Why not just have a ZIP or RAR or 7ZIP archive, which you extract and then run the app?
Why an .exe file?
It seems like this is all the installer does... am I wrong?
New: NAPS2 (Feb 24, 2025), Platform 29.5.3 (Jun 27, 2024)
1,100+ portable packages, 1.1 billion downloads
No Ads!, Please donate today
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on BlueSky
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on Twitter
The Installer tells the platform to refresh, and it sorts out what needs to be removed, and what needs to be kept (thus removing problems with multiple copies of files in different locations from different installations), and can be useful in such cases where upgrades make data incompatible. For example, FileZilla 3's data was incompatible with FileZilla 2's data, but could import it manually: so the installer and launcher backed up settings and informed the user about what they should do.
Most of all though it makes it all look nice
I am a Christian and a developer and moderator here.
“A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.” – Proverbs 15:1
Legally, some apps like Firefox can only be distributed as binary installers (zip packages are not permitted).
The installers actually upgrade an app and remove the files that need to be removed while preserving user data and settings. Many apps you can't unzip a new version over an old one because certain files need to be removed. Thunderbird and Firefox between versions will have errors if you do that, for example. Is the user expected to go through a list and do that manually?
The installers are smaller than zip files and make for faster downloading and don't require any software on the local PC to extract them.
The installers have a built in CRC check and know if they are altered (by spyware or a virus) or are incomplete.
The installers are digitally signed so users can ensure they're getting the real deal.
And finally, it automatically works with the Platform. As long as your PortableApps.com drive is plugged in, it'll find your install and install to it. When done, it'll let the menu know it has a new app.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Thanks.
That makes sense.
BTW, I don't even use portable apps on multiple computers. I just prefer to have as much software as I can not-installed, on a non-system partition. It makes life much easier when reinstalling Windows, plus the system partition is smaller and the registry cleaner.
I know PortableApps doesn't really install in the traditional sense, so that's good. I guess I'm just a bit alergic to see an .exe file.
And I know lots of people who hate installing software, especially "small" stuff, like audio plugins, for example. It's just so much nicer to just extract something and then delete it when not needed.
Think of the .paf.exe installers as not installers, but automation. Like JTH said, there's a lot of work that has to be done, and it's just easier to let an exe do all the work.
I use PortableApps at home, mostly without the menu, so I know where you're coming from. But I also have it on my flash drive. Trust me, I would rather just run the Firefox installer three times (my local, my wife's local, and my portable) than do all the steps necessary out of a zip files. Besides, as you know, you only need to install an app once and then you're done with it until the next version comes out later (as little as 3 times a week if its name is Firefox, heh heh).
You're not doing yourself a big favor by partitioning your system drive. Windows works much better when it has the whole partition to itself. How big's your system drive? If it's, say, 120GB or more, consider getting a smaller drive for Windows, like 40-80GB. Then have the second drive for apps. Also, for a good system boost, turn off virtual memory paging on the system drive, then enable it on the secondary drive. The apps won't see a noticeable performance hit if you have the pagefile on the same drive with them.