[Obsolete] Portable App Creator

Is it possible to tidy up an app by removing some of the keys in the .reg file which i assume adds them?
For example, the UT installer registers
HKLM\SOFTWARE\Classes\.umod, , REG_SZ, Unreal.Module
HKLM\SOFTWARE\Classes\.unr, , REG_SZ, Unreal.Map
HKLM\SOFTWARE\Classes\.unreal, , REG_SZ, Unreal.Link
HKLM\SOFTWARE\Classes\unreal, , REG_SZ, URL:Unreal Protocol
Which are all file types. I know it runs without associating them, and so its unnecessary. So could these lines be safely removed from the .reg file?

Hello,
I get a compilation error as it runs Aut2Exe.

Aut2exe error: Error adding file:
..\files\line.gif

Help anyone?

Disclaimer: The following is my opinion and mine alone. I do not in any way speak on behalf of or represent Source Forge or any other entity.

AutoIt3 itself is a bug infested alpha notorious for setting off AV alarms. Any programming language or software that does this isn't fit for public release and therefore, should be avoided like the Anna Kournikova virus until the code has been cleaned up. Some proponents of AutoIt3 argue that the AV warnings are false positives that users can ignore based on the grounds of legitimacy, but I call bullshit on that sentiment. I don't know about anyone else, but if you set off the smoke detector in my house, I'm gonna put you out.

Free commercial software capable of doing what AutoIt3 & Portable App Creator claim to not only already exists but passes AV tests and out performs the former. I know because I tested this nightmare waiting to happen.

PS to the owner of this forum: there's bug in your script: after comment is posted the user is redirected to to the first page of comments for this post. That's all well and good if I happen to be replying to a comment on page 1 but NOT WHEN I"M ON PAE 3.

Thank you for respecting my right freedom of speech. I must admit at the time I was a bit annoyed when I saw that the forum script had omitted a sentence from one of my comments because I really frown on censorship, but in hindsight feel it was a good edit. The comment functions better without it and I was already pushing the boundaries of acceptable speech. Over all, I'm quite pleased with the forum script you're running. The ability to edit comments is excellent and cuts down on clutter, plus the real-time spell check is handy when I choose to use it that is.

Thank you again.

Disclaimer: This ain't gonna be pretty, so if you're a pussy run like a good little bitch from a smoking gun.

Tveryone who has replied to my comments..and the one who hasn't replied . have the fucking common sense to know it's considered polite thank someone who takes the time to do the author's job and explain a program to a Godamn imbecile my year 'n a half old niece niece could solve with less trouble:

I realize some folks are computerchallenged the way I need a spellchecker and a talking dictionary that mimics a parrot, but come on, anybody that requires a video to understand this Frankensteined piece of shit program has obviously been lobotomized. Somebody call the director of the Resident Evil series: I've found the cast for the next movie.

I refuse to defewnd my opinions any further. You wouldn't fucking understand anyway.

I have some suggestions. I have not used the portable app creator, so if these features are already included, I didn't know.

1. To provent multiple EXE files, PAC can automatically create a shortcut file if more than one EXE is detected in the main folder. After asking which file to create a shortcut to obviously.

2. Sometimes, when I put a non-portable app on the flashdrive, and look at it in the Portabe apps menu, the didplay name looks weird. Like for Flash programs like Toads tool, the name is something like "Macromedia Projector 2008" or whatever. This can be confusing, especially since there are two other applications this guy made, both with similar names.

Dear John,

Thank you for wieghing in here. I disagree in regard to your perspective of attitudes and language, particularly due to the fact that they are present throughout 10_illiterate_10_maroesjk_10's post and comments in a more subtle form. I won't cite any specific examples: I expect you to be intelligent enough to pick them out for yourself. Also, Bill Mayer drops the F-bomb at least twice along with a few other expletives during his show on HBO but still manages intelligent discussion, that is when he's not sticking both feet in his mouth. I'm glad you mentioned the open source, or as you put it people working for free, because I have concerns regarding PortableApps.com in that respect. You have trademarked both your product and slogan while at the same time taking advantage of the resources offered by the Source Forge Community. To your credit you have made your apps launcher and platform open source, but as far as I can you've failed to do so with whatever apps\process you use to create the portables. I do not have the time to scour this site like an Easter egg hunt so if I'm mistaken about that last point, please show me where you have done so because I can't help but wonder if you're gonna shut out the open source community once you're done assembling/testing your suite. You mention that your site is hosted in the US. What a coincidence. I'm a US citizen born and raised with a heritage that reaches back to the time before the European invaders. So when I see you rattling your sword about copyright and trademark law here and in at least one other post where you forced a programmer to rename their product Portable Apps Creation Master because you felt the original name infringed on your trademark. So now I'm gonna school you on copyright and trademark law. First of all, any written word whether on real paper or cyber, is automatically protected under copyright law. No need for the fancy circle c. Furthermore, you sir violated copyright law when you forced that programmer to change the product name. And for what? A boring bland trademark that can't be enforced, that's what. Trademarking portable apps suite is like trying to trademark the generic word suitcase and your case would never stand up in court. I can take your trademark change one letter and it's no longer yours: Portable Capps Suite. But that would be lame like "Your digital life, anywhere." which if I were you I'd be embarrassed that I'd wasted the time and money to trademark, especially when it was already protected by copyright law. I think I'll call my potable apps suite Pocket Rocket.

If you want to weigh in on something, why don't you try throwing your weight around an important topic like user trust. There is no such thing as a false positive in virus scans. The reason portable app creator gets flagged thrice is it's packed with UPX (as are some of your portables), a well known hack tool, as well as autoit3 which in itself represents lazy coding because it contains so many signatures similar to well-known threats. So telling users to ignore possible threats is lazy and irresponsible, especially when a trademarked company is involved. Now I understand that many coders use UPX as a packer for a variety of reasons including affordability and in an effort to force virus scanners to refine their methods as well as mainstream the app, but UPX brings with it a reputation for trouble whether a scanner flags it or not and there are other packers available. The same goes for autoit3.

I am still testing Portable Apps Creation Master, but thus far it is far superior to the alpha junk pawned in this post. I tested the latest alpha release of this garbage and found it still riddled with bugs. The proggy failed to execute past partial download of the autoit3 files before crashing with a Not valid win32 program error and a line 0 error. Make no mistake, any program that has to be run in a perfect virtual enviroment to prevent crashes and proper functionality is nothing but a bug infested alpha. Plus the author in recent comments says that PAC does not create real portable apps as opposed to for example portable apps suite, so who in their right mind is interested in creating unreal portable apps? I will not be testing this crap any further as it's not worth my time and I don't like the author.

Last, I want to address the veiled threat contained in the third paragraph of your comment. The First Ammendment of the United States constitution protects my right to freedom of speech and your veiled threat insinuates that if you or your mods see anything you deem unacceptable you reserve the right to censor me through suspension or banning. You're quick to rattle your sword to protect your trademark/copyrights, but what about the rights of the users of your site and service?

PS

I found another bug in your forum script. For long posts such as 10_illiterate_10_maroesjk_10's, there should be a page link at the top as well as the bottom as it's a real pain in the arse to scroll all the way to the bottom to access the comments page links.

Also, I'm currently testing several of your portable apps including Firefox and KeePass, am quite pleased with them so far and will post comment reviews when finished testing.

I also want to remind you that you're by no stretch of the imagination the only portable apps game on the block. You have a slew of competition out there and one has to look no further than Google to find them.

Hi,

I would like to test Minefield latest nightlies on a portable drive. Will this Portable App Creator install it similar to PortableFirefox? I installed Minefield using this app and all went well, but I notice the application data is still being read from the C: drive. What can I do to get Minefield portable i.e. docs and settings, cache, history?

Thank you for any response,

James

PACM is a menu system similar to portableapps' which loads into the sys tray and allows the user to launch the included utilities. PACM features a detailed text/graphical tutorial that guides you through the process of creating a portable app. There's even a nifty sample portable app included, FlashGet, a download manager with bittorrent compatability built in which I've only briefly tested to verify overall function. The app appears to work fine, but the shortcut errors out. I suspect that is due to the fact that PACM like PAC utilizes autoit3 which doesn't seem capable of handling 64 bit platforms, though it could also be due in part to the regfile AppPath pointing to "C:" which is not where I put it. But keep in mind this's a sample app. It also uses RegShot 1.7 but after trying it and 1.8 it seems to get lost in a 64 enviroment as well and I refuse to dumb down my system with Virtual PC. Besides, like autoit3 there are alternatives to RegShot out there, but if you're running a 32 bit system you shouldn't encounter these problems. Now if you're looking for a point and click unplug and play solution in PACM then look elsewhere because you will have to get your hands a bit dirty during the process of porting an app. That's the fun part though. I've run through all the steps by hand and PACM appears to deliver where PAC fails. I recommend that you download it and give it a whirl. If it can port a download manager, it should work with Minefield much like FireFox which like many portables does save data to the disk (ie bookmarks) but any registry entries get erased upon exit. I'd advise starting with a smaller app though. Trying to port a browser trunk is bound to be tricky. For any apps I ported that required a launcher I'd use NSIS rather than autoit3.

If nothing else PACM is a good tool to learn how to port apps. The tutorial is excellent for that. And PACM itself is portable, tested that by moving it around.

After this, my comments regarding PACM will be posted in its respective post so the mods won't get cranky.

PS

I forgot in my last comment that it's the official port of KeePass that I'm testing, not portableapps'. The official portable unzips whereever you want it and runs flawlessly thus far. And being a true portable it can be moved anywhere without hurting functionality.

I think this should be scepted into the testing releases page, like frets on fire. Also, does this program also conpress EXE files to save space?

I just realized I forgot to disable it before running Regshot 1,7 and 1,8 which might account for the app's instability. I know it runs fine on a 32 bit system, though I really dislike disabling UAC, particularly for an app from an unknown source as opposed to an established company, though that's no guarantee either. But as for PAC itself, the latest Alpha failed to compile the autoit3 scripts before crashing so I don't think UAC contributed to that, though I can't rule it out. I can't remember if I disabled UAC before compiling the previous Alpha I tested or not, but know for sure that I did prior to running the compiled app which didn't crash on an x86 system. I don't think I disabled UAC before running the latest Alpha's compile routine. But I'm not gonna go back and test again. By the author's own admission, the app doesn't work.

I believe I have the same problem. It is on lines 450 and 900 on the _compileversion.au3. These are both places that look like this:

End Func#Comment-Start

After adding a carriage return:

End Func
#Comment-Start

it compiled properly. I will test it now.

(Again, is there any way to take out the #Require-Admin line?)

Crazy: It helps if you give the error line numbers. Did you get any?

I retested RegShot 1,8 with UAC disabled and the program still stops running and closes. I've encountered the same problem with RegSnap. Since I know RegShot runs without error on x86 systems I'm apt to conclude that there's a compatibility issue with x64 systems. I tested Regwatch as well but it gives a .dll failed to register error on install and won't run at all after install. I'm going to contact LastBit and the company that makes RegWatch to see if I can get a fix.

Regarding PAC line errors, the only one I recall was line 0, but there were multiple errors right after the compiler crashed. Perhaps the author would consider focusing PAC on automating the process of isolating the changes made to registry & other sys files during program installation and processing that to the needed reg files required by the app to run as a portable as well as ensuring x64 compatability, since there are already several app packers in development utilizing SFX and other file formats. If so, I would be interested in continuing to test PAC.

I should also note that PACM suffers from the same compatability issues which is why I had to step through it by hand. And I don't consider Virtual PC a viable solution because that allows the software authors to get away with not fixing their code.

A program called Portable app template 2.5 is out. Although PAC looks much more user friendly than PAT, you never know if that may give it the advantige. Maybe you two could team up and create one better program.