries.

Alot of the portables are based on older versions that did need the wrappers "containment" but have since been developed further
and no longer need the wrapper (other than to keep fans supplied with an updated version in the compliant PortableApp's format to use with their patented launcher menu that requires the package format)
such as Sumatra PDF reader.When they made the wrapper Sumatra couldnt save its settings in portable mode.

I personally envy anyone who can make NSIS portables correctly as it is the most challenging (& potentially dangerous) way to make a portables in my opinion.

As for the poll question;it depends on how the archived app affects the host system if at all.
I prefer apps that are portable without wthout any modifications or launchers needed.

_________________
"Defects are always more tolerable than the changes necessary to correct them"

Lie.
I just went to sf.net and downloaded the first version (0.5) source.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/portabl ... ble%200.5/
The only thing that it does is creating a settings file next to Sumatra executable if there's none.


Did you hear about redllar? His stuff is far more challenging.

BTW IMO there's no easier way of portabilizing stuff than creating a script with NSIS, AHK, AI or whatever.

_________________

I make mistakes but I dont purposefully lie.

So is it a lie or an incorrect summation based on my personal experience?

_________________
"Defects are always more tolerable than the changes necessary to correct them"

You don't have to defend yourself, I didn't say that you lied purposefully, actually I thought that you heard it somewhere (PA.com? It's their style.)
But I certainly don't believe it's your personal experience, because that would mean you had non-portability issues with Sumatra that the launcher solved. Which we know to be impossible.

_________________