• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Thoughts on Portable Apps?

Upchurch

Papa Funkosophy
Joined
May 10, 2002
Messages
34,265
Location
St. Louis, MO
I read this post:
Get a copy of portable firefox and install it separately. It does not write anything to the registry and will not in any way affect your existing installation. If you wish it can be ran from a USB drive.
and just had to check it out. On first glance, this looks really cool. So, what's the catch?

I primarily use MS Office 2007, Macromedia products, Trillian, and Skype. Hypothetically, Portable Apps could replace all but Skype and Flash/Flex. (and I think Skype can be loaded onto a USB drive, but I've never tried it.)

What is the downside to this? Do the open source versions not work as well? Are they more vulnerable to attack? Is there a reason to pay for updating my current software to the latest versions?
 
Okay, did find one draw back. There is currently no simple open source way to sync Mozilla's contacts and calendars with a PDA. It looks like it is currently in development, though.
 
One potential problem I see is that you can have version issues between different systems.

Portable Firefox vA.B.C might work fine on Windows XP but may take a dump on Windows Vista 64 or vise-versa. The Firefox team may recommend an older version for one of those two systems while a resolution to the problem is investigated and implimented.

Ie, you could be stuck with the lowest common denominator.
 
I read this post:

and just had to check it out. On first glance, this looks really cool. So, what's the catch?

I primarily use MS Office 2007, Macromedia products, Trillian, and Skype. Hypothetically, Portable Apps could replace all but Skype and Flash/Flex. (and I think Skype can be loaded onto a USB drive, but I've never tried it.)

What is the downside to this? Do the open source versions not work as well? Are they more vulnerable to attack? Is there a reason to pay for updating my current software to the latest versions?
First off, they aren't "open source versions." They are separate products that do the same jobs.
In many cases, the open source programs work better. They also tend to be more secure. Whether they work better for you is something you'll have to try for yourself.

Take Firefox. It is a full replacement for Internet Explorer. It has included tabbed browsing for YEARS - IE just got that with version 7. It is more compliant with web standards than IE - HOWEVER, sites buitl for IE (which has really crappy standards compliance) sometimes don't display properly with firefox. I prefer Firefox, but IE has its place as well. In a corporate environment, it is easier to centrally control IE. The basic program itself isn't as good or as secure as Firefox, but you can easily lock it down to prevent users from changing certain settings or doing particular things.

I also prefer OpenOffice over MS Office. MS Office has bugs that have irritated me since Word 97 came out. Things that just work under OO can cause grey hairs if you try them under MS Office. Large documents are also easier to work with under OO. MS Office tends to corrupt the files and go nuts if you get too much stuff in one file. OO stays stable.

On the other hand, MS Office has better spell checking, and OO doesn't have (that I know of) a grammar check. Then again, I can use OO in German (with German menus and text) then switch to English (with English menus and text.) OO includes dictionaries for multiple languages, and adding more is trivial. There's even a tool that will locate and install new language dictionaries and updates.

People who use Excel generally complan that OO Calc doesn't have pivot tables. If you need pivot tables, OO might not do for you. If you need a spreadsheet program that you can take with you, then Excel gets to be a problem. (I just checked. OO has pivot tables since version 2. something.)

The applications from Portableapps do not have to be installed on a USB stick. The open source programs are normal programs that can be installed on your PC. They are readily available for use on a USB stick because they are open source - any changes that need to be made to accomodate that use can be made to the program. Using MS Office from a USB stick would be a major pain. It can be done (I think) but the folks who do it have to play really nasty tricks on the operating system to do so - mostly they require that you install a special driver one the PC. Those folks charge bucks for their sneaky software. The PortableApps guys can give it away because it didn't cost them much to develop it in the first place. The applciations themselves they get from other projects - for free. The PortableApp software itself is free. Free+free=free.

All of the applications on the PortableApp site can be installed and used normally of your PC. You just download them from the original project site instead of the portable applications site.

Whether you want to (or must) continue paying money to Microsoft depends on what you do and with whom you must exchange files. And sometimes (surprise!) you do better in the exchange department when using open source software. Someone here created a booklet with MS Publisher and tried to have it printed by an offset print place. They only accept PDF files, which Publisher couldn't create. Scribus (an open source DTP program) does make PDF files, but it can't read MS Publisher files. Scribus also has very good support for PDF "pre-flight" checking, color profiles, and various other things that make life much easier when going to a printer. Making a simple PDF from a Publisher file is easy enough (more open source software, ghost script and ghostview,) but those files won't include the more advanced stuff - firstly because MS Pub hasn't got it and second because even it it did you couldn't get at it from outside.

Try the open source stuff. Use them on USB if you feel safer that way, but it will be slower. USB tends to be something of a bottleneck. If you like the programs, try installing them on your PC normally. If you don't like them, then just uninstall them and go back to using whatever it was before.
 
Thanks for the replies.


Take Firefox. It is a full replacement for Internet Explorer. It has included tabbed browsing for YEARS - IE just got that with version 7. It is more compliant with web standards than IE - HOWEVER, sites buitl for IE (which has really crappy standards compliance) sometimes don't display properly with firefox.
I've long been sold on Firefox. It's IE Tab extension was worked passably well for me, especially the newer versions which cleared up some lingering problems.


The applications from Portableapps do not have to be installed on a USB stick. The open source programs are normal programs that can be installed on your PC.
Yes, I was actually confusing a couple of ideas together in my OP. I think being able to stick it on a USB drive and going is really cool, but the main thrust of my question was on the reliability of these free and/or open source production tools. I'm trying a few of them (in non-portable form) out today on tasks that it won't hurt if they don't work correctly.
 
One of the draw backs of the open source projects is that they may get abandoned and you may have to switch to a different program if this happens and you need updated functionality. Very Darwinian. OF course, this can and does happen with closed source proprietary software (abandonware), but the upgrade/conversion cost is less with Free Open Source Software. I have been using several open source applications for some time, most are on linux but several others on windows. On windows I use portable versions of Gimp, Firefox, Abiword and FileZilla and non portable versions of truecrypt (handy for storing passwords, just in case I lose my thumbdrive, which you can actually run from a thumb drive), Notepad++ (tabbed editor with syntax highlighting and lots of built in utilities.) Inkscape (vector drawing program). I consider myself a joat (jack of all trades master of none) so I usually don't push an individual program to its limits. As for reliability I have had no problems with the aforementioned applications.
 
I've been using portable Firefox for about a month now. Having the same bookmarks and plugins across my work and home systems is fantastic. My previous system of tracking all my myriad bookmarks was a joke, and all the online ones and sync ones have their own issues that I don't care to deal with.

The main issues are the speed dip (it has to load from the thumb drive, save bookmarks there and so forth) and you have to load the toolbar and eject the drive when you leave or face error messages.

These have been minor quibbles so far, the speed issue isn't a huge deal and I've gotten better at launching (created a shortcut on the desktop) and ejecting (you get into the habit).

I've been trying out portable Gimp, but my complaints are more about its idiosyncrasies in migrating from PaintShop. Sunbird is interesting, but I don't really need a calendar app and I can't sync with work yet. I think it can be done, but I'm not driven to do so.

OpenOffice is just out of the question for me. Work is purely Office (and moving to 2007, which I don't like the layout for), so there's really no reason for me to go to OO. I've used it in testing and I hope that it will get to the point where work will consider switching, but I won't hold my breath.

The soduku thing is junk, you could create an HTML table version in about 10 minutes. It doesn't provide assistance (warnings, markup), games or solutions.

I wasn't impressed with FileZilla, I use FireFTP addon for Firefox, which works fine as a portable.

The rest aren't of much use to me and I haven't tried to move anything onto the drive that isn't designed to run on it.
 
Yes, I was actually confusing a couple of ideas together in my OP. I think being able to stick it on a USB drive and going is really cool, but the main thrust of my question was on the reliability of these free and/or open source production tools. I'm trying a few of them (in non-portable form) out today on tasks that it won't hurt if they don't work correctly.
Whether any application is "better" than another is largely subjective, and I think you will find that there are many people on both sides who will rabidly argue that their chosen solution is "The One" (cause people just love to see their decisions validated in choices that others make).

Really all you can do is try them out and find out which you like better. Make sure that if you are used to one application, that you give the other one enough time before you dismiss it out of hand. Switching from MS Office to OpenOffice may feel really odd at first, and your productivity may take a nosedive, but it will eventually come back up. Then you can make a decision over whether you like one over the other.

Personally, I will offer my (subjective opinion). For the most part, I find that Firefox is nicer than IE, but the difference between IE6 and IE7 is really astounding. So much so, that when I use IE at work, I no longer really notice differences. It is true that IE doesn't quite follow the standards (but neither does Firefox technically, neither pass the Acid Test yet), but that really only affects a minority of web pages (as a amateur-during-my-free-time-which-is-almost-nil web developer, I find that it is only the really quirky designs that have any problem at all across browsers).

I do like to use MS Office over OpenOffice though. I find it to be more performant, and easier to use (especially when you get used to the new ribbon menu bar). I still use OpenOffice a lot (because I dual-boot Linux), and I used it exclusively for 4 years, so I think I can make a fairly educated decision here. Like I wrote though, it is highly subjective. You'll just have to see for yourself.
 
On the open source apps side of this conversation, I've been using Aptana as a replacement for Dreamweaver since I started this thread and I'm really kinda digging it. It doesn't explicitly support ASP, but it doesn't hinder it either. Plus, it's based on Eclipse, so I'm somewhat used to the format from Flex 2.
 
One potential problem I see is that you can have version issues between different systems.

Portable Firefox vA.B.C might work fine on Windows XP but may take a dump on Windows Vista 64 or vise-versa. The Firefox team may recommend an older version for one of those two systems while a resolution to the problem is investigated and implimented.

Ie, you could be stuck with the lowest common denominator.

Rock, that is what I do every day - swap FF portable on a stick between XP PRO and XP64. I don't use Vista, though, and don't intend to.

V. 2. 0. 0. 4 is what this is...
 
One potential problem I see is that you can have version issues between different systems.

Portable Firefox vA.B.C might work fine on Windows XP but may take a dump on Windows Vista 64 or vise-versa. The Firefox team may recommend an older version for one of those two systems while a resolution to the problem is investigated and implimented.

Ie, you could be stuck with the lowest common denominator.

On the other hand, since it's so portable you can put more than one version on a portable drive and share the bookmarks between them.
 

Back
Top Bottom