Difference between portable and installed?

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by bgoodman4, Dec 25, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bgoodman4

    bgoodman4 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    Posts:
    3,130
    Apart from the fact that one is portable and the other is not is there a difference between the 2? My main question is, is portable lighter on resources than installed? Also, is there ever a reason to use an installed version if a portable version is available? I would think a portable version would take up less space on the drive when its not actually running.
     
  2. nanana1

    nanana1 Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2007
    Posts:
    947
    In the strictest terms, a portable application should NOT write anything outside its program folder, whether to the registry or temp folders. It is a clean install and deleting the program folder makes a clean uninstall. In this way, your Windows system stays lean and unbloated.:p
     
  3. andyman35

    andyman35 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Posts:
    2,336
    A portable version of a program will use the same resources whilst running,but I always choose it if available since,as a rule it leaves no traces anywhere else as mentioned.
     
  4. bgoodman4

    bgoodman4 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    Posts:
    3,130
    Thats what I thought but was wondering if there ever is a reason to choose installed over portable. If not why would anyone offer installed programs if they could produce portable ones? Why tie up the disk space?
     
  5. LenC

    LenC Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Posts:
    846
    Location:
    CT, USA
    An installed version of a program can have features that a portable version cannot have (due to limitation of being portable as described above.) One example of such a feature might be shell integration.
     
  6. bgoodman4

    bgoodman4 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    Posts:
    3,130
    Understood, thanks.
     
  7. andyman35

    andyman35 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Posts:
    2,336
    You really have to just play around with portable applications to see if they offer the same functionality as their installed counterparts,often they do.If a program needs to be installed to function completely then sometimes using something like Symantec SVS will give you an installed yet isolated application.
     
  8. HAN

    HAN Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Posts:
    2,080
    Location:
    USA
    I use and like portable apps but I don't use them exclusively. For example, when cleaning up virus ridden PCs, I try to make use of as many protable apps as I can. After all, it's not my PC. Why should I install things I intend to use only one time? Plus, it's nice to run things like portable password programs or portable encryption for temporary use. But that said, I normally go for installed versions. Many times they are just "easier".
     
  9. zcv

    zcv Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2002
    Posts:
    355
    A big advantage for portable apps is being able to work on another system w/o installing.

    I carry a "Toolbox" of apps on a USB stick for that purpose.
     
  10. bgoodman4

    bgoodman4 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    Posts:
    3,130
    Thats makes sense, thanks.
     
  11. MrBrian

    MrBrian Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Posts:
    6,032
    Location:
    USA
    I believe that commingling executables and data within the same folder, as is done in true portable programs, would make LUA+SRP security configurations difficult.
     
  12. HAN

    HAN Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Posts:
    2,080
    Location:
    USA
    True, but that may be the goal? (Similar to when cleaning malware that won't allow certain things to run?)
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.