Applications that are Private and Portable

[guinness]

Below are the applications that I have found in the Private section which are Portable and NOT .NET/Java dependent.

Tested XP CD-Key Finder: Portable - http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=1625
Desktop Renamer: Portable - http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=1753
Autorun Injector: Portable - http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=1752
MK Twitter: Portable - http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=1762
DTC - The Delay Time Calculator: Portable - http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=1746

Maybe it's time to clean up the entries which are Portable and NOT .NET/Java dependent, but are 100% Stealth.
I have tidied up some of the entries and voted for those that were Portable. Maybe those who test and are enthusiastic can help.

Here is a link of the applications which aren't in the main database. http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.p ... th+options

If you feel your application deserves to be re-tested post below.

[guinness]

After double checking the 41 Private entries, the list above has been confirmed to be the programs that match the criteria outlined in the FAQ. If someone would kindly Test and Vote for these applications, this would be much appreciated.

If someone believes the 100% Portable .NET Applications should be included in the DB, then please discuss below.

[webfork]

If someone believes the 100% Portable .NET Applications should be included in the DB, then please discuss below.

As much love as there is for zScreen and Paint.NET, my argument against .NET applications has not changed. Even when .NET is installed, Its still a question whether stations locked down by paranoid administrators will be able to run applications. Despite this, its obvious that .NET applications are being added. Some recommendations:

• Disclaimer One possibility is adding a disclaimer to each entry that points to somewhere in the FAQ describing problems with running .NET on some systems
• Separate section on the forums This has been suggested before, but I'm not clear on who favored it.
• Wait As Windows XP loses ground as the defacto operating system in the next few years, integrating .NET will make more and more sense. Based on current projections, XP is losing 1% usage share every month, they should be around 25% in about 2 years. At that point, we should probably add .NET applications normally.

[chadross]

I don't see any harm in including .NET apps if they are truly portable in all other respects. The caveat being that they are clearly marked as .NET dependent. Leave it up to the end user to decide whether or not they want to use a .NET application. Personally all the network I utilize have .NET installed, so i freely use .NET apps from my drive. To each their own, right?

[webfork]

To each their own, right?

True, we could list more detailed reports about how portable a given software is and let users make a decision, but I think that's the purpose of the forums. What PortableFreeware 's main site has done is set a standard and I think that's part of why the site is so successful. The average visitor doesn't want to hear about registry entries, files saved in AppData, and so on. They want to know if the software and its settings will go anywhere with them. Both .NET and Java requirements prevent that.

[guinness]

Personally I am still not happy about .NET applications in the DB, but I am open to change. My philosophy is, if an application that is written in C#/Java has a similar application written in another language (even missing some features) I would rather choose the latter. Maybe it's because of cross platform or a longtime on TPFC.

[dmg]

I do not claim any computer related expertise, but I feel I should bring up another reason not to accept .NET. It stinks! I recognize that it is a powerful and versatile programming environment, but it has serious backward compatibility issues. As webfork points out, over the next few years the dominant Windows varieties will come with .NET preinstalled, but since Microsoft keeps coming out with new and not necessarily compatible versions things will be in much the same state they are in now. Even if every computer a user is likely to have access to has .NET it will not necessarily be a version their portable apps can use.

I admit part of my bias may simply be that Microsoft is behind .NET, but I do not think a .NET app can be considered truly portable. At least not until someone comes up with a portable version of .NET itself...

[chadross]

it has serious backward compatibility issues. As webfork points out, over the next few years the dominant Windows varieties will come with .NET preinstalled, but since Microsoft keeps coming out with new and not necessarily compatible versions

All version of .NET have been backwards compatible since 2.0. The only reason 2.0 itself is not backwards compatible is that they reworked the entire framework. 3.0, 3.5, and now 4.0 are all additive to the previous, not replacements. That means a 2.0 app will run on all 4 frameworks.

[dmg]

Hmm... As I said, I claim no expertise. I Suppose what I was thinking of was newer apps not being able to use older versions of .NET due to new features being implemented in the newer versions. Not so much that old apps can't use newer .NET versions. Am I mistaken is saying that many apps require specific versions of .NET to run?

[chadross]

You are correct when a .NET app is compiled it targets a specific framework; however, most apps are still being developed for the 2.0 framework. There is no reason to target the higher frameworks unless you are implementing some of the enterprise features (WPF, WCF, WF, Cardspace, LINQ, etc) You'll find that the majority of "Portable" .NET apps will target 2.0.

Fun Facts:
As of January 2010, statistics show that 90% of PCs have some version of .NET framework installed and 65% of Windows PCs have .NET 3.5 SP1 installed. Windows 7/Server 2008 and Office 2010 actually employ features of the .NET framework as part of their functionality, so I don't think we have to worry about it disappearing one day as Microsoft is heavily invested in it.

And All PCs running Windows Vista or Windows 7 come with .NET 3.5 or higher as part of the OS. So if you take into account the average life cycle of a PC (3yrs) and the fact that Vista didn't sell that well and Win7 is being adopted by enterprise at a much faster rate, I'd say .NET 3.5 or greater will be on 99% of PCs with in the next 1-2 years.

I'm not trying to debate the "portability" of .NET, just saying that the end user should be given the choice as there are some really great .NET apps that are ".NET Portable"

[JohnTHaller]

As of January 2010, statistics show that 90% of PCs have some version of .NET framework installed and 65% of Windows PCs have .NET 3.5 SP1 installed. Windows 7/Server 2008 and Office 2010 actually employ features of the .NET framework as part of their functionality, so I don't think we have to worry about it disappearing one day as Microsoft is heavily invested in it.

I still don't understand why Microsoft won't just release *REAL* numbers. Just tell us, exactly, what % of Windows PCs have .NET 1, 1.1, 2, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 already running on them.

90% having 'some' version of .NET would include 1.0 and 1.1 (which is what some corporations have and have not moved on to 2.0). And 65% of 3.5 and up. So, if your app is a .NET 2.0 app (which seems pretty common), it's going to fail to work on over 1 out of 10 PCs you encounter. And if it's a .NET 3.5 app, it's gonna fail on 1 out of 3 PCs you encounter.

The fact that .NET is in Office 2010 doesn't mean much. Is Office itself coded in .NET and require it? I know Office 2003 and 2007 made available the ability to do some scripting in .NET for the user and developer. But the apps themselves are written in C/C++ and don't require the .NET framework to be installed. I always found it odd that Microsoft billed .NET as the next generation of software development but never built any of their own big apps using it. But I digress...

You also need to consider where you're using portable apps. At home you can install what you need. At the office there's a good chance some .NET version is on there (if they're a Microsoft coding shop for internal apps that is). But at a net cafe, hotel business center or library? Forget it. You're going to have an XP machine without .NET. And at school, you probably won't have .NET either, except in the labs that do software development using Microsoft tools.

That's why we're taking the approach of leaving .NET off the main directory in PortableApps.com and just allowing users to optionally display them if they specifically understand the tradeoffs of not actually being able to use their software in quite a few places.

[m^(2)]

If someone believes the 100% Portable .NET Applications should be included in the DB, then please discuss below.

As much love as there is for zScreen and Paint.NET, my argument against .NET applications has not changed. Even when .NET is installed, Its still a question whether stations locked down by paranoid administrators will be able to run applications. Despite this, its obvious that .NET applications are being added. Some recommendations:

• Disclaimer One possibility is adding a disclaimer to each entry that points to somewhere in the FAQ describing problems with running .NET on some systems
• Separate section on the forums This has been suggested before, but I'm not clear on who favored it.
• Wait As Windows XP loses ground as the defacto operating system in the next few years, integrating .NET will make more and more sense. Based on current projections, XP is losing 1% usage share every month, they should be around 25% in about 2 years. At that point, we should probably add .NET applications normally.

25% of market share is still huge. If you use just 5 independent computers, you have 77% to have at least one with XP.
Many XP machines do have .NET though, so we should compare .NET market share though.

You are correct when a .NET app is compiled it targets a specific framework; however, most apps are still being developed for the 2.0 framework. There is no reason to target the higher frameworks unless you are implementing some of the enterprise features (WPF, WCF, WF, Cardspace, LINQ, etc) You'll find that the majority of "Portable" .NET apps will target 2.0.

Did you write in .NET?
There are numerous improvements all around in each .NET version all the way from 1.0 to 3.5 (I don't know 4.0).
Using a higher version makes you more productive. I think it's a pretty good reason to use them.

Fun Facts:
As of January 2010, statistics show that 90% of PCs have some version of .NET framework installed and 65% of Windows PCs have .NET 3.5 SP1 installed.

Source?


I also do a lot to find programs which don't depend on .NET. I rarely use my software portably nowadays and I do have .NET on my PC, but I love the fact that I wherever I am, I can connect to any Windows PC, plug in my pendrive and have my environment which I honed all the years and everything just works. Even though I recently learned that one of them still uses Win 98 (and Pentium 2).
.NET doesn't just work and it makes it a big no-go.

[JohnTHaller]

Fun Facts:
As of January 2010, statistics show that 90% of PCs have some version of .NET framework installed and 65% of Windows PCs have .NET 3.5 SP1 installed.

Source?

The source was Scott Handelman's January 2010 Blog Post. The data used was apparently from Windows Update internally at Microsoft. Sadly, it doesn't break anything down, just saying how many PCs have 'some version' of .NET and how many have 3.5 installed (this is before 4.0 was released). I'd love to get the real numbers so we could make an informed decision about how to list things (and be able to let users themselves be able to make them).

[m^(2)]

Fun Facts:
As of January 2010, statistics show that 90% of PCs have some version of .NET framework installed and 65% of Windows PCs have .NET 3.5 SP1 installed.

Source?

The source was Scott Handelman's January 2010 Blog Post. The data used was apparently from Windows Update internally at Microsoft. Sadly, it doesn't break anything down, just saying how many PCs have 'some version' of .NET and how many have 3.5 installed (this is before 4.0 was released). I'd love to get the real numbers so we could make an informed decision about how to list things (and be able to let users themselves be able to make them).

Thanks for the answer.
OK, so it's from MS, as soon as I saw such high numbers I expected they were the source. ^^
I see one flaw which appears major, there may be more, but there's too little said.
It misses computers that have Windows Update off.
Did some searching:
Article from July 2007 quotes Ballmer saying that Windows was to exceed 1 bln users by 2008.
Wiki claims that in 2008 there were 0.5 bln Windows Update users.
I'm not entirely sure both numbers are comparable (f.e. are embedded OSes counted in any of them? The difference seems large...) but anyway, roughly 45% of Windows PCs is confirmed some .NET and 33% - .NET 3.5 (for all PCs it's more like 41/30). Though some machines that have automatic updates has .NET, some other machines have mono, so real numbers are probably higher, I won't try to guesstimate by how much, I have no idea.

[guinness]

Great discussion, but still a mixed response of YES/NO. So for now I won't Test and Vote for these applications.

Also my initial post has been lost a little "in translation" I just wanted a user(s) to Test and Vote for the Portable applications so they can be added to the DB. I don't want to be the only one just testing applications.