PortableApps.com needs your help: Please consider making a donation today.300+ free and legal portable apps (over 9GB), up-to-date, & new apps regularly (Apr 3: GPU-Z).Get the encrypted PortableApps.com Carbide, the fast PortableApps.com Companion, or carry your KeyZ.PortableApps.com lead developer recovering from injury/surgery (Latest News Mar 19th)
pale moon portable please.
It's just an outdated, unbranded Firefox build.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
go to the site, main page and then site news.
22 Jan 2010 21:00
is the most recent post
so not outdated
It's the old FF 3.5.6 build. FF 3.5.7 came out on Jan 5. So, yes, it's an outdated FF build.
The current version is 12.0 and they have for both X86 as well as X64.
I'm not opposed to someone packaging this and us releasing it as a supported browser if they can get permission from the publisher. It seems fairly well maintained. I'm not too keen on the fact that they remove accessibility options, but as long as we're supporting real Firefox, our users are covered on that front.
Plus, it seems the official portable version of Pale Moon is a bit wonky and sometimes requires users to manually move files around to upgrade, which is a horrible user experience. (The release notes for 12.0 state that you need to install fresh and manually copy your profile over. Ack!) So, a PortableApps.com Format version would be a big step up.
They have a portable version. You linked to it. That should work just fine.
Open the zip file and extract it to X:\PortableApps\PaleMoonPortable where X is your drive letter, then go to the PortableApps.com Platform, if it's open, and go to Options, Refresh App Icons (I'm using PortableApps.com Platform 2.0 Beta 3; if you don't see the option, just exit and restart the Platform). It should come right up. You might want to rename it to something more attractive, if need be.
And yes, it is outdated. They seem to append a .1 to the version of the Firefox they modified. Their latest version is 3.5.6(.1). 3.5's latest is 3.5.7 and 3.6 is newer than that. So they're two versions behind. They do have a reason plastered on their homepage for why they don't have 3.6 yet, they're working on it. So they admit they are out of date. This is not a bad thing; in fact, it shows they're working on it. That's fine.
I gotta admit, I'm curious about this. It says it's optimized for next-generation processors. I wonder if it performs any better than regular Firefox. Then again, Opera and Chrome both do in some cases, but I still prefer Firefox.
I'd wager there's not much of a performance gain. They just enable certain processor optimizations when building the Firefox code in their C++ compiler. You used to see all kinds of optimized builds on mozillaZine like this that were Firefox Community Builds. But that program was discontinued a while back. The optimized versions didn't really seem to add much noticeable performance difference later on anyway.
Of course, since it's optimized, it won't run on certain processors. So, your portable browser may or may not work on a give PC you plug it into.
Sounds like it's not worth it for most people.
I'm looking at FirefoxPortable.ini; what if I had a PAF-compliant Pale Moon Portable, hypothetically, and I edited PaleMoonPortable.ini to point to the data folders in Firefox Portable? Can you do that with PortableApps/PAF? Two portable apps working out of one data folder? Seems like you could, since the folders are relative. That way, the user would carry both Pale Moon and Firefox, and use Pale Moon where they could, and Firefox otherwise.
Actually, what I'm really wondering is if I can copy FirefoxPortable.exe, give it another name, and then copy FirefoxPortable.ini, give it a name to match, and have two Data folders with different names, to allow two users to use one Firefox. Does that make sense? I guess I could experiment with this idea when I get home, but it seems like it would be fairly trivial to do. Is that accurate, or am I overlooking something?
Firefox keeps track of profiles that are used by putting a parent.lock file in the profile folder, so you couldn't run them both at once. However, you would be able to use one of them at a time.
Ignore silly users that PM you on IRC. What? You're one of them?
Not trying to run both at once. Let's continue this tangent here.
martino-ITALY, I'm sorry your topic got hijacked.