Hello,
Could you please split the Firefox into 32 Bit and 64 Bit products?
I will explain my reasons:
1. It allows running 2 instances (Which doesn't share sessions) in parallel (32 and 64, I used that daily in Chrome).
2. It will make each package smaller both on the HD and downloading (Downloading above 70MB from SourceForge isn't fast).
I know there is issue which one to set as the default.
I'd say the 32 Bit.
To the least, could you let download 64 Bit only version?
Thank You.
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 don't plan to do this as per our 64-bit app policy previously laid out: https://portableapps.com/node/24371
The goal is to make apps that are usable by most everyone most everywhere and that work as well as they can in each instance. While your specific use case would help you, it would confuse many users who have no idea what 32-bit and 64-bit is and be annoying for users to have to switch back and forth rather than just use one app on every machine.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
John,
You always bring this argument while it doesn't hold.
You can always just make the default as is and put in the dark places of the site the two other options.
For instance, I don't see herd of issues by users against the Chrome policy (Which is perfect).
If it is an issue of effort, I can get it.
But it certainly not effort of "Advanced" users.
If you already knew the arguments, why did you open a new topic for that? It has been discussed ad nauseam. IMO, the workload to do another two sets of firefox (and other apps that are dual mode) just does not pay off for the miniscule amount of users that really benefit from this. I think of me as an advanced user and I just don't care.
This is what interesting me.
Isn't the creation of applications as Firefox fully automated?
I would think so is opposed to other programs which are new or changed more over time.
I'd think since Firefox is established this can be fully automated.
PortableApps is amazing by its end result.
But the bottleneck and conservative policy in adapting new use cases and programs is really holding it back in my opinion.
I'm talking as a big advocate of this which nagging developers of programs over and over to support this platform.
As has been discussed previously, Chrome will eventually be a dual mode package as well. It's just that the current build will need a lot of work to be updated to PAL and support transitioning passwords from ANSI to Unicode. Chrome is a messy app that will never be fully portable.
Again, we have no plans to support separate 32-bit and 64-bit builds of apps. We do plan to update PAL to allow users to remove one or the other to save space and eventually be able to have this automated at the installer and platform level. We do not plan to add a lot of work and builds to support one very specific niche workload (running two separate copies of Firefox at the same time only on Windows x64).
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
I don't get this policy.
You have a user which like something, why trash it?
You can add options, why remove feature useful to some, even handful?
I'm pretty sure with automated tools to have 32 + 64, 32 , 64 is really cheap.
Please allow flexibility, show courtesy.
As politely as possible, the answer is a final no at the present time. If everything were fully automated, sure, but it's not. I'm the one monitoring the builder on my local machine for 5 different channels of Firefox (stable, beta, developer, esr, nightly) with 20 different language packages already. Uploading them to the SourceForge servers. Ensuring all the MD5 hashes are properly entered into the updater database. Etc. That's 100 packages of Firefox already. And supporting all of them in case a given one has a build issue or improper upload on a single SourceForge mirror I have to track down myself or what have you. If I expand on that, it will be to add more languages so more users can use Firefox Portable, not to triple the work and build time (32bit, 64bit, and 32+64bit builds as opposed to just 32+64bit) to enable a niche use case. Please show some courtesy when demanding me to give of my unpaid time indefinitely for your specific need.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
I see your point and I can relate to that.
Is there a way to share tasks?
I don't know how to code but I won't have any problem checking MD5's or think which can be scripted.
I wasn't demanding anything, I was asking for something and the reasoning you gave isn't like what you described later - it is issue of time.
The issue of time must be taken care of.
If someone with no programming knowledge but MATLAB can help, let me know, I will help to assist.
But it also seems you're not, as a policy, use many people here who seems willing to help.
Like applications which other give (mwayne, for instance).
I wrote it many time, PortableApps is the only reason I'm staying with Windows and along Wikipedia the only project I constantly donate to.
So all I write comes from caring place.
Even if the entire thing was automated, it still means supporting triple the packages of Firefox. So more failure points. We'll need to determine what kind of Firefox package the end user has. And even if we split it into 32-bit, 64-bit, and 32+64-bit, I still won't support running multiple versions of Firefox side by side just because it happens to work at the present moment. You'll be able to set AllowMultipleInstances to true and run more than one without the launcher complaining, but that's it.
To clarify, why exactly do you want a 32-bit version and a 64-bit version? What can you accomplish with that vs having two installs of the current dual-mode version and stripping the 32-bit version from one and the 64-bit version of the other?
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
First, I want to clarify we're not on opposite sides.
I'm with you, love your project, advocate it when ever I can and appreciate all you do.
So I want to the discussion to be held at this starting point.
Regarding support, just put in a dark corner of the site so only advanced and knowledgeable users will know about it.
It can be done, this is easy.
You can even add declaration of no support.
I wish I could help with the resource issues.
I can assist with running scripts on my machine, checking MD5, Uploading files.
Regarding the use case, it is simple - Having few instances of Firefox running in parallel (Not sharing cookies, etc...) and being updated by the PA.c.
It works perfectly with Chrome 32 and Chrome 64.
If there is another option, It would be great, I'd love it.
Small bonus is smaller download file, but now days this is not a big deal.
Thank You.
So, again, would installing Firefox Portable twice and removing 32-bit from one and 64-bit from the other work? Please answer this question directly. Note that the launcher will not allow you to do this without AllowMultipleInstances set to true. Also note that I think the launcher in its current form requires the 32-bit firefox.exe to be present, so you could delete everything else for now, although this will be removed as a requirement in a future release. Please tell me whether this setup will run side by side as you wish.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
I install one version through the PA.c Menu.
This one gets updated automatically.
Let's say I install another one manually into the same folder (PortableApps folder).
Will that be updated automatically?
I was under the impression it will not.
Please test it. If it doesn't work the way you'd like the way I laid out above, it won't work with separate 32-bit and 64-bit versions either. Remember, Firefox and Chrome are very different apps. And Firefox changed some of the ways it interacts with separate running instances in 56.0. I don't test or support this, so I don't know how well it works now.
As for updating, have your standard 64-bit version as the main FirefoxPortable one. Create the copy and name the copy directory FirefoxPortable_Copy_2. The platform's updater will update both using the same downloaded copy of Firefox Portable as it's released. You'll need to manually remove Firefox64 from the second copy for right now, but being able to specify a version to remove after install is something I'm considering adding to the installer. But, again, don't worry about this part right now. The primary focus is does it work the way you want with the modifications I laid out above. If not, that's just the way it is unless you can convince Mozilla to change major underpinnings of instance handling for your specific use case. If it is, then we can continue working out a way it might work without majorly impacting other things.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Here is what I did.
I duplicated my FirefoxPortable into FirefoxPortable_Copy.
I deleted the 64 Bit Folder.
Now, coming from Iron I remember I should go into FirefoxPortable_Copy\AppInfo and look for INI file (IronPortable.ini for Iron, so I assume FirefoxPortable.ini for Firefox) with Allow Multi Instance property.
The problem is I can't find the FirefoxPortable.ini there and the option isn't available in any other INI there.
I found INI with that option (Indded called FirefoxPortable.ini) at FirefoxPortable_Copy_1\Other\Source.
I set it to true (AllowMultipleInstances=true).
The ran FirefoxPortable at FirefoxPortable_Copy_1 yet I get error about another instance of Firefox running.
Question is, changing the setting in the "Other" folder, is that I should do?
Thank You.
If you open the help.html file, you'll see it links to advanced options for the launcher, a text file within Other\Source. Within there, it has the directions. You copy FirefoxPortable.ini from FirefoxPortable\Other\Source to FirefoxPortable and then modify it as needed.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
OK,
I got it and moved the INI next to the Launcher EXE (By the way, how come in the IronPortable it is located in a different location than the Launcher?).
I can run 2 instances of Firefox, yet it seems they share the Cookies of the session which means there is no point in that.
The question if that a limitation of Firefox or something which can be solved.
I thought about changing the System Variable of the location of the Cookies (I guess it is in some folder which is based on a System Variable).
What do you think?
Thank You.
You must set both browsers with AllowMultipleInstances to true which sets the -no-remote directive to Firefox. Close both and then relaunch. I'm unsure if this even works anymore as it was never intended for production use, just developers. Firefox is designed to only have a single instance running at a time.
Iron Portable has no support for running multiple instances as a setting for end users. You're modifying PAL's developer launcher directives directly. We neither test nor support this configuration. Firefox does not use PAL it has a custom launcher.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
I am using Firefox64 without Firefox32 under the Portableapps launcher. I deleted the ../apps/firefox folder and rename firefox64 folder to firefox. I have had no problems in Windows10 64 bit. Even correctly updated 61.02 to 62.0 today using Firefox updater (Always update ..\App\AppInfo\appinfo.ini to new version or Portableapps will update again). Adds a little work but saves USB space. I also delete extra languages in all programs, wish installers would ask what language I want. I would note just deleting ../apps/firefox does not work, must rename as well.