AVIdemux versions

[Seeker47]

I've had 2.4 Qt4 and 2.4 Gtk+ installed for some time now. Not quite sure how both of these came to be there, or how they may differ, but I'm thinking of replacing these with the portable edition of v. 2.5.6. Would that be a bad move, or does it relinquish anything covered by the two earlier, "regular" versions ?

[davexnet]

I think the portable version is self contained, doesn't interfere with anything you have installed.

[Seeker47]

Yes, that is typically the case with portable versions, and one of the reasons I like them so much. The Registry versions I have installed are now 4+ years old, judging from the file dates. I wasn't planning on tossing 2.4 right away, just wondering if it might become redundant.

[lordsmurf]

The 2.5.x is better anyway.
It got more stable over time. I actually like it now.

[Seeker47]

The 2.5.x is better anyway.
It got more stable over time. I actually like it now.

This portable version appears to encompass both the Qt4 and Gtk+ "branches" now, rather than having two variants of the program.

[jagabo]

I use portable versions of software whenever possible. I have them installed on a server from which every computer on the LAN can run them. Many programs can work as portable versions even if they don't explicitly claim to be such. I install the software, copy the folder, uninstall the software, then see if the program runs from the copied folder.

[Seeker47]

I use portable versions of software whenever possible. I have them installed on a server from which every computer on the LAN can run them. Many programs can work as portable versions even if they don't explicitly claim to be such. I install the software, copy the folder, uninstall the software, then see if the program runs from the copied folder.

Even if that doesn't work, there are App-kits that can "portable-ize" most programs. One is VMWare ThinApps. There are apparently different formats for the result. Portableapps.Com seems to have standardized on the one that generates the PAF type. Having sampled a few of the other kinds (the end-result portable apps, not the programs that converted them), I tend to agree with their preference.

[lordsmurf]

I use portable versions of software whenever possible.

I do this for anything run on a server, which isn't powering site content.
Less security holes.

[budwzr]

I use portable versions of software whenever possible. I have them installed on a server from which every computer on the LAN can run them.

I do the opposite.

I put all the work files on the NAS, and install the apps locally.

[Seeker47]

This was something like the third time I tried to use AVIdemux, and the first time I succeeded with it. The task was simple, I guess -- concatenating 8 smaller AVI clips (of the same type) into one. Didn't need to read any instructions, just selected the option from the first menu. Quite straightforward, seems to have worked.

A few questions, then. In doing something like that, there's no re-encode, no loss of PQ ? (Can't be entirely sure, from watching a direct comparison.) This program works with most any AVI, regardless of what's inside the container ? The program's description here says that it works with several other video file types, which if accurate must be something fairly new ? Are you using it successfully with some of those other video types, and if so which ones ?

[jagabo]

concatenating 8 smaller AVI clips (of the same type) into one... In doing something like that, there's no re-encode, no loss of PQ ? (Can't be entirely sure, from watching a direct comparison.)

As long as you left audio and video output set to COPY.

This program works with most any AVI, regardless of what's inside the container ?

When the program works. I find it to be very unreliable. It crashes quite a lot.

The program's description here says that it works with several other video file types, which if accurate must be something fairly new ?

No, it's had that ability for quite a while. Maybe 10 years.