I use Chrome Portable because official Chrome doesn't let me choose an install location and I don't want my user data on my C: drive. I recently learned you can use the --user-data-dir argument in a shortcut to specify a profile location in official Chrome which would basically make it like a portable version.
Since I'm already using Chrome Portable I wonder if I should bother. Is one more private and secure than the other? I can see that Chrome Portable's data is temporarily in AppData while in use and then after I close the browser the folder gets deleted.
If I use the --user-data-dir method does any user data get written to AppData folder? If not then that would seem to be the more secure method.
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 Portable uses the --user-data-dir command line argument to point to the profile. It also cleans up stray files and registry entries after Chrome is closed
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
But Chrome Portable has to write info to the AppData folder which is not ideal if I don't want any data on C: drive. If I install Chrome, set my profile to a different drive, and use --user-data-dir argument, installed Chrome doesn't write data to AppData folder first right? All data writes to the specified profile location?
The --user-data-dir directive does not make Chrome only write to a single directory. We use that switch for Chrome Portable to point it to GoogleChromePortable\App\Data\profile but then we also have to handle all the other stuff Chrome writes everywhere else (LOCALAPPDATA, multiple registry keys, etc) with the GoogleChromePortable.exe launcher.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!