Hi there,
I posted this here earlier:
https://portableapps.com/node/27599
wanting to know why I could not see my apps (was most confused) so now I'm wondering if there can be an option in the installers to use a defined location in the app directory, providing of course the menu is open.
I believe this would make it very easy to use particularly for non computer-savvy people such as myself.
Cheers
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
We have done all that can be done. If the Platform's there, it'll use its path. If it isn't, it can't. I don't understand what you don't understand about it.
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
Understand about what?
Anything is possible remember if you are ...
Now as you are a developer, does that mean you have installer experience or do you only prepare the files for compilation since I don't recall John T. Haller actually commenting.
I have worked on the Installer.
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
I made this half-pony, half-monkey monster to please you.
If the platform is installed in the default recommended location, the installers will automatically find it and install it there. The recommended path is the root of the drive with the apps and platform being in X:/PortableApps/.
But the installers can be used without the platform or with another launcher (there are plenty of other portable menus around) so if the portableapps.com platform isnt found, the user has to tell the installer where to install to. Any other option or hardcoded path would limit the ability to use the apps standalone which is something we wont do.
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
Hi
I'm not a programmer but is it not a simple thing to detect a running installation and therefore have an option given to the installer, eg where the default install location is?
I used to use drive root but not all use is thumb drives so these arguments in my mind don't really stack up.
I think he's requesting that PortableApps.com Installers detect a running instance of the PortableApps.com Platform and default to it's location over the standard
X:\PortableAppslocation.That way if someone manually installs an App packaged with the PA.c Installer while running the PA.c Platform it's default location will show the location necessary to have it integrate with that instance of the PA.c Platform.
It seems a bit unnecessary to me, as anyone who pays any attention to their file structure (which everybody should) will eventually notice the problem which prompted the referenced forum topic. That said, it would be a nice feature, especially for those who use a non-standard file structure (or those of us who use multiple PA.c'd flash drives simultaneously [as installations would default to whichever one was running]).
I haven't looked into how difficult it would be to implement, but if it does get implemented what will happen when there are 2+ instances of the Platform running? which will it default to? Last run (the current installer default to the last drive containing
X:\PortableAppsto be added to the system) or the first run (the HotKey continues to reference the first run instance of the Platform) or should some other method (what?) be chosen?Note: All references to "
X:" in this post are to be taken as a generic drive letter which you should read as the current drive letter of your device.~3D1T0R
If the platform isnt in the standard location, you can install it from inside the platform and it will find the right folder. You even have to do less clicks as that will start the installer in silent mode so I doubt John will implement anything else.
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
I agree it's entirely unnecessary.
Just because some one wants to take the long route to install apps (instead of using the very easy options that already exist and work well), it doesn't mean that the whole structure needs to be changes to fit that one outlier.
The current foolproof way to install an app into the platform is to use the "Manage Apps>Install a New App" function of the platform. Even if you have multiple platforms running, it will install it into the correct platform.
In the current beta, you can use the updater to correctly update any installed apps.
In the upcoming 2.0, the updater* will allow you to select and install ANY official app. You will be able to choose as many as you want and install them all with minimal interaction.
*EDIT: OK, now I see that the official name of that function is going to be Portable App Directory. Thanks, John.
I made this half-pony, half-monkey monster to please you.
As most users will be installing nearly all PA.c Format apps via the app directory very shortly, the point is largely moot. The platform is designed to be installed to the root directory of whatever drive it is installed to and some apps (OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice) will not work if installed to a deeper path as the paths will be too long.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
I appreciate your comment Mr. Haller, always enlightening I must say.
I'm really looking forward to this app directory and it's true most users will use the platform but what I've found to be really cool is using it in conjunction with other launchers, eg midlinesoft which is very low in resource usage and while a few apps can exist on the "open table" as it were (better than windows start menu) I hide frequently used apps in the PA menu so while it may seem counter intuitive it works very well since I have a multitude of small apps that I could not bear to use via windows nor the other menu and frankly as far as standalone launchers are concerned there is no comparison to PA menu since the other one I use is very a different concept.
Thank you for a most positive agenda over the many months until now.
Hi plethora,
while your wish may be understandable, you seem to get more or less exactly the same answers as when you posted this before (see your link). The technical issues with that were already layed out clearly. It is not possible if you consider the possibility of more than one platform running as you cannot determine which to choose. You had to have a way to mark which one to choose (like an option in the platform) and than there is no advantage to installing the app via the platform.
Who in their right mind would want to run more than 1 platform?
In my opinion regardless of who is doing that and irrespective of the "moot" point expressed by john (we will see on release day) the only true reason is due to OO.o so to say it's because of a bunch of people who can't get enough, ie to use more than 1 instance yet there are alternatives out there on the internet is a real great shame in my solemn view.
In any case the system tray icon is always the same so how can confusion be seen as intelligence?
I regularly run two to three versions of the platform at once, one on the local machine and one or two on portable devices.
While the icons are the same (which I am slightly annoyed about, but not yet annoyed enough to request a change because it doesn't affect me that badly), all it takes is a little memory and a different theme on each platform. From right-to-left it is always shown in order of which one started first, so local copy on the right, portable hard drive in the middle, and USB stick on the left for me.
Not all that confusing really, but I never said I was in my right mind.
I understand and empathize with you
I think we must wait and see what happens next with the platform itself, ie to see how easy it is to use the new updater which by all accounts appears to be very different from the implementation in the beta.
Cheers
The updater, from what I understand, will remain the same as it in the beta, but there is the ability to directly add new apps easily as well, using the framework built on the updater.
The finalized updater does a better job of handling errors and will download the extra bits of online installer apps (Google Chrome installer, Java installer) directly providing updates in the GUI as it progresses. This allows to better feedback to the user and better usage with proxies and software firewalls. It will also error out on the install of each of those apps if the secondary online bits fail to download so you won't get left with a partial install. Performance is also improved when building larger lists of apps to update.
The updater is also automatically launched on every platform launch and it will silently check for updates and only appear if some apps are out of date, making it a much more automatic process. Interested users can disable this feature and set it full-manual of course.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Hey there so does it update only files necessary or does it keep a "repository" of .paf exe files?
Thank you
A repository of files is a feature request and will be addressed in a later release. It's only needed by a small subset of users who either (1) wish to keep installers around for archive purposes or (2) share the installers with others. Those needs will be addressed separately and we'll need to figure out whether to keep multiple versions around, whether to support downloads for a specified path on another drive letter (as most users wanting option 2 want to put it on a network share where others can access it) and other options before implementing it.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Complicated it is...
So am I right that anything incremental is only for online installers?
If so (like the OO.o problem) any app would need to provide an online (preferably open source) method of installation or do I have it completely wrong?
Most apps have no incremental update abilities at all and have nearly all files within them updated for each release for the local versions as well. I made no mention of incremental updates in my posting above.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Guess I am more confused than I am aware.
So that said, will this updater be able to replace old install executables, eg will it know previous version numbers and remove them by optional checkbox?
As I already said, repositories are a future feature and that's one of the many bits that needs to be worked out BEFORE any of this is implemented. When it is implemented, yes, it will be able to do that as an option. But right now, it will have the features I outlined in the post before that. Again, a repository of files is a feature request and will be addressed in a later release.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Hi, I think your problem is confusing between your C:\ C:\PortableApps and C:\PortableApps\PortableApps in your last post (your link)
You said you install the platform at C:\PortableApps so it should had these files and folders:
- Documents
- PortableApps
- Autorun.inf
- StartPortableApps.exe
If it's like this you should install your apps to C:\PortableApps\PortableApps not C:\PortableApps
PS. The installer does not detect a running or installed platform.
Yes this is what I am probably less confused but more annoyed, particularly with some of the the colder responses you get from guru/geek types.
Anyway I prefer to install the whole thing in a folder, NOT the root but alas that is not a choice if I want to use any of the automated facilities and therefore must use the menu which supposedly is deemed to be adequate.
However I will wait to see what happens with the platform this next update before offering debate on the issue since John is (probably) right that a vast majority will be happy with downloading, and the subsequent repository at a future point might negate the request entirely.
Thanks
I always install to a subfolder of the root when I put them on my computer hard drive.
Although JTH recommends that you install to the root, it's not necessary, provided that the path is not too long (some apps don't work well with long paths).*
The solutions that I mentioned - using the platform function "Install a New App" and using the Updater/PortableApp Directory - will work just fine if the platform is initially installed to a subfolder.
In my own example, I put my platform into "C:\PortableAppsSuite". I have no problems with installations and updates. I avoid using folder names like "PortableApps" because that's already being used by the platform.
One advantage of that is that I can install a second platform to a different folder, and there won't be any conflicts. This really helps if you are beta testing the platform.
*A common mistake that people make is to install the suite to the Desktop. I think it's because they think the Desktop is closer to the root than it is, while in actuality it is several folders deep. Same goes with your My Documents folder. IN addition, Windows treats these folders differently than standard folders on the root drive, so you could be in for unpredictable results.
I made this half-pony, half-monkey monster to please you.
Right so a path such as C:\PortableApps\PortableApps can in of itself create problems?
I never knew...
I never pushed it, but I know that the installer looks for that folder... so why go looking for trouble? It's why I don't make my own folders called "Windows" or "Program Files" either!
I made this half-pony, half-monkey monster to please you.
I think once the new platform comes out I will use it to install all new versions of each app and will backup favorites etc
Thanks for the advice!
Hi plethora,
the problem with that was what we talked about in your linked topic (but from another viewpoint -> the installer only looking in the first folder level if it is called PortableApps, too). As that could happen quite easily (you know, I did it, too, at first) the next platform release seems to add an advice to use the root and hopefully be more communicative what happens during platform installation. The translation strings hinted that.
Sorry if I sounded harsh at my last post, but you see that the discussion circles the same points again and possible solutions to the same problem are now divided in two different topics.;)