Hi,
Recently I've tried the x64 version of chrome.
In the posts I've read it is presented as very beta as Portable, but for mainstream chrome the x64 is said more stable.
To migrate, I have simply copied the data (profile, setup, .ini) from GoogleChromePortable to GoogleChromePortable64 and it seems enough.
in my launch script I just do:
set CHROME_HOME=%~dp0PortableApps\GoogleChromePortable
if /i "%PROCESSOR_ARCHITECTURE%" == "AMD64" set CHROME_HOME=%~dp0PortableApps\GoogleChromePortable64
start "Chrome" /max "%CHROME_HOME%\GoogleChromePortable.exe"
I don't know if it is required as maybe x64 version can run in x86 mode ? never tested.
All seems fine, despite my intense usage and many extensions.
Is my migration procedure good, or risky ?
Is there known problems?
Best regards.
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
Chrome is becoming a dual mode app, 32-bit and 64-bit combined in one app so it works everywhere. Firefox stable/beta already is one. Chrome couldn't be because it uses a live downloaded (downloading Chrome from Google as you install due to licensing reasons) and the installer and platform's updater/app store only worked with a single download per app. The PA.c Installer got an update to handle dual downloads on August 19th. The platform just got an update to support dual downloads yesterday. Firefox Developer Edition (which also uses a live installer) got an update today to handle dual downloads. Chrome will in the near future, though it requires a bit more work than Firefox due to Chrome being such a heavy app with deep ties into the OS.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
I don't understand all the subtleties.
As I tested it is still not 32/64?
Currently I use a script to launch the good version
set CHROME_HOME=%~dp0PortableApps\GoogleChromePortable
if /i "%PROCESSOR_ARCHITECTURE%" == "AMD64" set CHROME_HOME=%~dp0PortableApps\GoogleChromePortable64
start "Chrome " /max "%CHROME_HOME%\GoogleChromePortable.exe"
and then I have edited the .ini to point to the 32bit profile
[GoogleChromePortable]
Google ChromeDirectory=App\Chrome-bin
ProfileDirectory=..\GoogleChromePortable\Data\profile
SettingsDirectory=..\GoogleChromePortable\Data\settings
...
Currently it works nice. I use it with many extension (foxyproxy abp lazarus scoop.it translate lastpass xmarks and many others).
wit twitter I reached about 2GB of workingset.
as I understand it will be useless soon, and googlechrome will be 32/64?
The 64-version is still a special download at the bottom of https://portableapps.com/apps/internet/google_chrome_portable and its size is stated as not too bigger than the regular version's.
It doesn't even say test/beta anywhere in the download.
Any news with this?
Chrome is still using an ANSI launcher that's single mode. It doesn't use PAL. I'll have to either rewrite it as PAL or custom code dual mode into the old Chrome launcher code. It barely works as it is -- partially due to Chrome's own clunkiness -- so I'm not too keen on updating the current one. And if I switch to PAL, I have to custom code something to convert the password store handler from ANSI to Unicode because Chrome locks its passwords to the current PC. I don't currently have time to work on this.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Perhaps ChromePasswords could be rebuilt into a separate exe, which could be run before and after Chrome's launch with
[Launch]:RunBeforeNand[Launch]:RunAfterNonce they're available in the released version of PAL.~3D1T0R
The ChromePasswords is currently compiled as a DLL via VisualStudio, so it likely is possible to convert it to an exe instead.
However, there is still a need to add ANSI>Unicode handling to it.
If it does it's function correctly as a standalone executable, it shouldn't need to be converted. Should it?
I'll look into it.
~3D1T0R
Any conclusions?