Author Topic: Installation vs. Executable programs (also, Foobar question)  (Read 722 times)

Offline Tatsujin

  • Box Fansubs
  • Member
  • Posts: 15632
    • Otakixus
Installation vs. Executable programs (also, Foobar question)
« on: October 28, 2009, 02:55:21 PM »
So ... I noticed that most programs allow you to, rather than install the program, to actually allow the user to execute the program without installing it at all. Foobar actually allows you to do that. I've done it on my work computer and I love foobar so much. There are other programs like Filezilla as well.

Just wanted to know the goods and bads between the two or there is nothing really to it. I'm thinking executables are easier since you never need to install them and you can just carry them from folder to folder with their saved options.

Also, a question about foobar. I want to install Windows 7 whenever I possibly can, tho' I have saved options on there and other plugins I want to carry over. In all, I don't want to lose any of my stuff when I carry it over. I'm not upgrading, it's going to be a clean install with the playlists as well. I have like 1231924 playlists on it. Will it save all the playlists or do I have to go to each one and save them individually? Never really done it.

Thanks, fellow members of BBT.


¸¸,.-~*'¨¨¨™¤¦ Otakixus ¦¤™¨¨¨'*~-.,¸¸

Offline kureshii

  • Former Staff
  • Member
  • Posts: 4485
  • May typeset edited light novels if asked nicely.
Re: Installation vs. Executable programs (also, Foobar question)
« Reply #1 on: October 28, 2009, 03:15:27 PM »
There're no disadvantages to portability AFAIK, apart from maybe a lack of shell integration (but that's really just up to your own resourcefulness with portable apps to overcome; there're many workarounds for this). I prefer portable apps for ease of backup/reinstallation/file-moving, and for making it easier to not have to deal with the mess that is the Windows registry. My portableapps folder is currently 1.66GB and has 112 app subfolders ;)

As long as you have your playlist files and a portable installation of foobar in a folder, it will work on any PC with XP/Vista/Win7. No settings are written to registry and everything should be inside the foobar program folder (although who knows where your playlist files are... by default they go in the foobar directory but you always have the option of saving them elsewhere). Foobar is also able to export most of your settings as well as program layout so you can back them up elsewhere.

Keep in mind that while foobar will work on either of the 3 OSes (and it seems to work in vanilla mode in Wine, too), not all the plugins might. Some plugins are not x64-compatible, and others might have quirky OS incompatibilities; that's something you'll just have to try out and see.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2009, 03:21:50 PM by kureshii »

Offline Tatsujin

  • Box Fansubs
  • Member
  • Posts: 15632
    • Otakixus
Re: Installation vs. Executable programs (also, Foobar question)
« Reply #2 on: October 28, 2009, 03:39:46 PM »
There're no disadvantages to portability AFAIK, apart from maybe a lack of shell integration (but that's really just up to your own resourcefulness with portable apps to overcome; there're many workarounds for this). I prefer portable apps for ease of backup/reinstallation/file-moving, and for making it easier to not have to deal with the mess that is the Windows registry. My portableapps folder is currently 1.66GB and has 112 app subfolders ;)

As long as you have your playlist files and a portable installation of foobar in a folder, it will work on any PC with XP/Vista/Win7. No settings are written to registry and everything should be inside the foobar program folder (although who knows where your playlist files are... by default they go in the foobar directory but you always have the option of saving them elsewhere). Foobar is also able to export most of your settings as well as program layout so you can back them up elsewhere.

Keep in mind that while foobar will work on either of the 3 OSes (and it seems to work in vanilla mode in Wine, too), not all the plugins might. Some plugins are not x64-compatible, and others might have quirky OS incompatibilities; that's something you'll just have to try out and see.
I see, I use 64-bit Vista so it should work on 64-bit Win 7. I only have two plugins anyways. Alright, thanks.


¸¸,.-~*'¨¨¨™¤¦ Otakixus ¦¤™¨¨¨'*~-.,¸¸

Offline Xiong Chiamiov

  • Member
  • Posts: 3012
  • I'm gonna tolerate and love the SHIT out of you!
    • changedmy.name
Re: Installation vs. Executable programs (also, Foobar question)
« Reply #3 on: November 01, 2009, 07:26:35 AM »
So ... I noticed that most programs allow you to, rather than install the program, to actually allow the user to execute the program without installing it at all.
Installing is merely placing a bunch of files in places without you having to copy them there manually.  Generally, if a single runnable executable is provided, then it's just designed to not rely upon any other files, but technically you are "installing" it by placing it somewhere on your computer*.

* Ok, yes, there is the Windows registry, but I really didn't want to touch upon that.
Projects of interest: nagi | sheska | bdg
Posts made between 2009-05-09 and 2011-08-26 were in the capacity of staff.  Please read accordingly.