Portable vs Full

Showing 1-10 of 10 messages
Portable vs Full Mike 8/13/10 6:34 AM
I wanted to see what the FF4 beta would be like without disturbing my
regular FF 3.6.

So I installed the portable version. I don't see any differences in
functionality between the portable version and the regular (other than
those attributable to the change from FF3 to FF4).

The only difference I see would be an easier install with less potential
damage to registry files.

What am I missing?

Re: Portable vs Full Greywolf 8/13/10 7:17 AM

Nothing AFAICT. Portable FF is simply a self-contained version of FF,
which means it doesn't involve the registry during start up. It has all
its bits and pieces in one place. When it starts, portable FF just
invokes the Windows API, and Widnows loads some of these into RAM and
locks others. Since these parts are all in one place, there are no
registry entries for Windows to refer to while the program is loaded.
When FF calls system resources, the registry is of course involved.
Think of the registry as a kind of software BIOS: it connects a program
to the operating system modules that it needs.

This is how I understand it:
Regular Windows apps by default install parts of themselves into the
system folder tree on C:. During install, registry entries are created
that refer to all the locations where all the parts of an application
are stored. During boot and/or during program start, Windows also
"locks" some files, i.e. marks them "do not modify", so that you cannot,
for example, delete them by mistake. A regular Windows program cannot
start if the relevant registry entries are missing or corrupted. The
portable version starts without reference to the registry, so it can be
started on any (Windows) machine.

BTW, there are portable versions for other OSs.

HTH
wolf k.

Re: Portable vs Full Mike 8/13/10 9:22 AM

  Thanks. Ths is what I thought.
In general it's then always better to use the portable version for two
reasons.
1) Less chance of either being corrupted by other programs or of
corrupting others.
2)Very easy to copy to new machine. (Like the old DOS programs.)

Re: Portable vs Full dpcdpc11 8/13/10 10:15 AM

using the portable version makes firefox portable a bit tricky to set
it as your default browser... I on the other hand always keep IE as my
default browser... less hassle with firefox portable.
One question for you... when loading websites in FF4, please check the
hard disk activity... being portable and all, the cache should be
stored in RAM but since upgrading from FF4.0b2 and up, every page I
load in a tab in FF4 just drives my HDD crazy and I have no idea
why... the same result with a fresh new FF portable with 0 addons.
Does any of you experience this problem?

Re: Portable vs Full Mike 8/13/10 10:38 AM

There is an option for making the Portable FF your default browser in
the options menu.
I am not having the same problem that your are having.
I have others.
When typing in a URL clicking the Enter key does nothing; I have to
click on the arrow to the right. Also when loading I come up fisrt with
a javascript error on which I have to click on OK in order to load. That
error does sometimes come up while surfing.
I did not have the problem in FF beta 4 version 1, but had it in 2 and
now in 3.

unk...@googlegroups.com 8/13/10 10:39 AM <This message has been deleted.>
Re: Portable vs Full panseluta vesela 8/13/10 11:21 AM
On Aug 13, 8:39 pm, FredW <fr...@blackholespam.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:22:44 -0400, Mike <M...@zelgo.com> wrote:
> >On 8/13/2010 10:17 AM, Greywolf wrote:
> >> On 13/08/2010 09:34, Mike wrote:
> >>> I wanted to see what the FF4 beta would be like without disturbing my
> >>> regular FF 3.6.
>
> >>> So I installed the portable version. I don't see any differences in
> >>> functionality between the portable version and the regular (other than
> >>> those attributable to the change from FF3 to FF4).
>
> >>> The only difference I see would be an easier install with less potential
> >>> damage to registry files.
>
> >>> What am I missing?
>
> >> Nothing AFAICT.
>
> >> HTH
> >> wolf k.
>
> >  Thanks. Ths is what I thought.
> >In general it's then always better to use the portable version for two
> >reasons.
> >1) Less chance of either being corrupted by other programs or of
> >corrupting others.
> >2)Very easy to copy to new machine. (Like the old DOS programs.)
>
> 3. I have a dual boot computer (WinVista, Win7)
>
> I use the portable versions of Firefox and Thunderbird on a separate
> partition (and portable versions of other programs).
> Whatever I choose from the dual boot, I have the same bookmarks and
> emails (incl. archiving) for both versions of Windows.
> In each Windows I need just a shortcut to the portable Mozilla programs.
>  ;-)
>
> Also easier to back-up, along with data as in "My Documents",
> no need to include in an "Image".
>
> --
> Fred W. (NL)

that's also my config... using TB and FF as portables, dual booting
win7 and win2003 server.
@Mike: About making FF portable your default browser from the option
menu... that doesn't work like it should... don't use that! if you do
and your FF portable is not launched, and you click on a link let's
say in Thunderbird, it will launch Firefox.exe from inside the folder
FirefoxPortable/App/Firefox/ and that will create a profile folder in
c:\Users\USER\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\ and so it will
act just like regular FF.
For that you need to play around a bit with the registry but then FF
portable won't really be portable, cause portable apps don't use/
change the windows registry.. here's a quick guide: http://portableapps.com/node/7256

Re: Portable vs Full Mike 8/13/10 11:51 AM

What about then using the explorer "file types" method of setting the FF
portable as file type for html files?

Re: Portable vs Full dpcdpc11 8/13/10 12:03 PM

It's all in the guide... make those changes in the registry and html
files will also open with FF portable... look:

[HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\FirefoxHTML]
@="Firefox Document"
"FriendlyTypeName"="Firefox Document"

[HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\FirefoxHTML\DefaultIcon]
@="C:\\FIREFO~1\\pFirefox.exe,1"

[HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\FirefoxHTML\shell]

[HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\FirefoxHTML\shell\open]

[HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\FirefoxHTML\shell\open\command]
@="C:\\FIREFO~1\\pFirefox.exe -url \"%1\" -requestPending"

[HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\FirefoxHTML\shell\open\ddeexec]
@="\"%1\",,0,0,,,,"
"NoActivateHandler"=""

[HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\FirefoxHTML\shell\open\ddeexec\Application]
@="Firefox"

Re: Portable vs Full Chris Ilias 8/20/10 3:10 PM

It's intended to be that way. (as little as possible is different)

FWIW, Mozilla doesn't not offer a portable version, so remember that
your version did not come from Mozilla.

Also, the firefox program is what adds registry entries, not the installer.
--
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
List-owner: support-firefox, support-thunderbird, test-multimedia