zybez made a runescape client called SwiftKit. its not a vert complicated porgram except for all the options and menus on it, but programwise its really actually very simple. it saves everything you do on it within itself using profiles, all options and where you go on it too, so making it portable wouldn't exactly be the biggest undertaking ever and it would also make probably around 40,000 people very very happy.
link to program download:
http://www.swiftkit.net/index.php?page=downloads
Oh and be sure to use the SWIFTKIT or SWIFTKIT RS (same thing)
!!!not the swiftkit MS!!!
Oh and also if you make this portable you have my eternal gratitude (added to everyone elses of course 
)
Request Info:
Program: Swiftkit RS
License: Open Source/GPL
Description: Runescape Client
Website: http://www.swiftkit.net/index.php?page=downloads
Other: None at the moment, though seems to be a mostly self contained program except for the fact that it has to install (which is mostly just unpacking)
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
It requires .Net framework therefore cannot be made portable
Plus you could always just go to runescape.com and play it ¬_¬
iLike Macs, iPwn, However you put it... Apple is better ^_^
"Claiming that your operating system is the best in the world because more people use it is like saying McDonalds makes the best food in the world..."
why does .Net framework make it unable to be made into a portable app?
Not many computers have .Net framework. Therefore it's not really portable. Here is a chart provided by the founder of this site for more info:
http://johnhaller.com/jh/useful_stuff/dotnet_portable_apps/
iLike Macs, iPwn, However you put it... Apple is better ^_^
"Claiming that your operating system is the best in the world because more people use it is like saying McDonalds makes the best food in the world..."
Ok i see your point, but you guys should also have a "semi-portable" area with stuff like this. I mean theres things out there that if theres a posibility that it could run, it would make situations much easier. I mean a "maybe" sounds quite a bit better then just plain "no". I mean you guys (not making you, just suggesting) should have the normal "portable-apps" section, but with a link to the "semi-portable" apps, just with the certain few system requirments that it needs to run listed with it. You get what I mean?
I quote John T. Haller from a few hours ago in IRC; "maybe we should have a holding area for .NET apps in case we decide to add it in later or get portable mono working or something."
This will probably happen after the first run of commercial items, generic launcher and the new version of the menu.
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
What about Mono? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_%28software%29
can't that be used to make some .NET stuff portable, if the .net program is open source?
Nerd42 has a good point, what about using Mono?
You specifically say that if the program is open source then you would legaly be able to use it, so if it is will you al least try to make portable .net programs?
Mono can be used to make some things work without .NET, but most won't work. If you want to see if a particular application will work with Mono, try the Mono Migration Assistant and see what it says about the program. Admittedly, I've only tried it one one assembly (my Dad's WaterSums software, and I didn't expect it to say it could handle it as it uses things like the Internet Explorer system and other fairly complex things), but in that case it came out with lots of problems (quite serious and fundamental ones).
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