64-bit Chrome Dev channel - portable app version?

There are a few reasons we won't be doing this right now:

First off, Google Chrome Portable uses a live installer, which only supports a single download (Chrome 32-bit). I don't currently have the time to update the PA.c Installer to support multiple downloads. We don't do 64-bit-only apps (horrible user experience as they work on some machines but not others seemingly at random to the end user).

Second, Chrome Portable barely works as it is as it doesn't have the same well-supported and defined ways to store its data as Firefox does... Chrome is designed to hook into the OS and use it for things like password encryption, proxy settings, etc. That's also why it finds new ways of working into the registry every few months. It still only supports ANSI paths and hasn't been updated to PAL due to all the custom kludgey code just to get it to work right.

Third, we only do dual mode 32-bit and 64-bit apps when it makes a the performance increase outweighs the size increase by a large margin. It's been shown multiple times that 32-bit vs 64-bit browsers make barely any difference in real world usage (think a few and, even then, it's usually only on benchmarks. Google Chrome is already 150MB and growing about 3MB per version, with just the 32-bit version (excluding settings, URL databases, cache, etc) making it the largest install size for a browser ever. Going dual mode will more then double that, exceeding the size of a base LibreOffice install. For comparison, Firefox is 67MB.

[One note: That "25%" number mentioned in the blog post is likely based on certain very specific (possibly cherry-picked) situations and, thus, incredibly misleading. They're likely referring to a specific use case of certain HTML5 video and other very graphically intensive things (think HTML5-based games with full blown 3d engines). In normal use, you won't notice a difference between 32-bit and 64-bit at all.]

Finally, we made an exception for the Firefox 64-bit nightlies as bug reports from our users will help them make Firefox a better browser. Firefox Portable uses the official switches for setting up where data is located and we've filed multiple bugs over the years to improve Firefox's portable usage. By contrast, Google doesn't seem to have any interest in portable software*, so having a 64-bit version wouldn't really be helping anyone.

Now, if things have changed and I'm incorrect and anyone from Google or the Chrome team reading this wishes to correct my perception, please contact us. Or if there is a genuine and true reason for me to devote more of my limited time to maintaining yet another version of Chrome other than people just being curious about trying it out, I'd be happy to hear that, too.

GoogleChromePortable launcher works fine with Chrome 64-bit v37.0.2041.4 Dev. It's faster and extensions are working so far.
Reg Key left behind:
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Google\Chrome\BLFinchList (value not set)

I had to test it anyway, hopefully it's released soon.
keep up the great work!

http://i.imgur.com/z6uFWjI.png