New: DiskMon (Feb 02, 2023), Platform 24.0 (Jan 30, 2023)
450+ real apps (49GB), 1 billion downloads, Please donate.
There is no plan to add the current official version as a portable app?
The bug: I just deleted a file, saved the report in TXT then Eraser can't delete the very same short TXT. It says:
"Failures:
Failed: *.txt (Insufficient system resources exist to complete the requested service.)"
?
Over here: https://portableapps.com/development/outdated
"*.NET Apps: PortableApps.com does not yet list .NET apps in our directory. .NET-based apps will not work on most public PCs (net cafe, hotel business center, library, etc) as these PCs generally run Windows XP and do not have .NET installed. Unlike Java, .NET can not be legally portablized. So, .NET apps won't work unless the PC has the proper .NET library, which you can't determine until you try to run the app. To avoid confusing most end-users, .NET apps will be listed in a special section of the PA.c Directory with an explanation of this issue shortly."
I see. Thanks. How about 10 years from now? When most of today's XP PCs will run Windows 7? 
As stated above, we will be making them available soon after 12.0 as the platform will gain the ability to check for it. Listing in the app store will be off by default due to the large percentage of PCs without .NET installed.
I'm convinced, that this argumantation is totally out of date and insofar simply false. This view was perhaps true a few years ago but definitely not today. Accordingly you should revise the above explanation with respect to the .NET framework.
It's still completely accurate. Windows XP still makes up more than 40% of computers. Windows XP does not come with any version of .NET installed. You can only install it manually while logged in with admin rights. And there are no critical to have apps that require .NET (not even Microsoft Office is written in .NET). As a result, a large percentage of Windows XP machines do not have .NET available.
When you walk up to a given Windows XP machine, you have no idea whether or not .NET is installed and you won't be able to install it yourself. So, .NET apps are not fully portable and won't be listed by default. Users will be able to choose to enable them if they want to after they understand the technical downsides.
Java apps, on the other hand, you can carry around a portable version of Java on your drive and it'll work everywhere. Which is why Java apps will be listed by default but hideable if the user chooses.
I would rather say, that probably 15 - 20% of all PC with installed Windows OS still have an installed Windows XP OS without an installed .Net framework. This estimate is based on the fact, that currently approximately 30% of PCs have an installed Windows XP OS. And certainly are under those existing PC with installed WindowsXP OS some computers, that have installed manually the .Net framework. Accordingly, you should now orient on the majority of computers (surely 70% - 80%) with by default (or manually) installed .NET framework.
This part of the topic should probably be split off into its own topic, but I digress.
According to Net Applications' operating system market share tool, Windows XP accounted for 39.08% of all operating systems installed on desktops, which jumps up slightly to 42.60% when considering only Windows OS's.
If you graph out the usage of XP from Feb 2012 to Dec 2012, you can see that yes, XP is slowly dropping in usage, but only slightly at the moment.
As you have correctly indicated, there is likely some WinXP computers which have manually installed .Net, but there is no way to know if this is the case, so John's rationale still stands.
Windows XP isn't going anywhere anytime soon (42% and very slowly creeping lower). And most Windows XP machines don't have .NET.
I think, that we should orient on the clear emerging trend. According to the advices in your 3rd paragraph is clear, that Windows XP irreversibly loses market share. Let us assume, that currently about 38% of all PC's have an installed Windows XP OS. On that basis can also be assumed realistically, that no more than 30% of all computers have an installed Windows XP OS without an installed .NET framework. But more importantly perhaps is the finding, that this downward trend in the future irreversible is continuing. Insofar my above remark should noted, that now the majority of all PC's have an installed .NET framework. And we should orient on this trend.
On another website (http://www.winpenpack.com/en/news.php), which offer portable programs, the programmers have realized this fact. On this website will offered meanwhile a lot of portable apps on the basis of the .NET framework. Surely a good decision.
We're going to make .NET apps available and users can choose to show them in the platform's app store. They will not be available by default. If users want .NET apps, they can turn them on once and then they'll show in the app store alongside everything else and update automatically like all other apps. That's why we've been tracking .NET apps ready for release ( https://portableapps.com/node/11772 ). But we won't make it available until the Platform (which, of course, doesn't use .NET as that wouldn't be portable) can check the local machine to determine which of the dozen .NET versions is available and whether the appropriate one for the app is there. That way, the platform can automatically disable access to your .NET apps when on a machine without .NET rather than you wondering why they don't work.
We will not have them on by default. This is the current answer and will not be changed until the market % changes dramatically (example, it working by default on 90%+ of PCs), so making the same argument again will not change this answer. Users can make an informed decision to turn them on if they'd like. Once on, the app store will show .NET apps along everything else. Even when off, the updater will update .NET apps.
Again, most public PCs will simply fail to run a .NET app (they won't even show an error, just fail) as they run XP and don't have any .NET installed. Just throwing the average user into that situation is horrible user experience. We're going to do it right so that users aren't left with apps which randomly work some places but not others with no explanation as to why.
The majority of PCs are not running Windows 8. Or Vista. But we won't accept new apps that won't run on them either. It's not just about things that run on 'most' PCs. Or about trends. It's about ensuring a good user experience and expectation of compatibility.
John T. Haller wrote ...
The majority of PCs are not running Windows 8. Or Vista. But we won't accept new apps that won't run on them either. It's not just about things that run on 'most' PCs. Or about trends. It's about ensuring a good user experience and expectation of compatibility.
Please answer me the question, why Microsoft has excluded completely all users with an installed Windows XP OS regarding the usage of the Internet Explorer 9? According to your point of view that must be a devastating decision by Microsoft.
The short answer: Windows XP does not support DirectX 10, which IE9 requires for hardware acceleration.
I'm sure the long answer also holds aspects of Microsoft pulling users away from XP, as mainstream support has already ended for XP, with extended support set to end in 15 months time.
Your point has absolutely no relation to what we are discussing. Microsoft has its own reasons for its apps. Microsoft wants people upgrading from Windows XP so they can sell more Windows licenses. We have no such motivations. Please stop sidelining discussion. You asked why we aren't listing .NET by default, I answered. It's a minor point. Please let it go now.
Just curiously asking, around what percentage of PortableApps users use PortableApps mainly on their very own [Windows 7] machines and just use the PortableApps versions instead of the normal installs juts for convenience?
I use them because I use Returnil Virtual System to secure my C, that's far more a reason for me than to use them from USB.
Visit the Community page
Join our forums