Portable apps, disadvantages?

[jobz]

Finally got my new win7 build up and running. Wasn't impressed at first, it didn't feel that faster than my old xp. But the more I use it, the snappier it feels, I guess it's the superfetch or whatever it's called going to work.

First thing I did after installing win7 was to run portable version of chrome I used in my old xp to download ie9 and other software, LOL. Yes, ie9 is faster, but it is not as fast as chrome, and not as extensible as firefox. IMHO, it's too little too late.

Using portable chrome has really sold me on portable apps. With a clean slate, I want to ask if I should run portable apps exclusively or as much as possible. I see all the advantages, but then I realised one disadvantage. Settings are usually saved in the app folder. That means when I come to backup, I'd have to backup whole folder, instead of just your home folder if you install your apps. I only have 6 apps in my portableapps folder, and it's already taking up 300MB.

I'm interested what others think.

 

[Nothinman]

The biggest downside is security. Portable apps need to bundle copies of dependencies that shouldn't be bundled with an app so when an exploit is found in a library used by multiple portable apps, they've all got to be updated individually or you're still at risk.

Sadly, Windows doesn't have a good package manager so it's always a PITA to update everything since virtually every app has their own update system. You still end up with outdated files that are security risks, but less frequently.

 

[yinan]

The individual vulnerabilities isnt exactly true, for things that require shared libraries you can build your packages with links to another package that is only those and when you update the one location all apps are updated.

However, the vulnerabilities are not that bad since the vulnerable files are only visible when the app is running.

Also, as far as where the settings are saved that is also dependent on how you build the package.

 

[Nothinman]

The individual vulnerabilities isnt exactly true, for things that require shared libraries you can build your packages with links to another package that is only those and when you update the one location all apps are updated.

However, the vulnerabilities are not that bad since the vulnerable files are only visible when the app is running.

I'm under the impression the OP won't be building any apps himself, so that's not an option. If you mean manually creating symlinks, that's retarded and breaks the app's portability. If the portable app comes with libssl then he'll be using the local copy of libssl and when a vulnerability is found in it, he'll have to update the portable app individually to fix it.

True, in a portable app the vulnerabilities probably aren't usable unless the app is running since the shared libraries are stored with that app and nothing else should be looking for and loading those libraries. But that's no reason to ignore them and they're just as bad as bad, if not worse, than if the library were shared because you have a tendency to forget about them and think they're more secure than they are. That false sense of security is worse than any vulnerability.

 

[jsalpha2]

I love portable apps. When I set up a new computer, right next to C:\Program Files,
I make a folder called C:\ Portable Apps. When you use the portable version of say CCleaner, and an update comes out, just delete the contents of C:\ Portable Apps\CCleaner and then extract the new version into that folder.
The main problem with portable apps is that you have to be careful what and where you download them. If you google for a portable app and find a free portable version of software that is not supposed to be free, (pirateware) it may have trojans or viruses in it.

Substitute a colon and backslash for the smily face.

 

[Nothinman]

I love portable apps. When I set up a new computer, right next to C:\Program Files,
I make a folder called C:\ Portable Apps. When you use the portable version of say CCleaner, and an update comes out, just delete the contents of C:\ Portable Apps\CCleaner and then extract the new version into that folder.
The main problem with portable apps is that you have to be careful what and where you download them. If you google for a portable app and find a free portable version of software that is not supposed to be free, (pirateware) it may have trojans or viruses in it.

To me that's a pretty huge problem, especially considering the security problems with updating them I just mentioned...

 

[yinan]

Isnt there a free personal version of thinapp now?

 

[lowrider69]

The main problem with portable apps is that you have to be careful what and where you download them. If you google for a portable app and find a free portable version of software that is not supposed to be free, (pirateware) it may have trojans or viruses in it.

Which is exactly why I stay away from them unless there's an official portable version available from the developer, like ccleaner and some AV apps I use to work on people's systems.

 

[yinan]

Isnt there a free personal version of thinapp now?

Yup, there is as long as you buy VMware workstation.

http://www.vmware.com/products/workstation/thinapp-starter-edition.html

 

[jobz]

I played around with PortableApps and LiberKey. They both provide similar range of apps. One big advantage with LiberKey is it has automatic updates for apps you have downloaded.

http://portableapps.com/
http://www.liberkey.com/

 

[Gooberlx2]

Sadly, Windows doesn't have a good package manager so it's always a PITA to update everything since virtually every app has their own update system. You still end up with outdated files that are security risks, but less frequently.

For this reason I'd actually rather use portable apps (though I don't). I have to do through the effort of manually updating my apps anyway.

It definitely would be nice to have a proper package management system for Windows.

 

[lxskllr]

I don't see much point in them. It's trade off of one set of hassles for another. I'm a huge fan when using them in their traditional role; using your preferred apps on a foreign computer, but not so much for running as a primary application.

 

[Nothinman]

For this reason I'd actually rather use portable apps (though I don't). I have to do through the effort of manually updating my apps anyway.

So you'd rather make it slightly worse on yourself?

 

[Gooberlx2]

So you'd rather make it slightly worse on yourself?

I dunno, I see both sides of the argument.

I guess I don't actually run a lot of stuff outside of Window's built-in that doesn't auto update itself. Zune, iTunes, Adobe stuff, Digsby, Chrome, Java, etc... all auto-update, or have the option to.

Because of this thread however, I do intend to use some of my other programs as portable:
Putty
Filezilla
Avidemux
Audacity
Notepad++
ImgBurn
7zip
LibreOffice

I've been playing around with that liberkey program, and it is pretty nifty.

 

[Modelworks]

I use tons of portable apps , many I made portable myself. The reason is I got tired of doing re-installs. I have some applications that are unbelievably annoying to install. Like one that you install the exe then you have to install all the library items one at a time, all 119 of them ! It wouldn't be bad if it was just click through and it installs, or something I could script, but the damn things are set up with different setup programs and options for different parts.

The main downside has been mentioned, not updating core files that other applications use. The reality is that risk is low for most applications. Unless the program is something related to networking, system utils I wouldn't worry. I seriously doubt photoshop is going to develop a vulnerability that allows someone to remotely log in to your pc or start downloading a virus.

 

[Nothinman]

I use tons of portable apps , many I made portable myself. The reason is I got tired of doing re-installs. I have some applications that are unbelievably annoying to install. Like one that you install the exe then you have to install all the library items one at a time, all 119 of them ! It wouldn't be bad if it was just click through and it installs, or something I could script, but the damn things are set up with different setup programs and options for different parts.

The main downside has been mentioned, not updating core files that other applications use. The reality is that risk is low for most applications. Unless the program is something related to networking, system utils I wouldn't worry. I seriously doubt photoshop is going to develop a vulnerability that allows someone to remotely log in to your pc or start downloading a virus.

PS may not be problematic, but these days most apps have some sort of social networking or "cloud" component so yes, the risk is higher than most people think.