You are here

Isn't "Normal" Miranda Portable As It Is?

11 posts / 0 new
Last post
jarce
Offline
Last seen: 13 years 9 months ago
Joined: 2009-04-15 15:08
Isn't "Normal" Miranda Portable As It Is?

I have been using normal miranda in "portable mode" for ever.

I just download the ZIP, uncompress, and there i go.

What is the difference with using this version?

Pyromaniac
Pyromaniac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 10 months ago
Developer
Joined: 2008-09-30 19:18
Well

1. "This" version is in PA format
2. "This" version is guaranteed to not leave any files behind on the computer you use
3. "This" version is compressed and takes up less space on your drive
4. "This" version is (I think) supposed to run faster on your drive because of its compression.

I think that this version is simply better because its portablized by PA.

Dagenham
Dagenham's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 days ago
Joined: 2007-03-23 06:19
This is the point where faith comes to play

I think that the original version is simply better because it's created already in "portable" form by the authors of the Miranda application themselves.

Sorry folks, no offense, I just can't get the point in creating a portable launcher to an already portable application (except the better compatibility with a specific launcher application).

Pyromaniac
Pyromaniac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 10 months ago
Developer
Joined: 2008-09-30 19:18
Are you sure

that it doesn't leave any files behind on the host computer? Have you checked?

Dagenham
Dagenham's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 days ago
Joined: 2007-03-23 06:19
Yes

I've checked. A bit earlier versions left an empty key in the registry, the latest one is "stealth" - it does not write outside it's directory, expect the usual prefetch stuff.

steve_gutry
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 2008-05-07 16:54
Out of interest...

I'm not knocking the PA format but did you know that most if not all programs in this format use more memory.

There is the memory used by the program plus extra memory uses by he actual PAF launcher. And before some bright spark comes along with the same old boring comment that " ram is cheap just upgrade it", just consider that some people are using an older machines that can not have the ram upgraded. This and the fact that so many software developers want their programs to sit in the system tray which gradually eats up valuable memory.
I was using an old Fujitsu mini laptop (made before the netbook term started) that was running XP in 112 mb of ram.

Pyromaniac
Pyromaniac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 10 months ago
Developer
Joined: 2008-09-30 19:18
most if not all programs in

most if not all programs in this format use more memory

Do you have any tangible evidence. I never heard of that on this site.

steve_gutry
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 2008-05-07 16:54
Yes!

You can use Windows TaskManager or download DaphnePortable from this site & when you run it, you can see what programs and processes are running on your computer.
For example, it will show daphne.exe (the main program) and daphneportable.exe (the launcher). I have not given the actual memory usage because that will vary depending on each different computer.

OliverK
OliverK's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Developer
Joined: 2007-03-27 15:21
Ahh. But the program itself

Ahh. But the program itself is not using anymore RAM. You are true however that the entire package requires more RAM. However, for most apps the over head is very low.

Too many lonely hearts in the real world
Too many bridges you can burn
Too many tables you can't turn
Don't wanna live my life in the real world

steve_gutry
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 2008-05-07 16:54
OK

This is not nit-picking or one-upmanship but.

The bottom line is that given a choice of using a program made portable by its developer compared to using the same program in a PAF package, then the PAF package version will definately use more ram because of the launcher.

More ram used is more ram - end of story.
Some computers can not have more ram - that's a sad story.

Also, another point that many people should be careful with is the claims for a program to be portable. Some are claiming that a program is portable because it writes to an ini file - but when you check it might still be writing to the registry. A lot of these so called portable programs are in fact better described as "no-install", and that in itself is not a problem. It all comes down the whether or not you are concerned about true portability & the possibility of data or traces being left on a host computer.

Also keep in mind that many of us are using "portable programs" on our own computers only for the convenience of not having to re-install software all the time.

OliverK
OliverK's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Developer
Joined: 2007-03-27 15:21
This is not nit-picking or

This is not nit-picking or one-upmanship but.

Okay.

More ram used is more ram - end of story.
Some computers can not have more ram - that's a sad story.

Yup, very sad story.

I understand what you are saying. The hope has always been (last I knew) that developers will start developing packages in the PAF format. I admit, to me it seems lofty. But the advantage is that data is easily backed up.

Also, PNotes Portable will use more RAM at startup, but then the launcher exits, because there's nothing for it to do. So RAM usage goes back down.

Too many lonely hearts in the real world
Too many bridges you can burn
Too many tables you can't turn
Don't wanna live my life in the real world

Log in or register to post comments