Leaderboard

Thanks as always to a thoughtful writeup. I'll add my own slight additions. I myself have not "installed" any software for the better part of two decades, I do as much as possible via PORTABLE applications. PortableApps.com popularized the use of portable software. They began in 2006. WinPenPack has actually been around for slightly longer (by mere months, not years). You go even further back (by years) when you include those of us with familiarity to UNIX. With regard to associations with protocols/files/applications, portable software isn't really about not having these associations, but rather having exact and precise finite control of these associations. This PRECISE CONTROL is really only limited by the user's own intentions/imagination. You really can have this PRECISE CONTROL be as simple or as complex as your heart desires. Your "host system" does NOT have to have *ANY* 'default browser' associations, no txt file associations, no ini associations, no pdf associations, no mkv/avi/mp4 associations. NO ASSOCIATIONS of any kind. But you can mix-and-match to your heart's content. Associate 'browser' protocols (http/https/ftp, for example) to all use Firefox *ONLY IF* PortableApps PLATFORM is running in the systray. But roll those ftp protocols over to something like CuteFTP *ONLY* if LiberKey is running in the systray. Split your media file associations so that audio files divert to VLC Player, mkv files divert to PotPlayer, mp4 files divert to Media Player Classic, and avi files divert to TEncoder Video Converter. "Portable" really can be as simple or as complex as you "need it to be".

IIRC, the "nonsetup" zip versions were created for "special" cases (namely WinXP machines without all SPs and/or partially updated), where the provided ".exe" installers wouldn't run; FTR, the first "*_nonsetup.zip" release asset saw the light of day with the 124-r4 release: https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/releases/tag/v126-r4 As posted by NHTPG, these are NOT "portable" packages; Supermium "portable" packages were once offered as part of a paid for Patreon subscription: https://www.patreon.com/posts/supermium-122-r2-103469536 If you don't mind the registry being written to, a simplistic "portable" approach would be to write a "Sm-Portable.cmd" batch file: place it adjacent to Sm's main executable (chrome.exe) and ALWAYS launch Sm via that (you can alternatively create a Windows shortcut with the same cmdline args) ; be mindful: "portable" apps are NOT meant to be associated with other protocols/files/applications etc. ...

You are right, of course, but that "exact and precise finite control of these associations" is in practice left for "advanced" users, not "average" Windows user "Joe" (at least that's how I see it myself ) ... Like you, I was introduced to the PA.com format many years ago, and, actually, after an "accident" that happened during my WinXP era, when sister ran a "wipe whole C drive" virus on then "family" desktop; after a Windows reinstall (no C drive back-ups were being taken at that time ), I had to reconfigure all re-installed programs from scratch... PA.com format appealed to me, because I could "install" many programs on a second, D, disk partition, where both the applications' binaries and their settings would reside; in the unfortunate event of a second C partition "demise", all my "portable" programs on D partition would survive... I think most take "portable" to signify "have the app's settings alongside the app's main (binary) files, not save settings in %appdata% and/or the registry"; but "portable" also means "be able to store the app and its settings/configuration to a suitable external storage medium (USB stick, ExtHDD/SSD, etc.) and be able to transfer the storage device and use said "portable" app across many different hosts, without permanently impacting (and/or leaving traces in) each host's fie system/registry/etc. ; this is why most portable app authors advise not to establish associations of any kind with the host system the portable app is currently running on; yes, I've come across very "smart" portable launchers that clean up the host system after the app has been exited, but that depends on the exact launcher; during the years, I have seen portable-application users associating portable launchers with the host system, and this has less risk overall, but, TBH, I don't do that myself either... Now I'm thinking of it, my advice "not to associate" was particular to the simple "Sm-Portable.cmd" batch file I posted previously ; this isn't a proper "portable launcher" per se, so if you clicked on a URL link inside a PDF file and expected that to be opened in the "portable" Supermium "Profile", then I couldn't offer an "easy" way to do that (you'd probably have to mess with the registry, and so on) ; and the "--disable-encryption --disable-machine-id" switches were specifically added so that the portable "Profile" remains unlocked and accessible/readable across hosts ...

FFmpeg update. XP: static shared libfdk-aac VISTAx86: static shared libfdk-aac

No, not really. That is the "this is not an INSTALLER, just EXTRACT and EXECUTE" version. To make it PORTABLE, you have to "wrap it" wit a LOADER so that the .exe doesn't save files outside of its own directory, so that it doesn't make permanent changes to the registry, etc.

I recommend Chrome++ ,but it doesn't work on XP

The way that I do it, it does not matter if there is a portable version or not - *ALL* Chrome/Chromium-based browsers 'can be made' portable Just replace the "bin" folder with the Supermium files that you want to turn into a portable version. You can start with anything that is already portable (360Chrome, PortableApps, WinPenPack, the list is endless).

I finally got in touch with the support, I explained them everything, I even showed them the stack trace and sent them the full memory dump along with the logs. Unfortunately, that was all time wasted as they said that version 18.8.4084.409 is from the November 15th 2018 branch and that although they’re still rolling out definition updates, they will not release any new updates to that version. From what they said, I can only assume that this means that any bug discovered will never be fixed and that essentially they don’t care about Windows XP any longer. I know that they stopped testing updates on Windows XP, but what’s the point of supporting version 18.8 and releasing definition updates if they're not checking them to make sure they’re working and even when users report the issues, they won’t do anything to fix them?! I’m so disappointed with Avast right now, which is a shame, considering that I’ve been a user since the days of version 4.8… The last safe version for Windows XP is therefore 18.5.2342. Anything related to 18.8.4084 can be assumed to be faulty. If you're planning to keep using Avast on XP (like me), please use the offline installer to go to 18.5 and set the updates to manual so that it doesn't get updated. You can still get definitions updates, but you will have to block any program updates to avoid issues!

A while ago I wrote that Avast announced that they were gonna stop testing updates on XP despite still rolling them out. It's been a while since October 2024, but the first cracks are starting to appear. Some users have reported on the avast forum about some issues and unfortunately I was able to verify and reproduce every one of them. We're talking about Avast 8.8.2356 build 18.8.4084.409 with the definition updates 250204-6. Some users reported high CPU usage up to 50%. In my case, something is off as Avast is consuming 12% of the CPU resources in a 4c/4th configuration. The problem is that csrss.exe, a Windows process, started going crazy and use up between 9% and 12% CPU usage pretty much all the time which leads me to 24% total CPU usage being completely wasted. I'm sure there's something wrong that is probably looping, but I haven't yet figured out what. What's even more interesting is that even when you disable all the shields you have aswArPot.sys and aswSnx.sys being linked in the stack trace of various non avast processes even though they should be nowhere near that. Something is definitely broken. There's also another issue reported by other people at start time in which the program starts but it displays that you're not protected in the GUI until it then refreshes and everything is back to normal. Once again, that's probably one of the components failing to either start or register itself as started properly until some fallback mechanism kicks in and fixes it. The last issue reported on the forum is about the streaming updates, namely a constant connection to the avast servers that allow the antivirus to immediately get the definition updates instead of scheduling a periodic download from the server to minimise the timeframe between when definitions are released and the program is updated. Well, that unfortunately no longer works, but fortunately the scheduled downloads kick in automatically so that's not a problem. I've reported them all to the support via email, so now we're at a crucial point I think. If they do fix the issues, then it means that they're gonna keep their words and actually rely on the users for feedbacks. If they don't... well... it means that they don't care and the program will get progressively worse and more broken until the end of support in 2027...