Contents.PICTURE An image depicting a pen drive. No, I mean, really? Then, why not also a picture of an external hard disk or, say, a keyboard? Is it really necessary to post pictures in every single article?
- 13:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)LINKS FIRE FIRE!!Now that I got your attention, and checking previous posts. I propose removing all apps listed which aren't provided a link to the portable version.
Why?. The list is useless if only links to the main software page (as someone pointed, you8 can't get a portable winrar at rarlab.com). There are issues of verifiability. Unless a method is given on this talk, giving the portable app url is the onlyu mean to verify such software is indeed portable (anyone can add any program even if it's not TRULY portable). Finally, removing portable-as-in-compileable-on-several-platforms should be removed as well.
Portable here has a very specific meaning.What do you think? Unless someone provides strong arguments for doing otherwise I'll do the cleaning up in a few weeks. Note: 'opinion' is not the same as 'argument' - 23:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Hmm, tricky. On the one hand, the ability to list items that don't (yet) have their own articles is one of the arguments for using lists instead of categories at.
On the other hand, this list seems to be degenerating into a spammy link farm, full of non-notable products listed solely in the hopes of boosting sales. I tend to think the article should be entirely restructured to make it not-so-easy to just drop your spam-links in. Either that or deleted and replaced by a category. But any cleanup/spam-removal that can be done in the meantime strikes me as a good thing. 23:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC) If you're truly deleting spam, OK. But in some cases, rather than deleting the entry because it lacks the link, what about adding the link?
If you can't get a portable version of an app at the provided link, but one is available somewhere else, that app should not be deleted. For example, TrueCrypt contains a link to the main web-site, but there is a specific section of the documentation that contains specific instructions for how to use it as a portable app. As already discussed here, when used in this way, the concensus seems to be that TrueCrypt is a portable app. So why delete it, why not change the link?
On the other hand, I agree that 'portable' as in compiles-on-multiple-platforms is completely irrelevant in this context: the initial paragraph clearly indicates that this is software that is portable across physical machines, not architectures - otherwise we can add every 'Hello, World' program that a beginning CS student writes. 01:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC) File Encryption Added many new entries. Needs much better formatting. If someone could format the entries better that would be nice.
Oh and if there is any programs that have already been mentioned take them out.In the browser section- OffByOne does exist. I was just there. The link to OffByOne is:Have a nice day. —Preceding comment added by 05:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC) Conversion to Category The call for deletion thing made me think.
I've begun work on converting this article into a category. Category:Portable Application This is a lot of work because I want all information in this list to be retained in its category version. To do this, I have to make articles for all the things that don't have them, and I must edit articles for some things to make it clear how to use it as a portable application. If anyone wants to help with this, they're welcome to, this is Wikipedia, after all.Alright, it seems to be that the conversion from list to category is a NO. I tried turning the Internet list into a category, here is the response I got:. IMO, the new Internet category is a lot less readable than the Internet group in this article was. The new category has no subsections for app types, and points you to yet another page for entries that don't have a wikipedia page.
Formerly, all the entries were together and grouped by type. 19:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)What is said above is true, so I think this should stay a list as it is. To further to continuity of the article and, therefore, shorten it, I have moved the portable app definition to the portable app article and linked here. All redirects here are now pointed to that page. This article flows much better now.
21:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Let's not get bogged down in perfection. Let's just start a category, too! I like having this list, but sooner or later there will be more and more arguments about what 'qualfies' for inclusion in this article, so let's at least have a category that all appropriate articles can be tagged with. 14:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)When in doubt, ask The three new items I added today (, a web browser;, a desktop publishing app; and a database app) are all programs that I had installed in a 1GB and tried before completing the list; actually this edition is being made in the copy of that resides in the USB flash drive, from a computer that does not have it installed in its HD.
Although I am rather informed and read a bit about these subjects, I am not a computer expert by any means, thus I do not fully undrestand what is meant by: 'A portable application is a software program that you can carry around with you on a portable device, such as a USB flash drive and use on any computer without necessarily modifying that computer's hard disk.' The apps that I listed are all only-Mac-apps, with the exception of RagTime that also has a Windows version, but it is a separate app.
In other words, I could not load and run the copy of RagTime that I have installed in my USB Flashcard in a Windows-operated computer, although, I could install a Windows version of RagTime in my USB flash drive and run it. Then, I ask if my listings are bona fide portable apps or not; I think they are. I would like some feedback from other users. Vale, 22:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Yeah, the definition I wrote for a portable app isn't very exact. From your explanation, yes, I think RagTime and iCab are ok to be listed here.
Thanks for the additions. 22:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC) TrueCrypt?
Does TrueCrypt belong in this list? While TC volumes are portable (they are self-contained files), and entire USB drives can be encrypted with the software, I believe use of TrueCrypt requires installation of the software by someone with Administrator rights, at least on WinXP. The software seems to create a virtual driver to mount encrypted volumes. Perhaps this limitation is only applicable to WinXP, but if not, I propose removing TrueCrypt from the list.As an aside, after having a laptop stolen a few years ago, I've looked at a number of encryption solutions, but haven't found the magic bullet that combines strength, portability and ease of use.
:origin()/pre00/2fb3/th/pre/f/2015/217/4/0/request_2___here_comes_dr__pain_by_koili-d949f7a.png "Does It Offended You Yeah Rarlab")
19:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)TrueCrypt will run without being installed on a local PC from a USB flash drive, but it will only work when run under an account in Windows 2000/XP with administrative rights. As such, it is actually a portable app (in my opinion) it just has more limitations than most portable apps. 22:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)In an attempt, apparently, to short-circuit discussion, someone wiped a comment asking if this entry is even encyclopedic.
I have the same question myself. But maybe I'm biased, since I preferred the original Wikipedia policy that lists were 'unencyclopedic' by definition.' Portable application' to any software developer denotes an application whose source code can be recompiled on multiple platforms easily. Even for the definition given, does one include programs that can be source-recompiled to be portable, ones that can be induced to look for config files on the pen drive, or only ones that natively look in the application directory?
All three seem to be here. What is the encyclopedic value of this? It's more of a helpful guide to compiling a set of apps.
Does It Offend You Yeah Rarlab Song
That's useful, but not strictly speaking, pedagogical.Make 'local storage' a must feature for being 'portable'? We have two different requirements for an app to be portable:. no need for install.
can be made to store its files locally (right besides the app) instead of the local host systemCan somebody tell me whether there is actually a need for apps that are 'portable' (so one loads them on a usb-stick and walks from machine to machine), don't have to be installed, yet store their files on the local system? If there is no need, why don't we change the line'Ideally it can be configured to read its configuration from the same location as the software, for increased portability'to'Portable apps can be configured to read its configuration from the same location as the software, for increased portability'i.e., the 'local storage' feature is not optional, but a required feature to meet the definition of 'portable'. 11:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Hi, I wrote that line. The reason I wrote it was I don't think there's actually a recognized definition of the term 'portable application' so I was intentionally trying to point out that there's ambiguity there. I'd rather keep that ambiguity than attempt to invent a definition here on wikipedia, which I think is not appropriate.
If it can be cleaned up to be more readable that would be great though, I'm not always tops at style. My vote is to not try to strictly define 'portable application'.22:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)In my opinion a 100% portable application require:. no need for install (well, only the first time you install it on portable drive). read its configuration from the same location as the software (this mean that you have your bookmark, buddylist, preferences, extension, plugins etc. Always with you). don't leave any footprint on local host system when quit (with the exception of tmp file).So following this definition all Mac OS X applications are not 'portable' as all preferences and Applications Support files are stored on user home directory on local host system.
This means that if you just open an application form a portable drive you get preferences from local host user and not yours.15:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)This definition sounds good. And with this definition, it would actually make sense to list certain mac apps.
How about if we go through the whole list and remove all apps that are only 'semi-portable'? We could move them into a different page (like 'List of semi-portable applications') if somebody complains. 00:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC) What do you mean with 'semi-portable'? Are all those apps that don't 'keep settings on the drive'? As I think that 'keeping settings on the drive' is the most important feature of a portable app. 13:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)21:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC) I agree with Cgand.
In order to be portable, an app can't store its settings on the local machine.