Applications that are Private and Portable

Submit portable freeware that you find here. It helps if you include information like description, extraction instruction, Unicode support, whether it writes to the registry, and so on.
Message
Author
ashghost
Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:55 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: Applications that are Private and Portable

#16 Post by ashghost »

There are users who have no problems with .NET apps (I use my desktop and laptop almost exclusively - I bet I've used my portable programs on other machines less than 20 times in the last 5 years). In a poll I posted a couple of years ago, 6 of 16 respondents said that dependencies were not a problem for them.

If the biggest concern is that users won't realize that they may not be able to use a .NET app on any computer, couldn't we standardize some sort of warning in the first sentence of the description? For instance:

Code: Select all

WriteMonkey requires .NET 2.0 or higher, and provides a distraction-free writing environment.
The text "requires .NET 2.0" could include a link to an explanation of the perils and pitfalls of .NET, similar to the "extract" link that leads to an explanation of Universal Extractor in the faq.

I realize that this may have the effect of driving away a couple of purists. However, if they won't visit a database of portable applications because it's tainted by a handful of programs that require .NET, that seems more like their problem than ours. :)

User avatar
dmg
Posts: 325
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 2:11 am
Contact:

Re: Applications that are Private and Portable

#17 Post by dmg »

Sorry guinness. I am sure we did not mean to hijack your thread. :D I will look at those apps later tonight.

@ashghost
I agree that IF .NET is ever accepted on the site there should be some sort of standardized warning, but I think it should go in the dependencies section. That is kind of what it is for.

Edit:
I have examined and voted for XP CD-Key Finder and Desktop Renamer. I don't really have any interest in or use for the others. I agree that an app which is truly portable and does something someone may need done should probably be on the main page, but I hesitate to personally vote for apps I have no interest in. And I suppose an aspect of the voting system is that some apps simply won't make the grade.

This is just a thought, could some of the senior members put together some information on what software and techniques they use for testing for portability? Then post it prominently in the forum as a sort of tutorial. I know I would find it useful, rather then tracking information through multiple forum posts. I am sure there are other members like me who don't really have the knowledge to thoroughly test for portability and would be eager to learn.

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

Re: Applications that are Private and Portable

#18 Post by JohnTHaller »

As mentioned, I think it may be best if you don't show .NET apps by default and allow logged in users to select to see them if they understand the .NET issues. Having it in dependencies isn't really appropriate as that section for other apps are all things you can easily add to your portable device, something you can't do with .NET. While there are some useful .NET apps out there, no matter how it's worded, they're simply not truly portable. Unless you bill them as requiring Vista or Windows 7 and note that they will work on perhaps 4 out of 5 XP machines.
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software | Support Net Neutrality

User avatar
guinness
Posts: 4118
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:00 am
Contact:

Re: Applications that are Private and Portable

#19 Post by guinness »

This is just a thought, could some of the senior members put together some information on what software and techniques they use for testing for portability?
@dmg its a good question, which I have done in the past. I was hoping the 3 threads (see below) would become stickies.

I would recommend using at least System Explorer, because I found RegFromApp to be a little unpredictable. Also the snapshot feature of System Explorer can show you both File and Registry changes.

It would be great if TPFC Community could adopt System Explorer as a standard testing tool, because it would allow you to upload the compared changes to TPFC. Especially if certain elements were unclear on whether the application wrote to the registry.

What tools do you use to test Portability?
What Software do you use for Submissions?
How do you update your Portable Collection?

User avatar
dmg
Posts: 325
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 2:11 am
Contact:

Re: Applications that are Private and Portable

#20 Post by dmg »

Thanks guinness. I will see what I can make of these posts. At some point I may try to make a general outline of a guide for testing portable apps. After I figure it out myself that is. 8)

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

Re: Applications that are Private and Portable

#21 Post by Andrew Lee »

I have posted numerous times before that I don't like Java and .Net apps (especially the latter).

But since I introduced the voting system to TPFC, I have not intervened in the process, so I know some .Net apps have become public.

I guess it's like me posting some apps that write to the registry previously, because I think settings preservation is not as important for those apps (eg. data recovery, system diagnosis). Some members don't like that, and have made their views known publicly.

However, if enough high-ranking members think the app is interesting/significant/unique enough to become public despite the .Net dependency, then who am I to say "no"? :D

As long as the .Net dependency is clearly marked, all's fair and square.

I still wouldn't touch them personally with a 5 foot pole though...

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

Re: Applications that are Private and Portable

#22 Post by webfork »

webfork wrote: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.[/list]
Sweet. In July of 2012, 2 years after that post, the OS Statistics site lists XP at 26.1% Horray for math.

More relevant to the thread, WinXP is now at 15.7% and it's decline is reasonably flat, but support ending in April 2014 should accelerate that. I expect 3-6 months after that, it seems my opposition to dotNET for 3.5 and below will be moot.
Last edited by webfork on Sat Jun 08, 2013 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: (better wording)

Post Reply