![:cheers:](http://reboot.pro/public/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)
No worries, just brain-stormin, heres a nice bit of info to read:
http://radio.weblogs...2006/02/18.html
N-Joy!
Regards & Respect,
ispy
![:cheers:](http://reboot.pro/public/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)
Posted 10 November 2008 - 12:10 AM
Posted 10 November 2008 - 09:56 AM
Posted 10 November 2008 - 11:15 AM
None taken! Your ideas & guidance are always appreciated!don't take it as an offence ,
A cheapo version like the portableapps one could be done with a batch file or similar:
- saving the registry entries for the app on the host system, if it exists
- writing into the registry the data of the 'portable' app
- running app
- closing app
- saving registry entries for app back to stick / or not
- deleting registry entries of the portable app
- writing back the saved registry keys
Posted 10 November 2008 - 12:05 PM
People could amend the batch files to reflect the drive & install Dir's as input %Vars% with Set /p choice switch maybe but that would require alteration, point taken!
Posted 10 November 2008 - 12:37 PM
Posted 10 November 2008 - 02:05 PM
Posted 10 November 2008 - 02:54 PM
Posted 10 November 2008 - 03:07 PM
Posted 10 November 2008 - 03:25 PM
Posted 10 November 2008 - 03:42 PM
Posted 10 November 2008 - 04:10 PM
Congrats, Ispy! Your suggestions come into the near of describing trackWBInstallHi all
,
Not only does the registry need monitoring but also....
File system changes monitoring utility for Windows NT/2000/XP.
...
Posted 10 November 2008 - 04:42 PM
Posted 10 November 2008 - 05:17 PM
ispy, please don't go through the trouble of reading what an application does, assuming is really more than enough!Hi all
,
Not only does the registry need monitoring but also....File system changes
Posted 10 November 2008 - 06:43 PM
Posted 10 November 2008 - 07:01 PM
Posted 10 November 2008 - 07:10 PM
Posted 10 November 2008 - 07:44 PM
Would it be kewl to have one or would it be kewl to make one?I dunno maybe its me & I need a reality check but a "freeware portable software maker" would be kewl???
Posted 10 November 2008 - 09:23 PM
Yes it would be kewl to make 1 (not a toy!) but eventually have one with its origins from within Boot-land that was, or should I say will be, a credible alternative to "thinapp" etc in the future.or would it be kewl to make one?
Posted 11 November 2008 - 02:27 AM
Posted 11 November 2008 - 02:44 AM
Posted 11 November 2008 - 08:02 AM
Posted 11 November 2008 - 12:17 PM
Posted 11 November 2008 - 08:23 PM
Oop's another gaff on my partI did not develop regshot just tweaked the original version mainly to optionally output in reg format.
Sandboxie AFAI see is not freeware, but I am assuming you are referring to the underlying principle methodology?I think the best approach for portable programs is the sandboxie idea - virtualize file and registry access i.e. redirect registry / file writes to the sandbox.
Do you mean the same type of programs or the same programs which are installed as full install (not portable)?I don't believe monitoring register / file access and undoing them when the program exits works in anything but the simplest cases because it can mess up existing installed copies of the same programs.
Using a virtual registry and file system and placing all files into a single
EXE (except for files that must change, like database files) does several
things that I can see value in.
1) It eliminates the need for admin privileges to run the application
(great for kiosks and flash drives).
2) There is no traditional install - again, eliminating the need for admin
level rights.
3) It keeps all of your app's DLLs and OCXs together with your app,
eliminating DLL Hell (or .Net Framework Version Hell).
4) It lowers support call numbers and costs because its really hard to
screw up running a no-install app.
5) It adds a level of security by wrapping and encrypting all needed files
into a single exe.
6) The end user is not required to install runtimes or .Net frameworks to
run your app (they're wrapped inside the app).
It does have drawbacks though... Like you can't use it to do kernel level
hooking or to run video drivers and other low level drivers.
All in all, it keeps your app installation more simple, insulates you from
DLL problems, doesn't require runtime or framework installs and can be run
from limited accounts - reducing the need for system admins to test, install
or oversee the application and increasing the odds that a company will use
it.
I think it's really cool. I'd love to make it available to all programmers.
Hell, it should be offered as an addin for .Net.
Posted 12 November 2008 - 12:44 AM
Posted 12 November 2008 - 02:44 AM
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users