Talk:PortableApps.com

message: Wow. Horrible Article. Time to edit TechOutsider (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it because it is a valid alternative for people that do not want to use portableapps.com, or if they want some software portable, and that software is not at portableapps.com. That's why. SF007 (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

text: List like that are not copyrighted. Let's not get into copyright paranoia... SF007 (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, what's the point of duplicating it? Why not just put a link to it. Somthing like "a list of apps made portable by portableapps.com can be found here" That way it's also more likely to be up to date and accurate. VJ (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I agree with you in that point. Fine by me. In fact, it is a good idea and I support it. SF007 (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'm going to make the change thenVJ (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Critisism

message: This article is currently very biased. PortableApps.com has received many awards but there's no mention of them, and instead there is a massive "Criticisms" section, which is made up of unsourced and vague statements. Also it's not mentioned who exactly made these criticism (most likely some random user on the forums). So I suggest to either remove the section entirely, or to provide proper sources for it. Laurent (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That criticism section sucked terribly, it had many things that looked like unfunded attacks... SF007 (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: I've reverted a change claiming the number of downloads - this is phrased extremely badly, and is grossly misleading, implying that there's been this number of downloads of the whole portableapps.com package, whereas it's considerably more likely this only refers to the number of applications downloaded. I've rephrased to make this clearer.
Machtec (talk) 07:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of downloads 

message: The ASuite page says that it's based on PStart and the portableapps menu - isn't that the case?
If so, why there should certainly be a link to it!
Machtec (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The PortableApps has nothing to do with it, probably linking this article to ASuite article is.  Antonio López  (desu)  19:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[ASuite]] 

message: Beta 3 is out, but at the time the article only mentions Beta 1.  I would fix it myself, but I don't know the date of Beta 3.  Does anyone know when Beta 3 was released? --MoscowModder (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just added it with the release date.  Antonio López  (desu)  19:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest Beta 

message: I added a note about Wine support, which has since been removed (in two steps) by Anyonehere, with the comment "rm useless comment. Most windows software can run under emulation"; however, I think it should be in there. While most software does run under Wine, very few software providers actively support it. At PortableApps.com, we (I'm a developer there) do support Wine officially as far as we can (e.g. , ), and I know of some users who use our software with Wine (can't provide a number, but over our IRC support we've had a couple of people ask about it (see Google search results for Wine in #portableapps logs)). At least most of our software is tested under Wine, and the PortableApps.com Platform is designed specifically to work in Wine  - for example, in the latest official version, 1.5.2, Wine has a shortcoming in that it doesn't handle the BMP transparency in the top corners, and so an alternate theme image is used with square corners rather than rounded. Chris Morgan (talk) 12:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wine support 

message: A good point has been made, there appears to be confusion on the licence, the project overall, the platform, and packages. The Platform itself is open source, but the project recently was marked freeware by other users here.  The platform downloads always contain Open source software and so as the suite and light versions, the freeware applications are an optional download, the article should just mention they package freeware, but PortableApps.com does not own the freeware.  Antonio López  (talk)  16:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Platform or overall packages?

message: Did they themselves write that wiki article in first place? I too can buy a domain and start a supposed 'community' site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.119.161.28 (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears it did start in that way if you search the history around 2007, but it quite notable now than it was before. Antonio López  (talk)  04:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not notable enough. 

message: When PortableApps.com started, "apps" was not a generally accepted term, being merely an abbreviation which saw some usage in some areas. However, since then, Apple in particular have made the term "apps" very popular so that now it is an accepted word in the general English vocabulary. I think that now "apps" would be more appropriate than "applications" in most (almost all) places in this article; we do now call them "apps" ourselves exclusively ("applications" was common for us earlier as well). How do others feel about it? Chris Morgan (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Apps" versus "Applications" 

message: Does the redirect from PortableApps still need to exist? Typing portableapps with any capitalization now leads to this article. Isn't having another redirect from PortableApps redundant? 89.101.247.110 (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  I moved the redirect from Portableapps to here. 

message: PortableApps used to be this useful repository of open source applications that you could run on a flash drive.  But they seemed to have fallen behind the times.
For instance, Cmder, which was designed to give ConEmu a new interface leave artifacts in the Windows Registry. There was talk on the PortableApps message board of someone working on that issue, but it hasn't happened.  Msys was an alternative to Cygwin which could run on portable devices, unfortunate when Msys2 came out, they redesigned it to be more like Arch Linux.  Portable Apps also won't support Electron because the windows version uses Microsoft Virtual Studio Code (MVSC) because the developers wanted to use the Windows toolchain even though the Linux and Mac versions support Clang.  Electron also requires Python and Node, none of which Msys2 have been ported to.  Because of that, the Atom Editor is not portable.  There must be some other source of portable applications other than PortableApps which still seems to prefere the GNU toolchain over Clang because Clan uses a BSD-like license and the PortableApps developers have stated they want to use stuff that uses some form of the GNU license. --Bushido Hacks (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  No support for Electron Apps. Where are the betas?!