Do you want JauntePE-ized launcher packages in TPFC?

Discuss anything related to JauntePE, the utlimate utility to help you tame non-portable applications. Share your experience about the apps that work with JauntePE, and the apps that don't.
Post Reply

Do you want JauntePE-ized launcher packages in TPFC?

Yes, if Andrew says it's okay
36
86%
No
5
12%
Maybe
1
2%
 
Total votes: 42

Message
Author
redllar
Posts: 411
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:52 pm
Contact:

Do you want JauntePE-ized launcher packages in TPFC?

#1 Post by redllar » Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:51 am

With the JPE runtime potentially being much smaller since we can now safely exe-compress it thanks to the upx lzma option, I can see the potential for creating standalone, wrapper-like JPE-ized launcher packages for any number of non-portable apps.

So, what's your opinion on this. Would you like to see JPE-ized launcher packages included in Andrew's list?

JohnHolland
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:55 pm

JPE-packages

#2 Post by JohnHolland » Fri Aug 03, 2007 11:41 pm

answer: yes

alanbcohen
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:40 pm

#3 Post by alanbcohen » Sat Aug 04, 2007 10:06 am

We generally don't question inclusion is someone writes a wrapper in one language or another. So, this is a different tool. So long as it is a package (doesn't require external apps), what is the difference if JauntePE is used?

Even size is less important now with 4 gig drives available at retail (Staples) for $40. And 120 gig 2.5" HD packaged as externals for $90.

redllar
Posts: 411
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:52 pm
Contact:

#4 Post by redllar » Sat Aug 04, 2007 10:30 am

alanbcohen wrote:We generally don't question inclusion is someone writes a wrapper in one language or another. So, this is a different tool. So long as it is a package (doesn't require external apps), what is the difference if JauntePE is used?

Even size is less important now with 4 gig drives available at retail (Staples) for $40. And 120 gig 2.5" HD packaged as externals for $90.
Good points.

I thought I saw elsewhere on TPFC that the question had already been asked and that the answer was no. I think the reasoning was because so many apps could potentially be so easily portablized with JPE. With the other methods one would have to at least create a script. With JPE, a lot of apps don't even require anything more than the distributed default ini. Obviously that won't yield an optimal runtime but it looks as if that's the way most people are using JPE.

So personally I would like to add just a few into the database as examples, hopefully to get some more exposure for JPE and bring in some more people who are willing to do the work to figure out how particular apps use the registry and non-portable file system directories and then use JPE to portablize it and share their results.

User avatar
Local
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 3:48 am

Of course

#5 Post by Local » Sat Aug 04, 2007 11:26 am

I don't really see the difference with posting JPE'd apps and posting John Hallers portables.

If they're legal, free and portable they belong in the database.

Noone has to download them if they don't want them

Chris
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 10:08 am

#6 Post by Chris » Sat Aug 04, 2007 12:02 pm

Local wrote:I don't really see the difference with posting JPE'd apps and posting John Hallers portables.
If I were to choose between JPE apps and wrapped apps, I would definitely choose JPE apps.
Wrapper would need the application to be closed to actually remove trace in the host computer. While JauntePE doesn't touch the host. If the computer crash or hang so user would need to cold reboot the info is still in the host PC.

Doesn't want to talk bad about Portable Apps, but I read it's Firefox still leaves trace after exit.

User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 2507
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

#7 Post by Andrew Lee » Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:45 am

I voted "Yes" :D

... on the condition that someone bothers to put up a proper web site for the apps they have made portable using JPE, like the portable wrappers.

If I have to host all the JPE-enabled apps on this site, you guys will be seeing the "Quota exceeded" message all the time!

portackager
Posts: 168
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:01 pm

#8 Post by portackager » Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:07 am

Voted: Yes.

great work redllar :wink:
Porta-Lover

User avatar
Kranor
Posts: 120
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 7:15 am
Location: uk

#9 Post by Kranor » Mon Aug 13, 2007 3:11 am

Voted Maybe

I would say yes, providing that any apps are maintained in a seperate list. And the apps are not hosted on portablefreeware.com. I would also suggest that it would be better to only provide a link to the wrapper or .ini and reg files rather that the 'complete package', If you link to the entire setup I believe it will devolve to a few people making these JPE wrapped apps. Whereas if people still have to do some work they might be encouraged to learn more about the process and develop there own JPE wrappers for inclusion on the list. On the plus side is more apps for all plus more people testing and developing redlars amazing tool. :D
How many script kiddies does it take to change a light bulb?

Why change it? They can just wait for someone else to do it then they can claim the credit.....

User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 2507
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

#10 Post by Andrew Lee » Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:08 am

I am thinking of hosting and pointing to the JPE wrappers, in addition to pointing to the NSIS wrappers.

I thought maybe we could have a forum for people to submit JPE wrappers, and then interested parties can test them out and improve on them. Once we feel that the wrapper is ready, we can link to it.

So for example, under the entry for xplorer2 lite (which I am playing with right now), we can point to the NSIS wrapper as well as to the JPE wrapper, with instructions on how to set it up eg. download app, extract, place wrapper in same folder and launch etc.

Happen thought through the implementation details yet. Just thought it is a good idea to spread the goodness of JPE and get more people to pound on it.

User avatar
malikorx69
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:59 pm

#11 Post by malikorx69 » Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:05 pm

I have my external hard drive formatted in NTFS with compression enabled so it's no problem if the apps are changed or to remain in their current format. I have a 4GB USB Drive and it's 2.75GB full. That's without compression and I have over 200 setup files, 36 portable apps installed and 14 more apps installed that aren't made to be portable but are installed anyway (Nero, Photoshop, etc.) so space doesn't seem to be such a concern anymore. Not to mention the Best Buy near my house sells 8GB USB Drives for $50, 4GB USB Drives for $30 and 2GB USB Drives for a mere $15
- the path i walk is in the wrong direction -

Post Reply