Hello
for me is not possible to "install" many PA apps, becausee the online-installer broke.
please can anyone post a downloadlink for(NOT online-installer):
Google chrome 8 stable
aMsn
pChat
thanks
Kostas
New: DesktopSnowOK (Jan 6, 2025), Platform 29.5.3 (Jun 27, 2024)
1,100+ portable packages, 1.1 billion downloads
No Ads Nov/Dec/Jan!, Please donate today
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on BlueSky
aMSN and PChat are not online installers. They're regular installers.
Google Chrome Portable has to be an online installer for licensing reasons. Any portable package with Chrome already bundled is being distributed illegally.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
aMsn and PChat, online installer or not fact is the two installers downloading online and then the installer broke.
and how can i use Google chrome?
Could you be a bit more detailed? The installer "broke" is too general, and we can't determine the problem is by just that.
Also, please use actual grammar in your posts, they barely make sense (I apologize if you're not a native english speaker).
i speak 4 languages but not english, but i belive is not imposible to understand me...
here is a sreenvideo with the google chrome PA install-process.
http://pa.1.vg/Video_2011-01-30_225922.wmv
It looks like it's not fully downloading. The first time, it's missing the last 9K of the file. The second (it will retry once during install if the first one fails) it's missing the last 1K. Is something up with your connection or is your main drive where TEMP is almost full?
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
I have much free space... and temp is clear...
this PA installing broke have i only with this 3 apps...
all other(last PA install opera, rss notyfer and IMGburn) going without problem.
try your question in one of your 4 if it helps.
Don't be an uberPr∅. They are stinky.
After downloading and hitting the *paf*.exe file the installation fails, because it can not connect to the source where it wants to get Google Chrome.
We are behind strong firewalls and have no admin rights(thats why we(users) want/use portable apps.
If any of the above blocks this new way of installing+downloading, we (will)have to stick to the already installed and downloaded older Google Chrome portable versions.
If you are able to download the programs regular installer (must be the same file that the portable installer would download if it could) you can put it in the same directory like follows
X:\ + Documents + Other + Installers -GoogleChromePortable_[Vesion.Number(e.g. 9.0.597.98)]_online.paf.exe-chrome_installer.exe(downloadable fromhttp://dl.google.com/chrome/install/[MinorVersion.Number (e.g. 597.98)/chrome_installer.exe)~3D1T0R
I have heard that the online installers also work if you place the original app installer (here: Google Chrome) next to the online installer. This way you could download the package from a different place. I havent tried this nor do I know how to exactly do it.
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
i not understand what you mean, but i use now the portable chrome from [illegal] blog, here is all to complicated
close!
It should be noted that his packaged software is being done without Google's permission, so it is an illegal package. It's also closed source and incomplete in terms of portablization.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
yea is momentaly down but i found on a forum his chrome 8 pack.
i have no time to pray here for little help, for me is more simple to change to [illegal] chrome relase...
thats for me not illegal, is freeware... and what other think is for me not so importend.
Like most freeware, Google Chrome includes an End User License Agreement (EULA). You can read it online. It specifically prohibits copying, modifying and creating derivative works. So repackaging and redistributing is copyright and trademark violation, similar to repackaging and redistributing commercial software. Just because something is freeware doesn't mean you're allowed to repackage it for portable use. Obviously, he's passing the software off as legitimate so, as a user, you took him at his word without knowing what he was doing.
We're happy to assist you with our release. From your last post, something in your net connection was killing the Google Chrome download within the installer within the last few KB for some reason. If you download this file and place it in the same directory as the Google Chrome Portable installer, it will use it instead of attempting to re-download it itself: http://dl.google.com/chrome/install/552.237/chrome_installer.exe
In addition to being illegal and closed source, the blog's package is also less functional than our launcher and doesn't properly portablize all settings.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Most people who come here would prefer not to download stuff from [illegal] but one thing I noticed is you tend to be able to run those programs almost immediately, that is without even needing the menu.
Is that possible to do here at all?
Also, when I click reply to any post without being logged in it only lets me reply to the original post.
Is there a misconfiguration somewhere?
I use FreeCommander as my "menu" and just enter into the subdirectory by name and then double-click the .exe file to start the particular application.
I find that gives me a lot of flexibility at the expense of a couple of clicks.
Obviously, if you aren't logged in, you shouldn't be able to comment to general postings. However, there is probably an exception to allow a visitor to enter a comment to the original topic/news item just like many other sites. What would you change?
neutron1132 (at) usa (dot) com
When I click on login at the bottom of each post it logs me in then it takes me to the original post ready to reply but this is (obviously) not what I want to do otherwise I'd have clicked on the original post.
Not wanting to cause offense but it seems a bit odd or "dumb" how it is at this time.
All the apps here will run just fine without the menu.
You still have to run the paf.exe file to extract the file, but that's not much different from other apps that use .zip to compress their files.
The menu was originally designed as a way to automatically show shortcuts to the app launchers, and since then has added some functionality to help organize and manage the apps, but you don't need it.
I made this half-pony, half-monkey monster to please you.
It would seem that if some dude stole the installer code that they are implementing a hidden function that I would like to be able to use (or have a choice of using).
Besides being handy for clean installs, it would be very helpful when updating directly from the .paf as well.
One can only think if it (paf) was ever run from a cloud this is how it would be implemented anyway so if the facility is already there then why not start using it?
The apps here are not somehow 'tied' to the PA.c Menu. They never have been. (There's yet another illegal site that does that.) So, is this an attempt at trolling?
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Your apps are good but some of them should have the option checked to run immediately because even though the menu is improving using them standalone is useful as well, and having the option to run immediately would be helpful particularly when updating via .paf
Again, none of our apps are tied to the menu. Never have been. They all run standalone. So, um... what are you saying again?
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
I think he means adding a checkbox to Launch AppName Portable to the installers.
The developer formerly known as ZGitRDun8705
Ah, ok. scant_regards, is that what you meant? If so, I've been debating adding that in and having it work for both platform and non via a quick windows message with an upcoming beta release.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
I noticed that as one example FreeCommander downloads from the publishers website rather than sourceforge so that would be one candidate.
The thing about these programs is there is no base installer, even R2 versions are programs in their own right, thus they can be installed clean, that is you can delete a previous directory but of course you lose your settings for that program.
If there was a way for the menu to backup the .ini file in some kind of repository that I believe would be a step forward then you could clear the old folder and use the updater to run the app from the web.
Once run, that is where the quick window message you are talking about would occur, otherwise it is a simple checkbox for those not using the menu at the time.
Thanks and sorry if I put anyone off guard.
That would be different from what I meant. I meant at the end of the installer, for you to be able to run the app once it is installed, but the app is installed to a user-specified location and then used from there.
You seem more looking for apps meant to be downloaded and run directly from the web as a kind of temporary app and disposed of when done. We're not really equipped for something like that and most publishers aren't interested in providing bandwidth for a user of that nature (the same user downloading an app over and over in multiple locations gets expensive bandwidth-wise, which is expensive cost-wise). You can, of course, install the apps into a cloud drive of your own like DropBox and just use it everywhere you have access to DropBox.
This has nothing to do with whether a user uses our Menu/Platform or not. Our apps work just fine on their own. And if you want to use an app just once and dispose of it, you can temporarily install it to the location of your choice, use it, and then delete it when you're done.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
I am too thinking out loud and wondering why there is a difference between illegal and this place if they are using the same installer code.
The simple "run now" is fine but I don't know if that would actually be good for all apps because it might negate the menu, so I was hoping that there might be a mechanism made in the menu whereby you can back up the .ini file for each program and clear away the original folder and then use the updater to download it for you.
Hope that makes sense.
Cheers
Again, having a 'run AppName Portable now' on the finish page really has nothing to do with the menu. As I mentioned, I'm working to incorporate a way of doing this in the installer so that the platform knows the app is running as well as for users using it without the platform.
The 'run now' ability is built into NSIS itself (and trivial to enable, literally one line of code) but we are specifically not using it at the moment because users who are using the platform may be starting the app without the PA.c environment (environment variables that specify the locations of Documents, Music, etc as well as the PA.c Platform language). So, we just don't use this feature. It doesn't 'negate' the menu at all, it just wouldn't work properly in conjunction with the platform, which is a decent majority of users.
I'm unsure what you mean by backing up an INI file. All legitimate apps in PA.c Format are capable of updating themselves with a simple install over. It's called an in-place upgrade. Your data is preserved. There's no need to backup or move any data around.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Not being a developer I don't really know if the .ini file for each program is enough to restore settings from but I feel it might be beneficial to have a standard method to backup these settings in case you move to another machine and want to download the entire platform to another location, even though for security purposes you might need to delete any and all applications.
What does that have to do with the original problem where someone has an installer that doesnt finish?
Besides that, I think what you want is a method to take the settings of an app with you but delete the rest, right? That can be done by simply copying the AppnamePortable/Data folder to your flash drive. It doesn't matter if you use the platform or not.
But why should you do that if you can have the full app on your stick?
And finally, there are only very few apps whose settings are only ONE ini file. Most of the time you'd have to copy the whole /Data folder.
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
I want the platform to manage the process, as that is the next step in my view for the platform.
Greetings & Regards
Doesn't the "backup" button on your copy of the PortableApps.com platform work?
It backs up the data directories on each application.
You could lose everything else, re-install the application, and then put the backed up data directories back, and be back where you started.
Does that meet your view?
neutron1132 (at) usa (dot) com
I haven't been using the menu as of late, but was impressed by the update feature however I was a bit confused as to which applications can actually be updated.
My personal preference would be not to include any program that has an installer such as skype etc as that defeats the purpose of what the updater could potentially achieve, that is incremental updates without downloading whole exes.
Just throwing out some ideas since it seems the developers are always here.
Cheers
I dont think there will ever be incremental updates.
Is there any need to "slim down" usb drives???
They are getting bigger and bigger every month. If you mean that you have all your data but only download the app files once you need them - thats an idea I dont find all that usable.
And updates via the updater already work with online installers like Skype so I guess thats not gonna change.
And "throwing out ideas" is fine, it just leads to exceedingly off-topic threads which isnt so nice.
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
There doesn't seem to be any way to please you. First the platform should do it, then each program should do it, then developers should do it. This is sort of like a "pop a mole" game where no matter what the player does, a different thing pops up somewhere else.
Sorry I commented... time for me to leave before I say something that
I will regretwill get me in trouble.neutron1132 (at) usa (dot) com
I remember when updates came in and was most pleased.
I can only hope the menu improves since although not impossible, I suspect it will take some effort to catalog all files for all the apps that would require the feature.
To me this is the only way to go otherwise you are always downloading mb's instead of kb's and besides anything else using the updater to only download exes is crude.
to just run them. If you feel like just clicking on xxxPortable.exe it is certainly possible. Menu just makes it easier for most.
Don't be an uberPr∅. They are stinky.
Didn't some other users have a similar problem not too long ago and it turned out to be an Internet/ISP/Mirror problem? I don't know what the solution would be for an online installer since we can't point the installer to look elsewhere (that I know of, unless what Simeon says is true).
I don't know if the thread openers post is bound to official apps only.
From my experience many dev tests have the problem, that they point to a specific version to download and abort, if the given parameters don't match. These vary from app to app. Sometimes its a specific url or filename, sometimes it includes an md5 check.
The problem arises when the online installers are not updated to new base app "conditions" for whatever reason - abandoned, work overload etc.
Often there is a manual workaround like copying the base app files to the app folder in hope that portability isn't broken with the new version.
I'll try Simeons advice the next time I encounter such problem.
But some installers just mess things up so that a perfectliy functioning outdated app gets destroyed i.e. uninstalled before the update crashes (from missing online files) and no possibility to recover as the online installer simply doesn't work anymore.
Prapper implemented some fixes awhile ago either by backing up the original folder or by checking availability first (don't know for shure).
I don't know if there are some general thoughts for this issue for the next version of the PAinstaller or if it is possible to care for that already now.
My idea would be:
2. and 3. could be made optional to keep distrations small, for my part with an entry in PortableAppMenu.ini if there is no options menu planned.
This discussion might warrant a whole new thread. There seems to be a serious flaw in online installers or perhaps it's just the way Glary Utilities is coded but if a newer version of an app is released, and the installer isn't updated to reflect that then the app will have a different MD5 hash (one assumes) from the one the installer expects and so the installer fails.
You're right, I ran off the topic a bit.
It's not just Glary Utilities but some other online installers as well (I don't now which installer version though).
That checking for parameters (md5/filename etc... all seem to be in the installer.ini I learn) sometimes causes a perfect but maybe abandoned paf to fail even if the new base version would function as well (often it does).
I understand that as design of portable apps as an app needs to be maintained to be considered portable. That is good as it is because i consider tested portabillity one of the main merits of PortableApps. Even if some geek like me loses using fancy old dev tests the easy way. (PicPick being one of them)
I made it a habit to backup folder before installing online installers but did't run into that issue for some time now. Maybe it is eleminated now and I revive old stories...
Perhaps someone of the mods can split this topic.
-edited, was some kind of garbage before-
This is by design to prevent something pointed to from becoming infected. That's the purpose of the MD5.
You can setup an online installer without an MD5 by leaving that field off, but there is more risk involved.
The next release of the updater will be better handling online installers.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
I understand and support the purpose, unfortunately it's a bit of a double-edged sword because it makes PortableApps looks stupid when a new user comes along and can't install an app because the launcher and app versions are out of sync. I guess that's the price to pay for better security/control.
Perhaps your take on it is that in the future the turnaround time will be reduced because of all the platform/technical changes going on, and so it will become less of an issue. Which is fair enough. I suppose it's acceptable for development apps to fail, since well, they're under development.
It's actually rare to get out of sync because most apps using online installers are linking to a specific version of the app. When you go to download, it's something like AppSetup_5.6.exe that the online installer is trying to pull. And, even if a new version of the base app is released, the online installer will continue to work just fine. You'll not that *none* of the officially released apps have this issue. Not one.
The issue you're having is with a development test release (aka unsupported alpha). It's doubtful a first-time user would be somehow downloading something like that.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Right,
but it would be nice if when a download fails (say there is a network problem, or something) it would pop up a window saying that the download failed and it "needs [filename].[extension], downloadable from [URL]" and asks where it is (browse for file), then does the same checks that it would have for the one it failed to download (md5, etc) and installs using that, or if it isn't the right file (md5 failed, etc) then tell the user that they have the wrong file and to try to download it manually from [URL to file], or [URL to list of mirrors].
Or something like that.
~3D1T0R
Thing is that's overkill as we will almost never release an app using a live installer. Just for very specific instances of major apps (uTorrent, Chrome, Java) where the licensing doesn't permit direct bundling. We don't want 10 different options and complex instructions for users. The one thing we may add is "would you like to attempt to download this file using your current browser?" or similar and let automatically shoot the browser the URL and let the user attempt to download it and save it somewhere the installer can use it. Overly complicated explanations, lists of mirrors, or even explaining an MD5 sum are simply too technical and won't work for the majority of users.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
If a user can't install a PortableApp because it won't download, I would think that telling them that it has failed, and asking to browse for the file would be a good idea (I wasn't suggesting that you explain that "the md5 check has failed", just that "the download failed", or if they point it to a file with the wrong md5 "this is not the right file.")
The user must already know that the installer checks for the file in the same directory as itself to be able to put it there for it, so I think a "Browse for file" dialog would be nice for them.
~3D1T0R
I think you have some really great ideas. You should volunteer your programming skills to help bring some of these ideas to fruition.
neutron1132 (at) usa (dot) com
I have just recently become unbusy enough to come back to these forums, and I will try to help out the development process as much as I can, but I can't promise anything as of yet (my NSIS is a little rusty, and I was never officially a dev in the first place [though I wouldn't mind becoming one soon]).
~3D1T0R
@John:
Sorry, I really missed that point!
I am so in the mass of dev test apps, that I forgot official apps seldomly use online installers. I don't know the line of approach for future releases - a little bit intransparent until now - but many dev tests use them mostly because of licensing issues. If these should become official someday, would that be changed by requesting permission? Or are they "doomed" to stay in dev state forever?
I too consider it way to complicated for an official app to request manual downloads, especially if they don't have this issue normally. But what if the download location changes? Are there agreements with the original app's providers to keep them fixed?
The idea of a comprehensible error report with an "would you like to attempt to download this file using your current browser?" option sounds very appealing to me - if it can be integrated more or less fail safe for the average user.
with VLC player the same problem, PA install broke >:(
I know the platform 2 is beta,so i have hope that can be fixed
What was the error you have gotten?
The vlc portable installer doesnt download anything from the internet, so it has to be another problem.
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
same problem how with Google Chrome:
https://portableapps.com/node/26498#comment-169282
Your Google Chrome Portable installer issue was that your net connection kept dropping the last bits of the download. VLC Portable's installer doesn't download anything from the internet. If the installer is failing, either it didn't download properly (in which case you should get a CRC or a digital signature error), it was infected by a virus on your system (in which case you should get a CRC or a digital signature error) or something is wrong with the location you are trying to write to our your temp drive is messed up (and may be out of space).
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
John are you reed what im write i belive not!
i can 1000 x inatall PA google chrome and evratime the same broke!!!
other apps how PA Opera have i testing 10 x and all are sucefull instaled!!!
hope now you understanding is a PA bug...
KOS-tas, that entire last post I made was to address your current issue, which is you said you had the same problem with VLC as you did with Google Chrome. As I just said, VLC does not have any online component at all, so that explanation is the other possible issues it could be that would cause VLC to fail to install. Saying 'it broke' didn't narrow it down at all, so I offered some possible reasons for the VLC Portable installer to fail on your machine.
The Google Chrome issue is a separate one, though also one that seems unique to your specific setup.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!