Geek Uninstaller

Post details of freeware that are found to be not portable here. Posts in the submissions forum relating to freeware found to be not portable should also be moved here.
Message
Author
User avatar
smaragdus
Posts: 2120
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2013 3:24 am
Location: Aeaea

Re: Geek Uninstaller

#31 Post by smaragdus »

I don't get it why programs which also write to windows registry like AutoRuns, Process Explorer, Process Monitor, GPU-Z, etc, are accepted without any grudge while others like Geek Uninstaller are attacked for the same behaviour, this is a double standard which I do not like at all. I haven't seen campaigns for down-voting of the programs I mentioned above while Geek Uninstaller was bashed fiercely. What does make Geek Uninstaller inferior to other already added to the database programs which do the same (write to registry)?

User avatar
joby_toss
Posts: 2970
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 9:57 am
Location: Romania
Contact:

Re: Geek Uninstaller

#32 Post by joby_toss »

FWIW, I have a problem with the app itself, not with its portability status.

shnbwmn
Posts: 265
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2015 12:59 am

Re: Geek Uninstaller

#33 Post by shnbwmn »

smaragdus wrote:I don't get it why programs which also write to windows registry like AutoRuns, Process Explorer, Process Monitor, GPU-Z, etc, are accepted without any grudge while others like Geek Uninstaller are attacked for the same behaviour, this is a double standard which I do not like at all. I haven't seen campaigns for down-voting of the programs I mentioned above while Geek Uninstaller was bashed fiercely. What does make Geek Uninstaller inferior to other already added to the database programs which do the same (write to registry)?
Reading through the previous page, the issue seems to be more with the AppData files than the registry. Whether or not the settings in prefs.xml are trivial to the program's function, and if this attitude should be carried over to other programs, is the main concern. Personally I don't mind. Strictly speaking on the attitude to portability on this site I'd have to agree with Baas, though I don't see why there can't be a note in the entry (and other such entries) which points out such issues. Why not let the user decide? Or else the program remains buried here in the forum instead of in the "Uninstaller" category where it can be seen. After all, the user and their seamless access to portable programs is the goal.

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 6710
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: Geek Uninstaller

#34 Post by Midas »

shnbwmn wrote:Why not let the user decide?

My thoughts, precisely... 8)

User avatar
joby_toss
Posts: 2970
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 9:57 am
Location: Romania
Contact:

Re: Geek Uninstaller

#35 Post by joby_toss »

AFAICS, users are still able to vote for this app.

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 10818
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: Geek Uninstaller

#36 Post by webfork »

smaragdus wrote:I don't get it why programs which also write to windows registry like AutoRuns, Process Explorer, Process Monitor, GPU-Z, etc, are accepted without any grudge while others like Geek Uninstaller are attacked for the same behaviour, this is a double standard which I do not like at all.
My understanding of the policy on this topic is that we accept two kinds of registry-writing programs:

1. Either insignificant/trivial settings to the registry (e.g. window placement)
2. Are by their very nature are connected to the registry (registry tweakers)

I think you may have a point with Process Explorer, in which case we should switch over to the PA version. Meanwhile, Process Monitor and GPU-Z are assumed to be a monitoring applications so the settings are less important, and Autoruns is a registry tweaker. I'm available to taking these down if you feel that's not a legitimate exception. Regardless, I'd like to add a clear note about why it's acceptable as with RegASSASSIN (“given the nature of the application, I think it can be accepted as portable”).

What's crucial is that we don't start listing any old program and just add a note “this writes all settings to appdata or the registry”. At that point we should just rename ourselves “Andrew's Freeware” or something.

User avatar
smaragdus
Posts: 2120
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2013 3:24 am
Location: Aeaea

Re: Geek Uninstaller

#37 Post by smaragdus »

A quotation from Geek Uninstaller entry at Softpedia:
The advantages of being portable

Since this is a portable program, it is important to mention that it doesn't leave any traces in the Windows registry. You may copy it on any USB flash drive or other devices and take it with you whenever you need to uninstall software on the fly.
This may mean two things- either superficial testing or no understanding of the meaning of "portable". So the label "portable" at sites like Softpedia, SnapFiles, Freeware Files, etc, cannot be trusted. Once Softpedia used publishers' description for the programs but they decided to replace them with their own half-baked, low-quality reviews and in general reading these reviews is a waste of time.

Edit
Things are getting even worse when developers erroneously and misleadingly label their programs "portable":

Image

Edit

@Midas
FYI, Geek Uninstaller is the portable freeware offer by the same maker of popular Uninstall Tool, which is also portable but not free...
If this is true it is not a good piece of news, the developer is aggressive and hostile towards portability, once he threatened me to delete the thread I started at his forum:
smaragdus
I will delete this thread as well. Thanks

Kind Regards,
CrystalIDEA Staff
The thread I quoted is still there and of course I will never use CRYSTALIDEA forums again.

However Softpedia listed Geek Uninstaller as developed by Thomas Koen.

I am tempted to suppose that Uninstall Tool is as "portable" as Geek Uninstaller.

shnbwmn
Posts: 265
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2015 12:59 am

Re: Geek Uninstaller

#38 Post by shnbwmn »

smaragdus wrote:once he threatened me to delete the thread I started at his forum
That's only half the story. The full story is that, as the thread shows, you blatantly insulted him and his program for no reason. There was no hostility or aggression on his part prior to you invoking it, and it wasn't toward portability.

User avatar
smaragdus
Posts: 2120
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2013 3:24 am
Location: Aeaea

Re: Geek Uninstaller

#39 Post by smaragdus »

That's only half the story. The full story is that, as the thread shows, you blatantly insulted him and his program for no reason. There was no hostility or aggression on his part prior to you invoking it, and it wasn't toward portability.
I posted the link to the "FULL STORY", I will post it once again:

http://forums.crystalidea.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1354

I insulted? Blatantly? The developer and his program?

If English is not your first language you may check the meaning of the words insult and blatantly and redact your post. If it is just malice, I do not care. I promise myself that this is the last time I respond to a post of yours, I am not here to waste my time.

shnbwmn
Posts: 265
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2015 12:59 am

Re: Geek Uninstaller

#40 Post by shnbwmn »

I don't like wasting my time either. So I'll quote:
You may not know but some developers create portable versions of their programs. Anyway, I deleted SpeedyFox and won't use it any more, problem solved.
Happy holidays.
By any definition that was insulting and unwarranted.

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 10818
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: Geek Uninstaller

#41 Post by webfork »

I deleted SpeedyFox and won't use it any more, problem solved.
I think if you want to argue for better portability, you might list reasons why the developer and users would benefit from it's inclusion rather than suggest the program is "polluting" other machines.

I know what you mean because of my familiarity with your work, but many developers I know might take that the wrong way.

User avatar
smaragdus
Posts: 2120
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2013 3:24 am
Location: Aeaea

Re: Geek Uninstaller

#42 Post by smaragdus »

@webfork
webfork wrote:
I deleted SpeedyFox and won't use it any more, problem solved.
I think if you want to argue for better portability, you might list reasons why the developer and users would benefit from it's inclusion rather than suggest the program is "polluting" other machines.

I know what you mean because of my familiarity with your work, but many developers I know might take that the wrong way.
I have no intention to try to educate developers about the advantages of portability, I have no time for wasting. Usually from the very first exchange it becomes clear to me whether a developer is willing to create a portable version or not. If it is obvious that he is reluctant it is useless to try to persuade him and elaborate upon the advantages of portable software.

By the way PortableApps published their portable version of Geek Uninstaller.

Edit
GeekUninstaller Portable is listed at Softpedia.

User avatar
JohnTHaller
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:44 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: Geek Uninstaller

#43 Post by JohnTHaller »

Unfortunately, the word "portable" means different things to different people. To many, it just means 'will it run without me having to install it'. They don't care if the settings are stored locally and left behind on each PC. There are several apps like this here on PFC (Autoruns, Process Monitor, Process Explorer, etc). The argument about how important these settings are seems to be the deciding factor for some folks on whether the apps are considered 'portable'. SpeedyFox would appear to fall within the same category as the 3 examples I gave. You can use it on each PC without it being too inconvenient that your settings are left behind.

Side Note: From reading the thread smaragdus linked, I'd like to note that SpeedyFox Portable should only be slower on initial launch as our portable launcher automatically detects supported portable apps (Firefox Portable, Skype Portable, etc) and configures SpeedyFox Portable for their use the very first time you launch it. If there's an existing preferences.xml within the Data directory, it won't do this, instead just copying it locally (backing up any existing settings) and then starting SpeedyFox.
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software | Support Net Neutrality

User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 3052
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: Geek Uninstaller

#44 Post by Andrew Lee »

I tried out SpeedyFox and found it to be quite a useful program.

I understand why the developer wants to keep "preferences.xml" in AppData. It is created on initial startup and is specific to each system. The data is cached to increase speed of subsequent startup.

I think it's the custom profiles that is the issue here in terms of portability. Given the nature of the problem, I would have suggested that the program merges "preferences.xml" in AppData (system-specific), and "preferences.xml" in the local folder (custom profiles) if available. Done a certain way, the implementation can be done with little code and UI changes, and minimal impact to existing installation (no migration of "preferences.xml" required).

From the developer's POV, I can understand some of their resistance to adding portability to their code. M$ has made it impossible to write to "C:\Program Files", where installed programs go. So if a developer wants to support portability, he needs to 1) let the user indicates that he wants portability i.e. write settings to local folder 2) check if the program does have write access to the local folder, if not, perform error handling 3) write settings to the local folder, otherwise write settings to AppData or registry.

A program that is targeted for USB drives has no such problem (just write to local folder, and fail with an error message if it is unable to). But a program that is targeted for both installation and USB drives has to deal with 2 scenarios, which is messy.

User avatar
smaragdus
Posts: 2120
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2013 3:24 am
Location: Aeaea

Re: Geek Uninstaller

#45 Post by smaragdus »

@Andrew Lee
From the developer's POV, I can understand some of their resistance to adding portability to their code. M$ has made it impossible to write to "C:\Program Files", where installed programs go. So if a developer wants to support portability, he needs to 1) let the user indicates that he wants portability i.e. write settings to local folder 2) check if the program does have write access to the local folder, if not, perform error handling 3) write settings to the local folder, otherwise write settings to AppData or registry.
"Click-Next-Next-Next" idiots and "One-Click" idiots have their beloved AppData (which with time becomes a junkyard, in fact- a cryptic junkyard because sometimes it is from hard to impossible to guess what program created certain left-overs). Those who know what "portable" means and who would need portable usage are also aware what "write-protected" means and is not likely to put a portable program in a system folder. I believe that it is users' right to choose where a program should save its data and settings and portable usage is users' responsibility. I also believe that usually it is not very hard to add a command line switch (for example "some.exe -portable", "some.exe --portable", "some.exe /portable", "some.exe /p", "some.exe -profile ./data", etc) and if such an option exists those who use it know what they are doing.

Post Reply