Talk:PortableApps.com: Difference between revisions

Many people find the selection offered small but amazingly good quality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.205.185 (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've found that the PortableApps.com applications start considerably slower than the official versions, even when not run from a USB-stick. One example of this is VLC Media Player (isn't the official version portable anyway?) 85.76.253.210 (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In the Criticisms section, the first two criticisms are vague and unsubstantiated. While it says that "there are only a limited number of applications available compared to some other platforms", it does not give an example of these "other platforms". It makes a tangential reference to Ceedo and U3, but after looking at their web sites, they appear to offer fewer applications than PortableApps.com. A reference to support this claim, citing at least one of these "other platforms", would be good.

The second criticism, "Furthermore, some of the applications "released" by PortableApps.com are inherently portable..." is misleading, and also does not provide examples. The definition of a 'portable application' is fairly strict. While an application may be designed to run from a single folder, it may nevertheless leave traces in the user profile on the computer; such an application is not inherently portable by the strict definition, and requires a launcher to corral the application settings in a folder, and to remove any traces at application close.

Finally, both these criticisms use the term "some", which is as vague as the term "it has been said". 148.177.1.210 (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that note about U3 and Ceedo are a bit misleading. First of all U3 has entered its end of life and the pratfor is not open. This makes the platforms incomparable. The mentioning of number of supported applications is fewer than the for example U3 platform seems outdated.

Also many casual users might mention the official version of an given application might be portable as it is been distributed as zip or 'just runs' on any PC they try it on forgo the fact that settings might be left behind in folders and registry on the PC, and new ones will be generated my the application if they are missing. Backing the statement up with one of the few applications that might be completely portable is misleading and might give the readers the impression that any application which just works is 'portable'. (while in fact a not true portable application used from an USB Flash drive might mess up any local installed version if settings are changed, different versions exist and so on because it didn't temporary back up the settings of an local installed version of the application. Its important for readers to understand that when an application might run from an USB Flash drive without apparent problems, it doesn't mean it is 'portable' in a sense that is a PortableApps.com application does.

Also speed issues mentioned ,even when run from local HDD, are arguable due to the fact that yes the starting might take a few milliseconds longer due to the launcher, during use the application should be as fast as regular versions as the app is the same. On closing sometimes the original settings are restored and would take a very short time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.45.168 (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted to clarify bits of the criticisms section and change parts where known to be inaccurate. Ryan McCue ^{Let's have a chat} 09:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the VMWare ThinApp reference again. User SF007 added it back in again after I removed it when he mass added it to multiple unrelated articles. VMWare ThinApp is a method of portablizing certain software and, as such, is listed on the portable application article. However, it is unrelated to PortableApps.com, not used with the PortableApps.com Platform and can't be used to package GPL and similarly licensed software (which makes up the majority of PortableApps.com's releases). Thus, it should not be listed as a See Also as it is not an alternative or compatible solution.