22 hours ago
Topic:
Adding other repositories?
GianlucaAdministrator
|
sl23 wrote:
1. Well, I see the point is well made here wrt the SPSSuite of apps. Would you consider adding the other option, ability to drop apps into a User Suite contained within SyMenu/ProgramFiles/ e.g. SyMenu/ProgramFiles/MyApps/ so any apps dropped here are auto added?
Yes it could be a good feature. What I have to understand is how this feature should work.
For example, what if SyMenu finds no .exe files but only folders inside the main program folder? Should it analyze every subfolder to find anything? I think it shouldn't, probably in this case it should do nothing.
What if it finds more than one executable? It probably has to create one logical item for every executable found.
How should the found logical items be named? Is it good to adopt the same PA strategy using the .exe property Product name?
Where do the found logical items have to be placed in the contextual menu? A special SyContainer maybe? From that container they can be moved in the right container by the user and in the meanwhile they don't crowd the menu root?
Probably a lot of other questions will arise when I start studying this feature but, as I told you, it's a good one.
Well, for your second point I'll go a bit random.
sl23 wrote:
Due to many Sy apps "poor" construction, many apps are portable, but not stealth. I say "poor" but I mean the SPS lacking in detail about files being left anywhere they please.
You probably know better than me how complex it is to track what an app touches during its execution.
When I need to find it out, I use Sysinternals Process Monitor and DevEnterprise Software Directory Monitor but it's a really time consuming task and probably not worth it.
So if an SPS is not so accurate on this aspect, I think it's not a drama. Our users want the apps, a lot of apps, a mountain of apps, and if some of them leave tracks behind, it's not a problem for them.
sl23 wrote:
I've been testing a couple of PA.com apps to see how the launcher fair in certain circumstances. [...] There are actually several faults with the PA launcher I can't abide.
Report to John, he'll be happy to help you 
sl23 wrote:
I actually just been through my entire collection of apps and tried switching all common apps to PA.com versions. I then remembered why I disliked their apps so much. The main reason I tried to switch is for point one above. I have archived all rarely used apps, keeping only essentials. When I need an archived app, I unpack it into the PA.com directory and it is automatically recognised and then updated. When finished, it is overwritten in the archive. I've tried all sorts of ways to reduce clutter without getting rid of many essential but rarely used apps. So far this is my favourite solution. Time will tell how good this method is.
I understand what you are trying to do but IMHO it's a cumbersome solution. And you can't find all the apps in PA format. And PA is buggy (you told that, not me  ). And you have several manual operations to do.
Maybe I have an idea for you: why won't you go with OS virtualization instead?
You can create a virtualized Windows that has access to your local PC apps folder, document folder, and, if you really need that, to the entire real data disk.
When you launch an application, you'll do that from the virtualized PC. This way everything the app writes on the registry will be on the virtualized one. And the same happens for the AppData folder.
Plus if the app is portable, your settings will be written on the hosting PC app folder that is a desired behaviour.
You can even create associations among apps and extensions in the virtual PC if your working files are available there. This is the reason for which I thought the entire data disk should be shared.
And finally when you want to clean up the virtualized environment you can restore a previous snapshot in a blink but, what is really important, is that your hosting PC will stay clean and untouched.
sl23 wrote:
As such, I have tried every launcher around. [...]
Well I don't agree with you here. You made a list of portabilizer tools and added SyMenu. SyMenu with its SPS technology has never been intended to be a portabilizer tool but a launcher and a portable freeware hub.
It's true, SyMenu has the skill to rewrite some environment variables and this is enough for some apps to become portable and, in some cases, even stealth. But it's incidental because the purpose is different.
sl23 wrote:
[...] all SPS Authors now use this SyLauncher to create stealthy apps, but also mainly so that non-stealthy associated apps aren't launched without bypassing this portablisation process that is currently built into SyMenu
Again, SyMenu has no real and solid portabilizer skills so it's not correct to demand too much from it.
Well you probably now understand why a SyLauncher is not in my list.
Anyway SyMenu is open and can include programs with any kind of portabilizer technology so if someone wants to create a portabilizer system and, above all, include it in some programs' original package, well I'm more than willing to include these programs in the suite.
But, you know what...? It sounds like another PAF system that, I think, it's the last survivor of this species. So probably the best thing could be to revive one of the others and drag it to the present day. What I'm really sure of is that it's not my mission. |