Portable Chrome

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
User avatar
Midas
Posts: 6787
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: Portable Chrome

#31 Post by Midas »

Stephen Leibowitz wrote: Chrome has a native Linux version, so there is little or no reason to run Wine, which is a Windows compatibility layer for Linux.
TPFC is mostly a Windows oriented site and so I think Wine compatibility is still relevant, Linux version or not.

OTOH, browsers, in general (and Chrome, in particular) are weird beasts, so whatever...

Stephen Leibowitz
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Portable Chrome

#32 Post by Stephen Leibowitz »

At least four US states have “enhanced” PDF fillable tax forms. The options for processing these forms are limited. But Alabama permits the use of browsers, as well as Acrobat Reader, for its enhanced forms (with Calculations). The browser option also makes Alabama’s forms available to Linux users. TPFC has Windows portable versions of Google Chrome, X-Chromium, and Firefox, which are compatible with the Alabama forms.

Alabama, New York, and Missouri have tax forms in PDF format that have “been enhanced to complete all calculations and compute the amount of tax due.” Also, those forms and Hawaii’s have been enhanced to print a two dimensional (2D) barcode, which contains data entered on the form. There is a considerable amount of Javascript embedded in the PDFs to implement these enhancements. The PDFs of the first three states can be considered to be low-end tax programs.

A user cannot use the New York or Hawaii enhanced forms in Chrome, FF, or Foxit. For example, after downloading a NY or HI form, click Open File... (Ctrl+O) in Chrome and open the form. You will see a yellow “lid” that says “WARNING: PLEASE USE A DIFFERENT PDF VIEWER,” and advises you to use the desktop version of Adobe Reader. The lid also says that the form is incompatible with Linux, probably because Adobe’s last Linux version of Reader is out-of-date. The forms use Javascript to decide whether to display the lid or the form, depending on what form viewer is being used.

I think the form viewer check is excessive. The barcode enhancement for the four states is implemented with Javascript software called Ultraforms, which is embedded in the PDFs. Foxit owns Ultraforms. It is compatible with their own PDF processors, as well as those from Adobe and other sources. As the Alabama forms show, it is compatible with browser PDF processors.

The other enhancement is the calculations. There is a fair amount of code for it, but it does not use recent Adobe JavaScript features. The tax forms from Hawaii do not even perform calculations, yet they have the form viewer check.

The forms disallow the use of Adobe Acrobat 9 and earlier. This type of version check could be extended to other form viewer software. (Test formsVersion or viewerVersion.)

There is no Windows portable version of Adobe Reader. I think that PortableApps.com cannot proceed to create a version without Adobe’s agreement. Perhaps Mr. Toth can create a yaP version?

User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 3095
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: Portable Chrome

#33 Post by Andrew Lee »

Wow, these kinds of morbid idiosyncrasy is truly fascinating :D

Thanks for sharing.

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 6787
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: Portable Chrome

#34 Post by Midas »

Stephen Leibowitz wrote: At least four US states have “enhanced” PDF fillable tax forms...

One word: wow! :shock:

Stephen Leibowitz
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Portable Chrome

#35 Post by Stephen Leibowitz »

webfork wrote, “Got another major flaw out for Chrome and Edge. ...It's standard guidance here: update and keep updating.”

Google has issued an update to fix a high severity vulnerability in Chrome. PortableApps.com has released a corresponding update. My question is, is it OK for me to update the TPFC database for vulnerability or other bug fixes in Chrome? Updating the TPFC database for these fixes would likely put Chrome at the top of “Latest entries.” As it is, Chrome is fairly often at the top of the list because of changes that bump up the version number to the left of the decimal point.

User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 3095
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: Portable Chrome

#36 Post by Andrew Lee »

Updating the entry will not automatically push it to the top of "Latest entries", 'cos we have a check that only permits that every 7 days.

So if you update the entry, but the last update was done within the last 7 days, the entry will stay in its current position despite the update.

User avatar
SYSTEM
Posts: 2044
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:19 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Portable Chrome

#37 Post by SYSTEM »

Stephen Leibowitz wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 12:08 pm My question is, is it OK for me to update the TPFC database for vulnerability or other bug fixes in Chrome? Updating the TPFC database for these fixes would likely put Chrome at the top of “Latest entries.”
Absolutely. It's important people know of security updates as soon as possible.
My YouTube channel | Release date of my 13th playlist: August 24, 2020

lwc
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Portable Chrome

#38 Post by lwc »

I've added a note to the entry (with references) that portable versions of Chrome are no longer supported. They still work, but with bypasses and an uncertain future.

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 6787
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: Portable Chrome

#39 Post by Midas »

@lwc: I disagree with Chrome's database entry pointing primarily to another forum (i.e., https://portableapps.com/node/42637), when such issues have been previously brought up and discussed (repeatedly) here at TPFC forums -- chiefly in the current topic (see above) but also and specifically at viewtopic.php?t=23496...

I suggest you change that note accordingly.

lwc
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Portable Chrome

#40 Post by lwc »

My recent edit has nothing to do with that link (the note under "How to extract"), it was added about half a decade ago by someone else, as can be seen in the changelog.
Nevertheless I've just changed it anyway per your request.

As for my recent note, it's different than "not truly portable, because some settings are saved outside the app folder" - this time it's about Chrome starting to gradually block running portable versions at all (in this case the printing/save as PDF mechanism, with a warning they'll add more and more blockages and stop more and more bypasses).

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 6787
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: Portable Chrome

#41 Post by Midas »

Thank you for that, lwc. Sorry if I misunderstood your intentions, all was meant it in the best of ways... 8)

As for Google's shenanigans, am I the only one who isn't in the least surprised? They've been pretty consistent over the years in dis-empowering users of their products...

User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 3095
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: Portable Chrome

#42 Post by Andrew Lee »

Midas wrote: Sun Jun 16, 2024 2:43 am As for Google's shenanigans, am I the only one who isn't in the least surprised? They've been pretty consistent over the years in dis-empowering users of their products...
I can't think of any big company that hasn't behaved in this way! More recently, Reddit comes to mind. I suspect there is some universal law of human nature/group dynamic that can be found here...

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 6787
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: Portable Chrome

#43 Post by Midas »

Andrew Lee wrote: I suspect there is some universal law of human nature/group dynamic that can be found here...
I have a pretty good idea regarding that -- but I have been known to be against such discussions here at TPFC, so you'll have to visit my Facebook... :twisted:

Post Reply