Which is more non portable ?

[loin2kolpotoru]

I Think the applications which requires runtimes like dotnet java etc are much more non portable then the applications which writes setting in registry or appdata. Because applications which requires runtimes cant be run in a computer which dosenot have that runtimes installed. But applications which writes setting in registry or appdata can be easily made portable using a launcher.

[SYSTEM]

I actually have the opposite opinion. The word "portable" doesn't mean much if it applies to the vast majority of programs which save settings to %APPDATA% or Windows Registry (even if .NET and Java programs are excluded).

"Standalone" is the term I'd use to describe non-portable software that doesn't depend on .NET or Java.

[Craunch]

All programs make use of operating system functionality in some way; getting input from the user and putting results on display are examples. Nowadays the .net framework is included as part of recent versions of windows and because of that I would consider programs that require it to be just as portable as those that don't, but they are not compatible with versions of windows that do not include .net. I.e. to me applications needing .net are portable, but have system requirements of only recent versions of windows.

Java, Python, Lua etc. also rely on a runtime to execute. Their runtimes are not included as part of the windows operating system and hence such programs should not be regarded as portable, unless the program bundles the necessary runtime as part of a completely self contained program package that does not require any part to be installed.

To summarize, I think that .net is portable, but not compatible with some versions of windows, and the portablity of Java etc. programs depends on how they are packaged.

[webfork]

Which is more non portable?

I think the better question is what's the most portable and I think your north star would be the ability to work anywhere. You plug it in somewhere and it's going to do whatever you want where ever with limited fuss. If you have to download, configure, tweak, or otherwise modify it, that's not truly portable. As to the other points:

• Stealth is about privacy and good computer housekeeping but not really relevant to the goal of using anywhere
• If Java or whatever necessary libraries are included (as with jPortable for example), then it's not a portability issue but a file size or general language preference
• If dotNET is necessary, that can cut out older windows versions, WINE/ReactOS compatibility, and some higher security machines that can turn off dotNET capability

All that's nice to talk about, but the truth is that most machines in the world correspond to so REAL portability just means like 91% of desktop computers out there (functional on Windows XP through . Functionality beyond that just isn't realistic, but then you never know where you'll end up with a USB connection and, as anyone can see, the landscape of computers is changing:

• Android devices (phones and tablets) now effectively have USB ports. Anticipating that, I bought one of these.
• ChromeOS is likely going to continue to grow
• Some public machines I've come across for anyone's use are running Linux since they're too old to run any not-insecure verison of Windows.

Some examples of great portability:

The best thing I've found so far for the MAXIMUM machine availability is probably gpg4usb, which will work on Windows and Linux easily and automatically with the same settings. Supposedly a Mac version is on the way. Fre:ac works on every version of Windows and under WINE. DocFetcher would be a contender (Mac/Win/Linux) but doesn't include Java.